HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/95TAPE #1314
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
COUNCIL
APPROVED
SEP 5 1995
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
#0016
#0040
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 6, 1995, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council Vice-President Richard Neville presiding. Council
members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, John
Law, David Farr, and Lon Overson. Council President Sherril Huff-
Menees and Councilman Carlos Montgomery were absent. Also present
were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathy McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
Vice-President Neville and Invocation given by Reverend Dan
Branscum of Central Kitsap Presbyterian Church.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk announced Item 8B was pulled from
the Agenda for one week.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - August 16, 1995 #AB95-186
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) on September 6, 1995, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 187683, 187687, 187689 through 187818 in the amount of
$365,435.93; and Regular Payroll for the period ending 8-31-95, in
the amount of $770,520.87.
Actin~ President Richard Neville made the following announcement:
(1) City Council Study Session on Monday, September 11, 1995, in
the Council Conference Room.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Winters reported he enjoyed taking his son to school and found
most people were driving with caution due to the foggy weather.
Now that school is back in session he hopes everyone will be
traffic safety conscious. He was pleased to report the Kitsap Lake
sewer project was moving along. He also thanked those involved in
the dinner/entertainment event sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans
i
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 2 of 31
Chapter 169 held at the Kitsap Pavilion on September 2nd. He
specifically acknowledged Bob Bray, Mr. & Mrs. Jim Wooley and their
staff members. Entertainer Baine Scott gave a performance on the
History Of The American Flag at that event. It was his hope that
someday Mr. Scott could be brought to Bremerton to educate our
youth regarding the history of our nation's flag.
Mr. Colvin reported he had a good experience this past weekend when
he had the opportunity to ride along with Fire Department personnel
on emergency calls. He was prepared to sit at the fire station and
observe activities within that area, but shortly upon his arrival,
emergency calls came in that took them out into the field. From
that experience, he has a different perspective of the service
provided by the Fire Department and is very proud of what they do
for the citizens of Bremerton.
Mr. Dawkins reported on the large turn out of visitors to the U.S.
S. Missouri on Sunday, September 3, and the impact that had on
finding parking spaces.
Mr. Law thanked Carol Atkinson and the Bremerton Main Street group
for a fantastic Blackberry Festival weekend. Everyone was pleased
that the weather cooperated to help make the event a success along
with good attendance, especially those that stayed for all the
activities. The next District #3 Neighborhood meeting is scheduled
for Tuesday, September 19, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. The
program for that meeting will be: ,,Gorst-Bremerton Gateway Project
as it affects Bremerton Streets", and ,,Organization To Direct
Downtown Revitalization." He will be looking for District #3
residents' input on these two topics.
Mr. Farr echoed Mr. Law's compliments to Carol Atkinson and all
those involved in putting on the Blackberry Festival, which he felt
was great for the City and enjoyed by many. He reminded anyone
concerned or had conunents, negative or positive, on the
intersection at Kitsap Way/13th Street/Corbet Street to please
contact the City Council Office.
Mr. Overson reported it was a great weekend 'with the Blackberry
Festival and 50th Anniversary of the ending of WWII celebration.
He pointed out school is back in session and he hoped people would
be serious in watching out for children as they travel to and from
school, particularly at llth Street and Burwell Street.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor lynn Hotton stated this past weekend was very busy. In regard
to the 50th Anniversary of the ending of WWII celebration, she felt
the community did an outstanding job putting on that ceremony,
Shipyard Commander Yount estimated about 8,500 people attended that
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 3 of 31
event. Several times over the last year, twice in conjunction with
the U.S.S. Missouri and once in conjunction with the U.S.S. Rainier
celebration, when the organizing committees met early on to discuss
how the City would be involved, members from the other side of
Puget Sound/Seattle area, who participated in those meetings and in
every one of those occasions,indicated their doubt that the City of
Bremerton could pull off the kind of celebration that was fitting
for those occasions. She felt it was too bad that the City was so
discounted from the other side of Puget Sound and she did happen to
hear the ceremonies in Seattle for their 50th Anniversary of the
surrender gleaned a few hundred people whereas we had several
thousand. She felt that showed our Community can put on a
celebration of this magnitude. She extended her "thanks" to
everyone involved in those recent celebrations for their monumental
effort. And, the Blackberry Festival was a crowning achievement.
She extended her "thanks" to Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street
Association and the Blackberry Festival Committee for an
outstanding job.
Mayor Horton reported the City's Fire Department rescue boat is
back in service and everything seems to be working well. She hopes
that at this point the boat will function without breaking down and
the addition of a diesel engine could be the main ingredient for a
more successful operation record. The Bremerton Yacht Club was
approached by Councilman David Farr, on behalf of the City, about
their helping the City on some maintenance issues related to the
Fire rescue boat and using their facilities to pull the boat out of
the water for cleaning and maintenance work. She introduced
Commodore David Bastal, Vice Commodore Don Floyd and Rear Commodore
Lloyd Longnecker. Mr. Farr read the following Certificate Of
Appreciation: "In Appreciation this Certificate is presented to
Bremerton Yacht Club in recognition of appreciation of loyal and
valuable service to the City of Bremerton Fire Department for use
of facilities and maintaining the Fire and rescue boat. Best
wishes and heartfelt thanks accompany this expression of
gratitude." Mr. Farr expressed his appreciation as well and felt
the spirit of cooperation between the two organizations and the
willingness to allow the City to save some of the expenses for
maintaining the boat is the way things work well. Commodore David
Bastal stated it was his pleasure to accept the award on behalf of
the Bremerton Yacht Club. He emphasized they are a volunteer
organization/club and are happy to share their facilities, which
they worked hard to build out of their own funds. They are pleased
to be able to share that with the City since they are all members
of the local community. Fire Chief Mick McKinley reported he was
very pleased with the speed of the boat when they were called to
put it in active duty when they rescued a lady out of the Port
Washington Narrows shortly after putting the boat into service.
He viewed the involvement of the Yacht Club as invaluable in
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 4 of 31
helping to maintain the boat.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Carol Atkinson, Executive Director Bremerton Main Street
Association, reported the Blackberry Festival drew a record
attendance. She thanked festival sponsors Parr Ford, The Sun,
Puget Sound Beverages, Crime Stoppers and D.A.R.E., City of
Bremerton Parks And Recreation Department, Street Department,
Engineering Department, Electronics Department and Police
Department. She also thanked the Eagles, Aid Association For
Lutherans, Kitsap Transit, Port Of Bremerton, American Legion, West
Sound Arts Council, Start Of The Sea Catholic Church, Brem-
Air,Soriano Insurance, Bremerton Senior Center, Americorp and
Kitsap Community Action, She also expressed special thanks to the
individual Committee Chairs. Lastly, she reported the USS Missouri
Commemorative wine sold out in 11/2 days and orders are being
taken for a second edition.
Reverend DannV Allen, Grace Pentecostal Church, reported he
submitted a letter of resignation to Mayor Horton resigning from
the Cable Communication Advisory Committee (CCAC). He thanked
Councilman Colvin, Councilman Neville and other members of the
Council for allowing him to serve on that committee. His interest
in the CCAC Committee changed when the new non-profit group was
being formed. He announced the formation of a special program
,'Project Prevention", which is a Saturday school (9-month intensive
program) for boys between the ages of 10 and 14 years old. The
program begins on September 16 (two Saturdays per month) and is a
nontraditional in mathematics, reading and writing, shadowing and
drill practice. Actin~ President Neville stated he appreciated
serving on the CCAC with Pastor Allen and hoped he would continue
broadcasting his program on the Bremerton Community Access Channel.
Gordy Byrd announced the Alliance Of The Mentally Ill is sponsoring
an "Evening Of Entertainment" at 5455 Almira Drive NE/Kitsap Mental
Health's Community Theater, September 7, 6:00 - 8:00 P.M.,
Don Larson, President of Washington Scuba Alliance,-complimented
the Port of Bremerton and City Parks and Recreation Department for
their quick response in cleaning up after the Blackberry Festival.
