HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/95TAPE #1307
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
COUNCIL
APPRO D
SEP 13 1995
AUGUST 16, 1995
#0018
#0029
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, August 16, 1995, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council
members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, John
Law, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson. Council members David Farr
and Carlos Montgomerywere absent. Also present were City Attorney
Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathy McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Pastor Jim Patten of
Summit Avenue Presbyterian Church.
Kathleen McCluskev, City Clerk, announced Agenda Items 7D and 7F
were pulled for one week.
CONSENT AGENUA
A. Minutes of Meeting - August 2, 1995
#AB95-170
M/S/C/U(Neville/Overson) to approve Consent Agenda.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on August 16, 1995, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 187112 through 187113, 187116 through 187117, 187119,
and 187148 through 187340 in the amount of $637,293.40.
President Huff-Menees make the following announcements:
(1) There is a Declaration Sheet for any person who is here to
testify at either Public Hearing at tonight's Council meeting;
(1) City Council Study Session, Monday, August 21, 1995, 5:30 PM,
in the City Council Conference Room. Topics to be discussed will
be Public Works & Utilities issues as listed on the public notice;
(2) City Council Executive Session, Wednesday, August 23, 1995,
5:00 - 5:20 PM, in the City Council Conference Room. Topic to be
discussed is "Review of Personnel Performance"; and
(3) City Council Study Session, Wednesday, August 23, 1995,
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 2 of 30
immediately following the City Council meeting in the Council
Chambers. Topic to be discussed is the "Gorst - Bremerton
Connector Project".
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT8
Mr. Winters enjoyed being the "MC" for "Kids Day" on the boardwalk
last Friday. He thanked all the volunteers who also helped, and
the parents and grandparent who brought their kids down to enjoy
the festivities. He had a special "thank you" for Terrie O'Neill.
He announced the next Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association meeting
will be Thursday, August 24, 1995, at 6:30 PM, in the Cascade Gas
Building on Kitsap Way. If there are any further questions, please
contact Jack Lefcoski at 377-0963.
Mr. Colvin stressed the need for assigned Council parking. He has
periodically urged citizens to bring their concerns to City
Council, and reminded citizens they are encouraged and welcomed to
do that. He wished Merilynn Erhart, Council Legislative Assistant,
a "Happy Birthday".
Mr. Law announced the 2nd Annual Manette "Summer Fest Street Fair"
will be held Saturday, August 19, with the shortest parade in the
world starting at 11:00 A.M. at llth and Scott and ending on Harkin
Street. This event will include childrens games (after the parade),
arts and crafts b6oths and someone may even spot "Elvis". The
Grand Marshall will be DeeDee Rainbow.
Mr. Overson announced more "yellow" footsteps will be appearing
downtown to direct visitors to active businesses.
Mrs. Huff-Menees congratulated City departments and staff members
for another very successful Kids Day on the boardwalk. She was
pleased this event was well attended by parents, kids and
grandparents. She extended a special "thank you" to Kitsap
Physician Service Health Plan for their sponsoring the kickoff
tournament weekend event for the opening of Pendergast Regional
Park. Not only did they sponsor athletic events, but they also
donated $3,345.00 to the Andy Pendergast Construction Fund, which
was made possible because all of the umpires donated their time and
the Ace Paving Women's team donated their entire tournament labor
rebate, which was the largest rebate of any team. KPS were pleased
to report they sold all of their "jumbo" hot dogs during the
tournament weekend.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Hotton also extended her "thanks" to Kitsap Physician
Service, Ace Paving Women's Team and the Umpires for donating their
revenues from the Pendergast Regional Park opening tournament. She
thanked her staff and all the other participants at Kids Day on the
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 3 of 30
boardwalk. It pleased her to see this event growing and offers an
excellent opportunity to educate youth about what is available
within our community and what governments do for the public.
Mayor Horton read the following Proclamation: August 20, 1995, as
Sibling Day. Carl Glaser accepted the proclamation and noted this
is the third year proclaiming Sibling Day, and hopefully special
remembrances, such as a telephone call or card, will be given to
brothers and sisters on that day.
Mayor Horton introduced the Kitsap County Fair & Rodeo Court: Queen
Jodie Lusk, Princess Sandy Farver, and Junior princess Erika
Reitan. Each Princess talked about Fair events starting on
Wednesday, August 23, and admission costs.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mary Sump presented the City Council signed petitions in support of
the City purchasing the old Haddon School site for development of
a park. As of August 14, they had gathered 440 signatures that
accounted for