He related how he and other divers were first on the scene of an
accident between a freighter and a pleasure boat near Vashon Island
on Sunday, September 3. He emphasized the importance of wearing
life jackets when boating in foggy weather. He also talked about
an artificial reef at Sidney, B.C., and festivities in that area on
September 16. He asked the Mayor and/or the City Council to contact
Sidney B.C. and find out what the diving facility has done for
their tourist trade.
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 5 of 31
Mr. Farr stated for clarification the Fire Department's rescue boat
is moored at the Port Of Bremerton Marina at the boardwalk.
7A - KITSAP COUNTY ACTION PROGRAM (KCAP) REOUEST FOR APPROVAL TO
SEEK FUNDS FOR RENOVATION AND EXTEND LEASE, #AB95-187
Kitsap County Action Program (KCAP) is requesting permission to
renovate and expand the KCAP building (old Smith School at 1201
Park Avenue). The State has made available $110,000. KCAP will
seek additional funding from other sources. The City owns the land
and building. These improvements will be at no cost to the City.
Further, KCAP is in the 9th year of a 10 year lease, and is
requesting a new 10 year lease.
Larry Eyer, Executive Director Kitsap Community Action Program
(KCAP), stated his agency has been providing social services, such
as the Head Start Program and Emergency Housing, for Bremerton
residents from the KCAP center (old Smith School) for the last 21
years. The facility provides a good place to disperse their
services and has been maintained as best they could, but there are
still a number of shortcomings for efficiencies in the building,
like lack of handicap accessibility, needs for hot water throughout
the building, need for electrical upgrade, space for client and
child waiting areas, additional meeting areas and office space.
They also believe the building could be more attractive addition to
the neighborhood with some new paint and new design. A plan was
developed to address the deficiencies and shortfalls and the State
has contributed $110,000.00 to community action agencies and KCAP
is the recipient for those funds in 1995. He is also planning to
apply for $190,000 additional funds from Kitsap County CDBG funds
to make the proposed improvements to the building. Art Anderson
And Associations have assisted with the design. The request before
Council is requesting permission to go ahead and seek funding to
make the improvements and a 10-year extension on their lease of the
building.
Emily Moshav stated she lives directly across the street from the
KCAP office and feels strongly that a facelift for that facility
would be a real asset to their neighborhood. She would also like
to show off with pride the KCAP facility, once it was remodeled, to
out-of-state people. KCAP does a lot of wonderful things and there
is desperate need for a reception area where clients can come in
and wait without having to intermingle with the day-to-day
operation. She hoped the City would think about giving funds, help
and support to get that project underway soon.
Gordy Byrd stated he did not see any shortcomings for handicap
accessibility at the current KCAP facility, but he did see the need
for a waiting room area. Mr. Ever explained Mr. Byrd was
referencing the flat entrance to the building. Their primary
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 6 of 31
concern for handicap accessibility has to do with wheelchair
accessibility in and out of restrooms.
John Thomas stated he was not opposed to this proposal, but he
wanted to know if consideration was given to installing fire
sprinklers as part of their remodeling efforts?
Mr. Colvim asked as a clarification point - what are we
considering? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated as a landlord the
City must give consent before improvements of a permanent nature
can be made. Mr. Colvim asked if the City had any ruling over the
floor plan proposal? Kathleen McCluskeV, City Clerk, stated she
did not believe it was contemplated that Council give approval to
the specific changes, but that information was included in the
Agenda packet. If the drawings are accurate, then she felt Council
was being asked to approve those drawings as the basic plan. Mr~
E_E indicated the drawing provided was the basic plan.
Mr. Winters noted he had requested staff provide a listing of
KCAP's source of funding at the Council Operations Committee;
however, as of this date he had not receive that information. He
was concerned over Ms. Moshey's commented that she hoped the City
would continue to fund this project and asked for clarification on
that point. Mr. Eyer stated Ms. McCluskey did relay Mr. Winter's
request for funding information to him and he provided that
information in the packet provided this evening. He emphasized the
City was not being asked to fund any portion of this project. Mr.
Winters asked the City Attorney if he had completed his "cleaning
up" of language in the lease as noted the week prior? Ian Sievers,
City Attorney, stated it was his understanding the lease would be
submitted to Council the following week. Ms. McCluskey explained
the lease included in the Agenda packet was provided for
information purposes and the new lease will not be substantially
different. She explained the timing for this request for approval
to accept the State funding was also tied to Mr. Eyer's ability to
apply for Block Grant Funds by September 11. She assured Council
the current lease is still in force. Mr. Winters asked that the
rewording within the lease be highlighted from the current lease
language.
Mr. Oversonquestioned if some parking spaces would be taken out to
provide room for the expansion? Mr. Ever explained their plan is
to add as much space as possible without impacting any parking.
The intent of the remodel is to wrap around the building, which may
impact one parking space. Mr. Overson noted most of the
improvements appear to be exterior as opposed to interior and could
save the City money over the long term due to their having
responsiblity for some maintenance of that facility. Mr. Eyer
explained the lease with the City and what he anticipates in the
#1803
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 7 of 31
upcoming lease stipulates is that KCAP will have full responsiblity
of maintenance of the building as they have the past 10-15 years.
Mr. Overson stated he felt it was ok to enter into another 10 year
lease, but as of this date Mr. Eyer did not have his or other
Council members' approval until they had the opportunity to review
it. Ms. McCluskeV asked Mr. Eyer if he needed language in the
motion to address the extension of the lease? Mr. Eyer stated no,
but he felt he could include wording to correctly express Council's
intent in the Block Grant application, which is due September 11.
Ms. McCluskeV suggested the motion state the acceptance of State
matching funds, approve the renovation and to agree to a new 10-
year lease to be negotiated. Mr. Overson stated he could accept
such wording if acceptable to Mr. Eyer. Mr. Ever stated that would
be workable.
Mr. Law asked if there was a concern about a fire sprinkling
system? Mr. Eyer pointed out the old building does not have a
sprinkling system and the project cost figures did not include
them. He will talk with the architect about that point, but he is
also concern with the cost restraints they are operating under.
Mr. Law noted now that the issue was brought up, it was something
that should be explored. Mr. Overson stated there are a lot of
things that point out sprinklers are not universally a good thing
in all ampliation. If that subject is brought up, it should be
reviewed separately and the City needs to look at whether or not
the building should be sprinklered.
Mr. Farr asked if he understood correctly that changes to the lease
would be minor? Mr. Sievers stated yes, and he believed it was
within Council's purview to delegate the Mayor to sign the lease
with substantially the same terms as the current lease. The only
substantive changes are removal of a sentence at the end of 3 -
Notification Of Option To Renew...there will not be a binding
option to renew. The City cannot enter into leases longer than 10
years or create binding options longer than 10 years. And, to
reflect the fact KCAP clients are very low and low income
residents. Without reflecting that fact into the lease, the City
cannot give this property for a nominal $1.00 per year lease,-per
the State Constitution. Mr. Farr stated it was important not to
jeopardize hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of funds for a
worthwhile project over a couple of hours of word engineering that
are basically housekeeping matters. He supported the idea of
authorizing the Mayor to sign a lease, which is essentially the
same as the current lease, that includes the wording just
discussed.
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve acceptance of State matching
funds and renovation of KCAP Building, lease; and to authorize the
Mayor to sign a new 10 year lease containing substantially the same
#2060
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 8 of 31
terms and conditions as the existing 1986 lease with the exception
of two changes: (1) Section 2 reflect that KCAP's clients are low
income and very low income residents; (2) Section 3 - removing the
last sentence..notification of an option to renew must be given six
months prior to termination of the initial 10 year term.
Mr. Neville stated in Mr. Eyer's letter to the Mayor he stated a
Neighborhood Advisory Committee would be involved in decisions
relating to the exterior design and color. He asked if Mr. Eyer
still planned to form that Committee and what process would he use
to generate members? Mr. EVer stated the basic idea was if they
want to make the facility more attractive to the neighborhood,
which is one of their goals, they should involve neighbors in what
kind of look is desired. His intent is to invite the Council
representative of that district and Emily Moshey for guidance in
forming that committee. Mr. Neville asked if Mr Eyer had plans to
continue the opportunity for outside groups to use KCAP facilities?
Mr. Eyer stated he did not anticipate any changes from what they
are currently doing and expected there would be better space for
such purposes upon completion of the project.
Unanimous vote on motion.
Mr. Eyer thanked the City Council and Mayor Horton for their
support throughout this process.
8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4526 (SECOND READING) REORGANIZING HEARING
EXAMINER UNDER THE MUNICIPAL COURT, #AB95-182
GordV Byrd questioned the purpose of this ordinance? Ian Sievers,
City Attorney, briefly explained the purpose and impact of the
ordinance-
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance No. 4526, on second
reading, reorganizing the hearing examiner function as part of the
Bremerton Municipal Court, and repealing Chapter 2.84, and amending
Chapters 2.62 and 9.08 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
9A - PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. 2520, REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF
FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF GARBAGE AND DEBRIS LOCATED ON THE
PROPERTY AT 1508 OLYMPIC AVENUE, #AB95-188
On July 25, 1995, the City of Bremerton Street Department removed
garbage and debris from the property located at 1508 Olympic
Avenue, after the owner, Terrie Faith Frazier, failed to obey a
Notice and Order to Remove Refuse within 72 hours. The abatement
fund was charged $292.55 for the work.
David Nelson, Building Official, stated on 4-28-1995 a neighborhood
inspection was made, which revealed garbage and debris on the site,
i.e., shower door, mattress, etc. A letter was sent to the owner
#2197
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 9 of 31
on 5-1-1995, allowing two weeks to remove the debris. On 6-19-95,
because no action had been taken to remove the debris, the site was
posted with a 72-hour notice allowing until 6-22-1995, for removal
of refuse. On 6-22-1995, the notice was signed for as Certified
Mail. Any action was delayed until 7-11-1995, at which time a
portion of the debris had been removed, but not sufficient per the
description on the 72-hour notice. On 7-25-1995, the Street
Department finished cleaning up the site.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Winters/Farr) to pass Resolution No. 2520, determining that
garbage abatement fees are reasonable and charging the costs as a
personal judgment against the property owners of 1508 Olympic
Avenue, which if not collected within 30 days, will become a lien
against the property.
9B - PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. 2521, REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF
FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF GARBAGE AND DEBRIS LOCATED ON THE
PROPERTY AT 1017 CHESTER AVENUE, #AB95-189
On June 15, 1995, the City of Bremerton Street Department removed
garbage and debris from the property located at 1017 Chester
Avenue, after the owner, Ronald Schwoch, failed to obey a Notice
and Order to Remove Refuse within 72 hours. The abatement fund was
charged $182.47 for the work.
David Nelson, Building Official, reported the Building Department
sent a letter to the owners allowing them until 5-16-1995, to clean
up the site without intervention by the City. An inspection was
made on that date and no change was noted. On 5-23-1995, an order
to remove refuse within 72 hours was posted on the site and a
certified letter was sent to the owner. The certified letter was
returned "Unclaimed" to the Building Department by the Post Office
after attempting to deliver it on 5-24, 6-1, 6-9. Again, an
inspection of the property was made and no change in the condition
was noted, the Street Department removed debris from the site. On
7-21-1995, the owners were billed $182.47 for the demolition work.
That bill was sent certified mail and regular mail and was returned
"Unclaimed" after attempts to deliver on 7-25, 7-31 and 8-19-1995.
#2308
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Farr/Law) to pass Resolution No. 2521, determining that
garbage abatement fees are reasonable and charging the costs as a
personal judgment against the property owners of 1017 Chester
Avenue, which if not collected within 30 days, will become a lien
against the property.
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg- Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 10 of 31
9C -PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. 2522, PRELIMINARY PLAT (PUD)
FOR 43 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON TWO ADJOINING
PARCELS TOTALLING 3.7 ACRES; APPLICANT: FPH MANAGEMENT
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; LOCATION: WEST END OF EAST BROAD STREET, #AB95-
190
These proposals were presented and discussed at the planning Commission
public hearing on August 15, 1995. The Planning Commission approved
the preliminary PUD and recommends City Council APPROVAL of the
preliminary Plat application subject to the conditions attached.
Title 58 RCW Boundaries and Plats empowers the City Council to hold a public
hearing to accept, reject, or modify the planning Commission's recommendation,
and is required to make a final determination on the preliminary Plat request-
compliance with all condition of the preliminary Plat, the Council
will evaluate the Final Plat and pass a resolution for final
approval of the subdivision- (Action by Council on the preliminary
PUD is not required, the planning Commission decision is
sufficient)-
Acting president Neville asked the ,,Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict
Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Shahs Jensen, Planning Department, pointed out the issue of
consideration is a approval of a preliminary plat for a 43 lot
subdivision that has been designed through the planned Unit
Development process. The design is based on flexible lot
development requirements meaning that lot sizes, widths, setbacks
can be varied in exchange for certain site amenities that would be
good for a community- What is normally requested is open space
areas that are owned in common by those owners buying in this
development and for their use.
The PUD and plat are two processes that run parallel to each other.
This issue has been before the planning Commission and the City's
ordinance requires that the planning Commission approve a PUD,
which is basically the design of this project. It is not necessary
to bring the PUD to the Council, but State law requires a Council
vote on a plat. The issues of a plat are as follows: (1)
Comprehensive Plan; (2) conformance with zoning requirements; (3)
that there are adequate utilities and public services available to
service such a development-
The subject site is approximately 3.7 acres with a density of about
12-units per acre. A street system is proposed that will connect
from East Broad Street and extend to the abutting property to the
west with a loop system around the open space area and then
circulate back out.
The lot sizes for the development are pretty small. In the zoning
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 11 of 31
that was applied when the rezone was approved, the lot size minimum
is 9,600 square feet, but the PUD allows smaller lot sizes and the
smallest lot size in this development is approximately 1,800 square
feet (identified as "C"). The units identified as "A" are shown
with 2,304 square feet lots. The "A's" are 32 feet wide and the
"C's" are about 25 feet wide.
As a requirement of zoning, each dwelling unit is required to have,
at a minimum, two off-street parking spaces. What is proposed for
the "A" units is a shared detached garage that sits on the back of
the lot, and the "C" units will have a two car garage situated
under the house in a tandem configuration or may be side-by-side-
Overflow parking for 10 vehicles is provided on each end of the
open space. The open space area comprises 20% of the entire site
and the requirement for the developer at a minimum would be 15%.
Currently, the design provides more open space than required;
however, that may change because this proposal is a preliminary
design and by the time all the conditions are applied things may
change.
He highlighted the conditions that have been applied, which came
about as the result of the rezone and Comprehensive plan Amendment
process and from the Planning Commission on what they reviewed and
attached to the preliminary PUD and plat along with their
recommendation. The Planning Commission has recommended approval,
subject to the following 15 conditions:
(1) The applicant/developer shall obtain building and right-of-way
permits within one (1) year of Preliminary Plat approval or the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designations for the site
will revert to original designations, nullifying approval of the
project.
(2) Since developers of the subject lots have sought Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Designations that are not compatible with the
adjoining property to the north, and since development on the
subject parcel will happen before development on the lot(s) to the
north, any residential development on the subject property will
incorporate an approved buffer/screen to protect that commercial
property and potential uses. Future commercial development to the
north will not bear the burden of screening a previously existing
residential development.
(3) The existing proposal does not comply with the current City
standards. Street improvements will meet approved City Street
Standards. 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 standards.
a) The existing pavement and the proposed extension of Broad Street
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg- Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 12 of 31
are not aligned. The transition from the existing pavement to the
proposed roadway shall meet the City's standards for horizontal
alignment. This includes a minimum curve radius of 100 feet and a
minimum curb radius of 25 feet at intersections- The Broad Street
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 required for this
connection-
b) The 30 foot 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 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 access. The proposed turning radii are currently too tight
to allow unobstructed access.
d) All sidewalks shall be handicapped accessible.
e) Street lights shall be required per City standards.
4. The storm drainage system shall be designed to meet the
requirements of the most current edition of the Department Of
Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin.
a) A Large Parcel Sedimentation And Erosion Control Plan shall be
required per BMC Section 1504. The Plan shall be implemented prior
to any grading or construction.
5. 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 and Fire Departments.
6. The applicant will provide emergency vehicle access roads to the
requirements 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 standards. Water lines to this site need to
be upgraded to supply adequate domestic and fire flows. Submit
site plan and specification showing proposed water, sewer and storm
plans for review and approval before construction.
8. The applicant shall document adequate maintenance of common
areas (open space) and streets, identifying the responsible
parties.
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 13 of 31
9. All subdivision plats shall be 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 size
(depth) and thus, the front setback, or alternate Type "A" and Type
"C" lots in at least pairs, to produce a varied 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).
ll.The applicant will document contact with Kitsap Transit as to
identifying possible transit access to the development or
pedestrian access from the development to the nearest transit stop.
12. Developers agree to a continuous "man-proof" fence along the
common property line with the adjoining parcel to the north (to
keep children out of commercial area).
13. Agreement between developers and Robinson that their common
property line shall be that shown on the Kitsap County Assessor's
Tax Parcel Map.
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 the 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.
15. Developers agree to provide appropriate roadway/utility access
across their development to the Edwards property to the west
After the Planning Department reviewed condition No. 14, they now
ask that Council delete it. This condition could become a policy
as part of the resolution adopting conditions with the intent to
not require buffering, screening or setbacks of the commercial
property to the north. He noted when two adjacent commercial
properties are together they do not have to screen each other.
But, because this subject site is now residential property, the
typical regulation is that there be a setback and screening of the
commercial lot. The owner of the commercial property to the north
is trying to avoid an undue amount of regulation on his property
having to do with screening as a result of something happening to
the south before he develops his parcel. This condition won't work
to take care of that because the City has an adopted process -
Zoning Ordinance Special Exception, and Mr. Robinson has been
willing to apply for such an exception. If condition No. 14 was
adopted as policy, then if Council were to see the Special
Exception process they could then enact that policy. Also, it is
not possible to impose a condition on a property that isn't the
TAPE #1314
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 14 of 31
subject project that is undergoing a quasi judicial decision.
Another concern in condition No. 4 was that property owners in the
PUD be advised that there are no special conditions on the
commercial property to the north. The Planning staff feels the
zoning actions that take place on this property and the zoning code
requirements are sufficient advisement to the owners that are
adjacent to this property and anyone who buys into the subdivision.
The City is not going to enter into an agreement to advise adjacent
owners beyond zoning actions and the public Zoning Ordinance, which
is available to the public at all times.
Mr. Law stated the obvious concern, having visited developments
that are not as large within the City but of similar design, is the
access. He is concerned about the ability of emergency vehicles
getting to all areas of the development and questioned whether or
not there was another access besides East Broad Street? Mr. Jensen
stated no.
TAPE #1315
Mr. Law stated he was not comfortable with that situation. Mr.
Jensen explained that in adopting and looking at the City Street
Standards, consideration for emergency access is taken into
account, and there will be adequate time for discussion with the
Planning Commission and Council before revised standards are
adopted. Mr. Law wanted to be sure the developers were aware of
his apprehension right now over access to that many units of
housing.
Mr. Farr asked if the only condition for Council recommendation was
to reject or delete those items numbered 14 and 157 Mr. Jensen
stated only No. 14. Mr. Colvim read a statement regarding the
existing proposal not complying with the current City Street
Standards, and questioned Mr. Sievers on the validity of that
issue. Mr. Sievers stated the cited revision has not come out of
the City Engineer's office yet, and asked the City Engineer to
respond to Mr. Colvin's concern. Randy Witt, City Engineer, stated
they have explained to the applicant that his street standards do
not meet the City's current standards, and that the Engineering
Department is in the process of reviewing street standards and will
be bringing forward to Council some revisions for consideration.
At that time, the applicant may elect to use those standards. The
Engineering Department has explained to him that he can build now,
using the current street standards, or wait, and see what the new
street standards come out to be. Engineering expects them to be
applied to residential developments like these, or smaller, but
that is a decision the Council will ultimately make, and it
probably won't be made for another month or more. Mr. Colvim
wanted to clarify if Council was being asked to approve the plat as
is, with it not meeting City standards? Mr. Sievers explained the
preliminary condition is that it comply with City Street Standards.
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 15 of 31
The plat is not final until it comes in with a Final Plat approval.
He assumes the applicant is anticipating that by the time he comes
in for Final Plat approval, the revisions to the City Street
Standards will be in place, and this design will meet those
standards. Mr. Colvim stated Mr. Sievers did not answer his
question, and asked again, if Council was being asked to approve
the plat as proposed even though it does not comply with City
standards? Mr. Sievers stated yes, Council is being asked to
approve this plat; however, it will not become final so that these
various lots can be sold, and so on, unless at the time final plat
approval is requested of Council those City standards do reflect
this design for streets. This design doesn't currently comply with
City standards, but the developer can not go forward with selling
lots until those standards reflect this design. Mr. Witt
interjected Council is being asked to approve a preliminary plat.
Council is giving a "conceptual" approval, basically stating that
this plat will work, if the applicant can meet all the conditions.
Mr. Colvin noted Mr. Brown is a reputable developer and he didn't
believe there would be any problems. However, he wondered if there
was any reason why the developer could not apply current City
Street Standards right now? Mr. Witt stated that question should
be addressed to the developer, but after his conversations with
him, he sensed the developer felt this project could not go forward
if the current City Street Standards were applied to the project.
Mr. Colvin questioned again, why we could not apply the current
City Standards to the project. Mr. Sievers stated Council would
have to reject the preliminary plat if they wanted to apply current
City Street Standards because it is not configured with current
street standards. Mr. Colvin felt this was setting another "Arvon
Village" precedent. Mr. Witt stated the developer has proposed
non-standard streets, and he was told he has a site that can handle
the City Street Standards, and he needs to meet those standards.
He is choosing to wait and see the result of the revised standards
in terms of a new standard that may fit the site. He has been
allowed the preliminary approval to use the new standards, whatever
the City Council chooses those standards to be. Mr. Colvin wanted
to be sure he heard correctly, that the subject site CAN meet the
City standards right now? Mr. Witt said yes, from a technical
perspective, he believes it could. However, there are other things
that go into a sub-division, particularly economics, that may
decide whether a developer agrees.
Mr. Farr stated he assumes the big concern on the street
configuration is the accessibility of emergency vehicles. He also
assumes that during the process of revising the street standards,
input will be included from those who operate emergency vehicles.
Mr. Witt stated that is correct, the Fire Department is very
involved in discussions on street access. He also stated this cul-
de-sac issue is important, but it is not an extraordinary long cul-
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 16 of 31
de-sac. Mr. Farr wanted reassurance that Council's concern can be
lowered if the developer agrees that when this project is
finalized, he is going to meet the revised street standards, which
will include input from emergency vehicle operators. Mr. Witt
stated that was correct.
Mr. Law stated his concern is about using the same procedures on
this current project that were used on Arvon Village, because after
taking a look at the Arvon development, it does not appear to be a
"comfort zone" for emergency vehicles, even after apparently going
through all of these same reviews.
Mr. Witt wanted to clarify with Council that Arvon Village DOES NOT
meet City Street Standards. This development being discussed
tonight, in the conditional approval, DOES meet the street
standards. Arvon Village is a much smaller site and more difficult
in ways. Mr. Law asked if the developers on this project have any
relationship to the group that developed Arvon Village? Mr. Witt
stated they are the same group.
Mr. Celvin asked again if new street standards are currently being
developed, and will it propose making streets smaller? Mr. Witt
stated the trend is to make them smaller, but he is not ready to
say what the numbers will be. He discussed the process being used,
stating it is first being worked on in-house with the Planning
Department and the Fire Department to review the standards, look at
what other jurisdictions are doing, and to make them make sense.
He said we may end up with some smaller streets in the residential
areas, particularly residential areas of medium or low density, and
short streets, with wider streets in high density areas. They are
looking for balance. After they come up with an internal City
position, it will be shared with the development community to
receive their input, then to the Planning Commission for their
input, and then it will be brought to City Council for adoption.
The plan at the moment is to go to the Planning Commission on
October 2.
Mr. Dawkins asked if this will give the developer time to look at
any changes that come up? Mr. Witt stated they would actually see
it earlier as part of the development community review.
Elizabeth Buell wanted to clarify the width of the lots. She
thought she heard 25 feet, which would make the houses only 15 feet
wide, and that is NOT wide enough. Also, she questioned if there
will be any parking on the streets and if there was provision made
for visitor parking?
Mike Brown, representative for FPH Management, presented a brief
overview of the project, addressed some of the conditions which
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 17 of 31
were imposed, and how they resolved a good portion of them. It is
their feeling that this type of medium-density residential use,
closer to the core of downtown Bremerton, specifically along
Wheaton Way, is a good economic stimulus to the commercial
development that is already in Bremerton along that corridor. It
will go a long way to improve and stabilize those existing
businesses. The concept used is a kind of "village atmosphere" in
which a large area of the site is retained as open space in the
center. They eliminated the on-street parking to maintain that
village atmosphere to get families to gravitate toward the front of
their homes, toward the center of the property. The open space
makes a great play area for the children, and gives a very secure
feeling since the houses all face that open space. Also, the homes
are very affordable, which allows a great opportunity for the first
time home buyer in Bremerton.
Barry Keenan, 1616 Arvon Avenue, 20-year Bremerton resident,
Designer of Arvon Village, and member of Broadmoor Village
Partnership, presented a design overview of the Broadmoor Village
P.U.D. He stated the idea for the Broadmoor concept was derived
from two former projects, Arvon Village and Central Highlands in
Central Kitsap. The idea for Arvon Village was conceived with input
from City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Department of
Community Development, which meshed with the developers needs to
yield a successful project. He feels the ideas presented tonight
will prove to be a win-win situation for everyone, including the 26
new homeowners in Arvon Village and Central Highlands. He stated
some facts that he believes made these projects so successful and
sought after by home buyers. All three projects are all the things
we want a urban infill project to be, including the best possible
use of urban residential land use in Bremerton. The project will
provide a economic boost to public utilities and transportation by
using existing infrastructure. It will be a blessing to
surrounding businesses that are facing declining population and
dwindling market-share. The stimulation to existing nearby
communities that are in need of upgrade, i.e, Anderson Cove area
where approximately 12 homes have been upgraded since the
development of Arvon Village. This project will provide a safe
place to live and raise children, where children can play in the
open space area that is in plain view of every house in the
community with no through traffic. Unwanted elements will then be
deterred. There will be a Homeowners Association governed by
covenant guidelines, and administered by the homeowners. The plan
the homeowners choose will be collected with the mortgage payment,
which will decrease the risk disbandment of the association.
Landscaping of common areas will be professionally maintained.
A slide presentation was shown of Arvon Village and Central
Highlands showing the homes and streets. He discussed how he was
present when the streets were tested for access by fire trucks, and
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 18 of 31
the streets proved adequate. He explained that everything is in
sight, which increases safety for the children when on-street
parking is not allowed.
Mr. Brown showed a list of the conditions that were agreed to get
the project started, and some of the conditions have already been
met as follows:. Condition No. 1: they are happy to comply with
the one year requirement- Condition No. 2: extensive conversations
have taken place addressing this issue, and is also their concern.
With respect to an item which was deleted as far as the City
guaranteeing no further action being brought, a disclosure will be
included in the ernest money agreement regarding the fact that the
adjacent property is a commercial property, and is subject to
development- Condition No. 3: he does not know of a project built
in the City that has complied verbatim with City Street Standards.
There have been waivers of standards on several projects besides
Arvon Village, and all worked out fine. As they see the trend of
getting back to the basics of affordable and entry level housing,
there will be less of a desire for huge expanse of asphalt in front
of their homes, which he feels only promotes higher speed thought
the projects, encourages on-street parking, and just unnecessary,
He pointed out the success of the Manette area with its many narrow
streets and how they have served that community very well for many
years. He feels the forthcoming review of the City Street
Standards is a good thing, and long overdue. He pointed out that
the wider they make the streets and the sidewalk, the smaller the
grass and open space area will be. They are looking at what will
make this a livable neighborhood for the people residing there.
He pointed out on the map, a 20 foot road has been extended on bo~h
the laterals, which was done after meeting with the fire
department- The lane extensions will allow better access for the
homes along the border at the end, and more importantly, met the
criteria for the Fire Department ordinance.
He continued going over the list of conditions stating all will be
met, including sidewalks that are handicapped accessible; street
lights at required City standards; a storm drainage system; fire
hydrants at requested locations; emergency vehicle access; water
service; and the idea of angulation. He pointed out some negative
items from the Arvon Village project were improved on for this
project, such as a little wider radius, wider street width, and a
much wider open space area.
Even though they understand the revisions of the street standards
is on its way, their concern is that because these things take such
a great amount of time, they don't want to see this project mired
down after so much time and effort already invested. He said the
project has already met the street standards to the degree they can
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 19 of 31
with what they know at this point and time. He asked Council to
give some consideration to the time it takes to actually get new
street standards adopted, and what potential downside that can have
to this project. He started working on this project over a year
and a half ago, and at that time they were dealing with a
completely different set of rules. He has continuously stayed with
it, but feels the rules are changing underneath him.
Gordv Byrd asked if this would be a well lighted area, for safety
reasons. Mr. Brown stated yes, there would be appropriate street
lighting, and a lot of light off the front of the houses. The
focus is to create a safe community feeling.
David Smith, Developer and Builder of Arvon Village, and in
partnership on this project, wanted to clarify a few issues
mentioned earlier. Regarding the street standards issue, the
actual travel lanes of most current City streets are no better than
their proposed streets, due to the on-street parking allowed. To
answer a possible question about the ability to eliminate parking
on those streets, they will be "red-curbed" all the way. Every one
of them, in effect, is a fire lane because no parking will be
allowed on them. The Fire Department has assured him they will
enforce this, and tow any car parked in front of a red curb. He
reiterated the positive situations created when on-street parking
is eliminated. As far as the access issue, their understanding is
one access is adequate for a pr6ject this size, but also depends on
the length of the street. He stated that ultimately, as the
project develops, there will be an additional access to the
project; however, it will never be a through or collective street.
In summary, this project is a hybrid project of transitional
housing that provides home ownership and it does have some common
walls, i.e., garages touch each other. The houses are all
detached, everyone owns their own house, owns their own lot, but
are still bound together in a community and in a Homeowners
Association to take care of the open space. He said this project
does not just contain their ideas, and explained that compromises
have been involved all along, many which they have gone over
tonight. Admittedly, Arvon Village has some shortcomings, but he
reminded everyone that "the longest journey has to start with the
first step", and it was pioneering. The important thing is that
development was started again in the community, and he feels it was
a positive step to keep the City viable.
Mr. Law, referred to the map being shown, and stated it shows Broad
Street going all the way through. Mr. Brown agreed that the map
depicted Broad Street continuing through to the west, which is a
two acre parcel owned by the Edwards. He has held discussionswith
Mr. Edwards and Mr. Robinson regarding how and why that access
occurs. There is a commitment from him to provide a better access
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 20 of 31
than what the Edwards have right now, and an avenue for eliminating
the prescriptive easement across Robinson's parcel. Mr. Law wanted
to know, however, when the development is built, will the people
have access through it? Mr. Brown stated yes, and he wanted to
make it clear that if they are able to comply with City Street
Standards, this project will have dedicated and public streets. If
it is a public street that goes up to the Edwards property, that
may be another issue because that parcel is land-locked now, except
for the prescriptive easement across the Robinson parcel, so he
will have access. There is an issue that may still be between the
two property owners, as to whether Edward should have this
easement, and when he develops maybe he would have an obligation to
help pay for some of the infrastructure up to his property. The
potential access is there, and his actual personal access will be
granted over the improved surfaces. Mr. Law asked which part of
the road will become a public street, just Broad Street or all of
it? Mr. Brown stated that is part of the problem. He doesn't
understand where Council stands on the discussion of the new
street. To make a long story short, all of the streets shown on
the map, as designed, meet the proposed new standards presently
going through the review process, which will ultimately arrive
before Council for their consideration. Mr. Law asked if that also
includes the eleven foot wide street? Mr. Brown clarified that it
has actually been increased to fourteen feet. After the
Engineering Department took a look at Arvon Village, the twelve
foot street was found to be one of the shortcomings. They agreed,
and increased it to fourteen feet. It has also been decided to
increase all the one-way streets to fourteen feet in these types of
developments. The other dilemma is they are hoping to get the site
work done in the next 90 days, so they can market the houses by
early spring.
Mr. Law questioned Mr. Witt if he was comfortable with what was
being proposed, and informed him that Council was learning about
City streets right now! Mr. Witt stated what he didn't want to
have happen was this development be the driver of street standard
revisions, and there are actually three other developments standing
by that could also be incorporated into that discussion. That is
why that discussion needs to be independent and they tried to set
it up that way. He anticipates getting the street standards
through the development community this month and to the Planning
Commission on October 2 at a special meeting. Then, it can be
brought to City Council three weeks after that, roughly a total of
two months. Mr. Law asked how that time-frame fits in with the
developers? Mr. Brown stated they would like to have the
underground portion completed in 90 days. The build out takes
roughly 60 days, so they could see a two month setback due to the
delay. He emphasized he has been working on this project, fully
involved with the Planning Department, and again he finds himself
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 21 of 31
having developed the whole idea under old rules that he thought he
understood, purchased the property and spent a good amount of money
in engineering services and a lot of time putting it together.
Now, he finds himself in a transitional period. He does understand
fully the standards under review and they have made concessions in
order to comply with them. Mr. Witt stated he wanted to clarify
their "old rules", which are still in effect. As the applicants
have stated, they have allowed smaller streets on certain
subdivisions. They have come in under the City's private street
rules, which allows private streets when we need to vary from the
City Street Standards for reasons of topographic, environmental or
lot size. The developments, such as Arvon Village and Cierra
Court, have unusual lot sizes where a 50 foot right-of-way would
not allow development of the lots in any appropriate manner. A lot
of this size is not under that constraint because of purely lot
size reasons, it goes back to the developer being able to pencil
out the project. So, the City has not been willing to go to the
private street standard on this project, because it does not meet
that criteria. Mr. Brown agreed with Mr. Witt and Mr. Smith that
it does affect the cost per unit and when a person is looking at
purchasing a house in the range of $100,000 each of those
incremental changes is more and more important to that bottom line
payment. Moreover from that, they are taking away expenses from
the asphalt. This project is a hybrid and more than just penciling
out it is an issue of aesthetics and liveability. It is true they
don't want to meet the old standards of 50 ft. right-of-way nor do
they feel it is appropriate or desirable. They view the open space
as much more important than a broad expanse of asphalt if wider
streets were part of the plan. Mr. Law stated he respected the
effort and time put into the project by the developer; however, it
is proposed that the streets become City streets and that is what
causes this to become a major factor to the City Council.
Brown stated they would like to see the streets remain as City
streets, but they have left open the option of private streets that
would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. They have
expressed an interest to be flexible and try to comply with
everything that they understand.
Mr. Overson stated on the streets issue, it appears that Council
needs to approve the PUD separate from the street concern and
either bring the street concern back and approve them later after
establishing the standards, or the builder would be committed to
meeting the present requirements. Mr. Witt stated no, there seems
to be a certain amount of discomfort looking at this approval from
a preliminary aspect. City ordinances allow the approval of things
on the preliminary base, and because of his experience prior to
working for the City, he is comfortable with having the plat
approved with conditions. He pointed out one condition addresses
stormwater and the developer may lose one or two lots in order to
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 22 of 31
meet stormwater requirements. The developer must meet the utility
requirements, and at this time he feels he can meet fire flow on
the water system, but until a design is provided showing it will
work, it isn't done. However, the developer wants to know now that
the City Council will not say no later to the concept they are
presenting at this hearing. What Council approves for street
standards will be the standards applied to the project. However,
if the developer is not comfortable with the adopted standards, he
may come back and asked to have the issue brought back before the
Council for further discussion. Council would not see the PUD if
the developer was satisfied with the newly adopted standards. If
the street standards can fit, Mr. Witt will be back with the final
plat for Council's approval. Mr. Overson stated he had a concern
on that approach; however, there is a home at the end of Shorewood
Drive which the designer designed a certain way and the builder
built it differently, and actually built it in the City's right-of-
way. The City took no action to have that building torn down and
it still exists in the City's right-of-way. In fact, such things
have happened all over the City. Once the builder gets something
in the ground, it never gets fixed if there is a problem. Once
Council gives their approval on this proposal, the builder can then
"punch it into the ground" and defy the City to do anything. Mr.
Witt stated not without his review of the street/water/sewer/storm-
water plans. Mr. Overson emphasized he is concerned that the
Council does not have a standard that they are playing to and one
can't be guaranteed within a specific period of time. Mr. Witt
stated that was the risk with what is being proposed at this time.
He emphasized the City does have a standard 32 ft. wide street/50
ft. wide right-of-way. That is the City standards and it would be
applicable to this subdivision. It has been clearly stated the
proposal before Council does not meet that standard. If a street
plan is submitted tomorrow, it needs to have a 50 ft. right-of-
way/32 ft. width street. If a street plan is submitted at the end
of October, after the Council has adopted a different street
standard, he would need to have the appropriate street standard
identified for the development.
Mr. Colvin stated he appreciated Mr. Brown's honesty and concern
for people of lower incomes to own homes. He questioned if the
developer's proposed streets would meet the proposed revised street
standards? Mr. Brown explained this design meets the proposed
street standards as they know them. Mr. Witt stated as a point of
clarification Mr. Brown and Mr. Smith have worked with the City on
street standards and how they would be applied on a plat such as
theirs. As their testimony reflects, they feel strongly about
revising street standards and providing a different sense of
community/neighborhood through their use. But, the street
standards have been drafted, they have been changing as they have
gone through different reviews by the City and what is currently on
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 23 of 31
the table is different than what they had reviewed. He anticipates
there will be further changes as they go through the review
process. He believes the developer's design meets the essence of
what the City is trying to do, but they must "meet the letter" of
what the City is trying to do. Mr. Colvim pointed out apparently
Mr. Brown has seen the proposed revised street standards, but the
City Council has not. Mr. Witt noted Mr. Brown saw an earlier
version that has since changed, and Council has not seen any of the
proposed standards.
Bob Mathwig, 8150 Chico Way, partner in Broadmoor Village, pointed
out his family owns the Kings Table property, and he owns the
Family Pancake House as well as several other pieces of property in
that area. Since purchasing some of the property, he has torn down
several old houses that were used as drug houses, both selling and
drug manufacturing, as well as general dumping grounds for debris.
He does not see the subject site being desirable for apartment
houses or $150,000 homes, but it would put a lot of public in an
area that could support existing business, such as grocery stores,
etc. Overall, he views the proposal as a good project and the only
bad side was the fact that the street standards in Bremerton have
been a little behind the times. He did not think it was fair to
hold the project up too long waiting for new standards to be
adopted. In response to the comment of having only one access out
of the site on Broad Street, he has seen the traffic volume at
several businesses nearby fluctuate up and down and would do so
much more than the 43 units. Everyone knows that Wheaton Way is
not a good road as far as traffic is concerned, but people adjust
to what they encounter. He could not think of a better use for the
site than what is being proposed.
Betty Buell, High Avenue, pointed out existing narrow streets in
the Manette area and the fact residents living there wish they were
wider. She strongly opposed narrow lots that would result in
houses being only 15 feet wide.
Byron Edwards, 4163 Wheaton Way, stated he was representing and
speaking for his mother Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards, who owns a 2-acre
parcel that borders the subject site. He was not opposing the
development, but more for his and his mother's interest he wanted
to learn more about the project and obtain clarification on a
number of points. He raised the following issues: (1) East Broad
Street is shown as being extended (2-lane width) to the adjoining
property to the west and made to appear it goes on through that
property. One of the conditions set forth by one of the Planning
Commissioners was the topic of the Edward's access and their
utility supply. Most of the comments about the roadway has been
how narrow it is compared to the City's current street standards.
His argument is that it is too wide and the portion he is
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 24 of 31
addressing is that accessing his property. He did speak with Mr.
Brown about the possibility of future development of the Edward's
property; however, he never said anything about the probability for
their actual desire now or in the future to develop their
property...it is their home and they want to keep it that way.
Having a two lane access right up to his property would indicate to
the normal motorist that it was a through road, but what is
intended is an 8-foot wide driveway that will service their home.
His concern is an abundant flow of traffic onto his private
property. He asked Council to give consideration to his desires.
Another consideration of his is why is it necessary to have such a
wide access to the houses shown in the southwest corner of the
development? He felt emergency vehicles could access that area and
on into his property if the roadway was a single lane width.
Another question is how far the southwest corner of the property is
set from his property line? He referenced a letter, which he
handed out copies to Council members, and asked who is making the
requirement for extension of the 22 ft. entry road to the Edward's
property line, the extension of an 8-inch watermain to his property
and the extension of a 12-inch storm sewer to their property? He
pointed out his property is served by a well and they have not
experienced any runoff problems for over 40 years. Mr. Brown
stated for clarification that the letter Mr. Edwards handed out was
written by him. When he first spoke with the Edwards there was
some discussion about the potential for future development of their
property. What he tried to do was to outline two options: (1) a
scenario where Mr. Brown made all the improvements that would be
necessary if they were desirous of future expansion and
reimbursement would happen at the time those services were actually
used; and (2) that access be provided to serve their current needs
at no cost to the Edwards. Mr. Witt stated he hoped Mr. Brown
offered to extend sewer services as well. When the City looks at
plats, such as this site, they look at the undeveloped land around
them and try and provide for circulation and utilities to those
plats with the intention not to recreate a landlocked parcel. Not
providing an access to the property to the west of the subject site
would cause it to be landlocked. The Edwards have an easement
across the Robinson's property, which is not a recorded easement,
but one by usage. Between those two things, it is prudent to
extend the roadway to the west and the City is requiring that of
the developer. The City requires, through ordinances and through
normal practice, extension of all utilities to the end of the
property lines so that it does not put on an undue burden on the
adjoining property owner when they choose to develop the property
or take use of the services. Mr. Edwards mentioned that he did not
forsee development of their property nor is the City proposing.that
he develop the property at this time, but the City is trying to
accommodate his access and whatever future development needs that
may occur, whenever they occur.
TAPE #1315
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 25 of 31
TAPE #1316
Mr. Law asked Mr. Edwards if he currently has access to his
property from East Broad Street? Mr. Edwards stated no, their
current access runs approximately along the north border line of
the subject site. Mr. Brown explained Mr. Edward's current access
is on Mr. Robinson's property and lies between 3 - 10 feet off the
northerly property line of the subject parcel. Mr. Law pointed out
then Mr. Brown was just offering Mr. Edwards the accessibility of
going across the development? Mr. Brown stated that was correct,
and it helped Mr. Robinson in development of his commercial site by
eliminating the access easement to the Edwards property. Mr. Wltt
stated he would accept that considering there is not a recorded
easement to the Edwards property. He pointed out the City also
requires access to the lot to the south.
Mr. Colvin asked if he understood correctly the route to Mr.
Edwards property would require him to loop around the development?
Mr. Edwards stated no, he would have a straight access off of
Wheaton Way onto East Broad Street to his property. Mr. Brown has
agreed to provide a graveled S-ft. wide driveway from the end of
paved East Broad Street to approximately the center of the 2-acres
where they current park their vehicles. Continuing with his
questions, he referred back to the letter and emphasized his family
has been in friendly discussions with Mr. Brown, but have not
agreed to anything. As far as he is concerned, the progression to
Mr. Brown's dealing with condition #15 is a little slow. But,
according to that first option they would like to assess a charge
of $161,538.44 at the time of development for stubbing out the
utilities. He questioned why stud out these utilities and why
should they incur a cost to them in the future for future
development when they do not plan to develop? Acting President
Neville stated he believed Mr. Brown was trying to make Mr. Edwards
aware of the different options he had to develop his property and
the associated costs if development took place. But, if the
Edwards family chooses not to develop their parcel, there would be
no cost to them at this time. He asked Mr. Witt if his explanation
was correct? Mr. Witt stated he agreed with the point that there
is no cost to Mr. Edwards now. The developer has approached the
City about setting up streets and utilities on a reimbursement
agreement basis, which is not something they traditionally do or
require unless there is a significant oversize to facilitate the
adjacent property. He has not made any determination that any of
these are significant over sizing to facilitate the adjacent
property or if they are just utilities that are necessary to meet
this development needs. The City has not been a party to such
discussions between the developer and Mr. Edwards. But, as to the
lien issue, he was not sure the property owner can put that on at
will. Mr. Edwards brought up another issue having to do with the
water supply and their losing a well when prior development took
TAPE #1316
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 26 of 31
place at the shopping center on the east side of Wheaton Way (Eagle
Hardware, K-Mart, etc.) and the shopping center built on Ron Ross's
property on the west side of Wheaton Way. In his opinion, those
projects eventually had a dramatic affect on their water supply,
which was a well at the time. At that time, they had no
consideration for the possible affects of this development and they
lost a well and had to drill another well at their expense and
hopefully had learned from that experience. Now, they are again
faced with development in their neighborhood and he feels their
water supply may be in jeopardy again. As mentioned in the letter
he received from Mr. Brown, if FPH has agreed that within 30 days
of written notice from his family that there is any damage to their
well, they would, at their expense, connect them to City water,
which would include the tax, meter, secondary line and connection,
but they would not be responsible for the cost of the water they
would be using. If the water in their well goes away due to Mr.
Brown's development, it was his belief that his family should be
provided City water at no cost to them for installation or actual
amounts of water used by them. He asked if he was justified in his
reasoning as to who should be responsible for the cost of water if
he loses his well. Mr. Slevers stated if impacts are identified,
such a condition could be set. The only problem he had at this
point, listening to the suggestion for the condition of the casual
relationship if he loses water quality or volume in the future, is
whether it is related to this plat. It would probably be related
to impervious surfaces of a new development, but may be related to
other development around the property. He noted there will still
be a lot of pervious surface in the subject development, so how do
we show enough to convince the Council that if you lose quality or
quantity of water in the future, that it is likely, or probable
than not, related to this plat? If such a condition can be proven,
then Council could impose that as a condition. Mr. Edwards asked
what other development is happening near his property? Mr. Sievers
stated if the Edwards lose water in the future, there may be other
commercial development on the property north of the Broadmoor
Village site, which may have more impervious surfaces than the
subject development. He did not see Mr. Brown's site having to
bear the cost of water, if the impact on the Edwards property
happened at the time some other property is developed. Mr. Edwards
stated that would have to be considered sometime in the future.
The question is Mr. Brown's project is being developed within his
neighborhood now and if they lose the ability to use their well, he
felt it would be Mr. Brown's responsiblity to mitigate that impact.
Mr. Colvln asked the City Attorney if this was an issue that Mr.
Edwards should discuss with his own attorney? Mr. 81evers noted
Mr. Edwards was asking Council to impose a mitigating condition on
the plat approval that would address any loss of water or the
inability to use his well. Council could place such a condition on
the plat, if they are convinced the development was the cause of a
TAPE #1316
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 27 of 31
problem relating to their water supply. Mr. Overson stated he
understood Mr. Brown's proposal was that he would provide the
physical facilities to provide the water.
James Robinson 4904 Kitsap Way, stated he truly supports this
'development, and has at each hearing along the entire process. He
is a proponent of property rights, and within reasonable
regulation, people should be able to use their property. He and
members of FPH have worked very cooperatively to solve their
problems along the common property line, and up to this point they
agreed to take the burden of the screening, setback, and fencing.
According to his notes and contrary to what Mr. Jensen offered
earlier, the Broadmoor partnership has agreed to notification to
their perspective homeowners regarding the potential for perceived
nuisances that might come from legal commercial general uses next
door. He referred to conditions No. 12 through 15, which are not
mere suggestions, but were in fact adopted by the Planning
Commission as conditions carrying the full weight of the other 11.
What he sees as a potential for problems is that the interest of a
residential neighborhood and a commercial industrial district are
not identical and there is a potential for conflict. It is not too
speculative to imagine that in the very near future there would be
testimony before this body from homeowners seeking relief from some
of those perceived conflicts from legal users of commercial general
property. That is his interest together with the developer they
agreed in principal on these four conditions. Subsequent to the
Planning Commission's action and prior to this hearing, Mr. Pratt
advised him that there is a process where the City can exempt him
from further burden of setbacks or other things because he is now
going to neighbor a residential neighborhood instead of the present
commercial general zone, so, he has undertaken to initiate that
process. But, also in condition No. 14 is the notification issue
which he thinks should remain as part of the conditions placed on
the plat, and Mr. Brown has indicated that is satisfactory with the
Broadmoor partners. It is his hope that in taking this action
tonight, Council note his prior commercial general zoning and the
rights accompanying that zoning, and that they assure him those
rights will be protected in the future.
Mr. Winters stated after reading the recommendations and listening
to all of the testimonies tonight, he recalls one of the reasons he
chose to become a Council member. He becomes so irate when he
hears of someone coming down to the City with a plat or plan for
approval, someone tells them this is what it will be, then they
come back and are told something else. Mr. Brown testified tonight
that he was told to present this plan, but "oh, by the way, the
game is going to change a little bit by the time we get to the
finished product, so he might have to change it again at his
expense". This saddens him and he wished the City and Community
#0640
TAPE #1316
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 28 of 31
Development program could become more consistent. He sees
recommendations, endorsements, proponents, and some things that
need to be worked out along the way, but the City of Bremerton has
to, at some point, realize in its Planning Department, the need to
continue to develop for the betterment of its tax base. And, we
need to work with developers and homeowners so that we come to a
happy medium going forward in future development. It would be
frustrating to him to spend many thousands of dollars on developing
a plan and then be told certain types of requirements would be
changing again.
M/S (Overson/Dawkins) to approve Resolution #2522 and approve the
preliminary plat of "Broadmoor Village, subject to the conditions
contained herein.
Mr. Law stated for clarification that the motion as made includes
conditions 12-157 Mr. 8ievers pointed out Council has the right to
make whatever motion they wish. He understood that the Planning
staff had asked that the Resolution in the Agenda Packet be revised
by the deletion of condition No. 14 and some reworded language to
meet the notice requirement for the Robinson property to the north
of the subject site. He advised Council against including
condition No. 14 for the reasons stated by Mr. Jensen. He did not
believe Council could bind its future action or the Planning
Director for future applications or future land uses on the
Robinson property. If Council wished some rewording for "notice"
Mr. Jensen could present that to Council. Mr. Law asked if he was
correct that one of the agreements made during the discussion on
the rezone of the site was concurrence of the property to the north
(Mr. Robinson's property)? Mr. Jensen explained the only
conditions that came with the rezone were conditions No. 1 and No.
2...the rest came as part of the Planning Commissions
recommendation. Mr. Law stated he recalled Mr. Robinson giving
testimony that he was going along with the project even though he
was the adjacent property owner because the agreement or perception
he had was that he would not be penalized. Mr. Jensen stated Mr.
Law was correct and Condition No. 2 states that Mr. Robinson will
not bear the full burden of screening his property from a
residential use that is already in place, if he decides to build in
the future.
Mr. Farr asked Mr. Robinson if there were other concerns that he
wanted to avoid being stuck with further down the line? Mr.
Robinson stated one of the concerns agreed to between he and the
developer is separating properties with a fence that will keep
children out of a commercial use and protect their safety.
Secondly, commercial property adjacent to a residential property
has different and greater setbacks than a commercial property
adjacent to a commercial property and he did not want to be
TAPE #1316
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 29 of 31
burdened with that. He felt there was agreement on that point, now
an attempt is being made to find some language that legally enforce
that situation. Mr. Farr asked if there was something Council
could do so that condition No. 14 could be reworded at this time,
yet not painting it with too broad of a brush that would cause
concerns with the Planning Department? Mr. Mievers asked if
Condition No. 12 didn't take care of the fence issue? Mr. Robinson
stated the fence was agreed to under another condition. Mr.
noted since the fence and screening are taken care of, then the
setback is the remaining concern identified by Mr. Robinson.
Robinson stated that was one of his concerns...the notification
issue is also part of condition No. 14 and he would like to have it
remain and Mr. Brown has indicated their agreement. Mr. ~arr asked
if the Planning Department had a problem with the notification
portions of condition No. 147 Mr. Jensen stated no, his prior
statement was a misunderstanding about what the notification
requirements. After speaking with Mr. Robinson and the City
Attorney and understanding the agreement between the two, he has
some new suggested wording for condition No 14: "As lon~ as the
adioining propertV to the north is in commercial use/zoning sales
of lots in Broadmoor Village will be subject to written notice that
plat abuts commercially zoned property to the north." If this
wording is adopted, it would take care of the notification
requirement as far as the setback is concerned. Previously, he
stated that we had worked and notify Mr. Robinson that the process
to get relief from setbacks and other zoning requirements was
through a Special Exception process. Mr. Robinson has indicated he
is willing to go through that process. Mr. Law asked if Mr.
Robinson was satisfied with that prerequisite? Mr. Robinson stated
yes and he just recently learned about that process. The only
thing he wanted to describe more generally is to say to Council
that very likely in the future there will be testimony for the City
Council complaining about perceived nuisances because he wants to
use his property legally under its current zoning and he hoped
Council would remember these discussions and take it into account.
Mr. ~arr asked for clarification if Mr. Robinson agrees to go
through the Special Exception Process rather than having the
wording on setbacks understanding the Special Exception Process is
"pay your money take your chance" type of think and had no
assurance it would be granted as applied for. Mr. Jensen stated
they do not offer any assurance or guarantee, but they feel from
the discussions and circumstances surrounding this property that
Mr. Robinson does have very good merit for meeting the criteria
necessary for that exception. Generally, when they get abutting
property owners approval, it is much more likely that it is
approved. That action can be don administratively by the Director
of Community Development if adjoining property owners agree on that
issue. Mr. Law stated he did feel it sounded fair to Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Sievers stated the problem with addressing changes to the
#1033
TAPE #1316
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 30 of 31
zoning for another parcel that has not gone through the public
hearing processes precludes the public from making comment. Under
the Special Exception process is administrative, but it may also
have an appeal process, so the City could not give a guarantee on
that issue. Mr. Farr asked if Council had an option, at this time,
and the authority to word this to address the issue of setback on
Mr. Robinson's property? Mr. Sievers stated no.
Mr. Colvin stated it appears to him that the street standard will
be reduced for this proposal and sounds like a "done deal". He
admires the builders, but he could not go along with narrow
streets.
Actinc President Neville asked the City Clerk to restate the
intended motion. Ms. McCLUskeV stated there is a motion to accept
the conditions as presented in the resolution. However, if Council
decides not to do that, the maker of the motion could agree to
revise it to accept the resolution with the conditions recommended,
with the exception of Condition No. 4, and take the language
recommended by Mr. Jensen.
Mr. Law asked if Mr. Robinson was satisfied with the resolution as
it pertains to his property if the revised wording is approved?
Mr. Robinson stated yes, and he understands he will be taking a
chance with respect to the Special Exceptions issue. He also
understands with regard to that he could either do it with
concurrence of his neighbors and the decision made administratively
or he is entitled to a public hearing, which would ultimately end
up before the City Council.
Mr. Overson stated he would withdraw his motion and Mr. Dawkins,
who seconded the motion agreed.
M/S/C(Farr/Dawkins) pass Resolution No. 2522, with conditions for
the Preliminary Plat of "Broadmoor Village", located at 1000 East
Broad Street, Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington, with the
condition that condition No. 14 has the amended language as
proposed by Mr. Jensen.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor: Farr, Law, Dawkins, Winters
Opposed: Colvin, Neville
Abstain: Overson
TAPE #1316
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 6, 1995
Page 31 of 31
With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
KAT~~ L.~~McC~ ~
, City Clerk
KLM/SH-M/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault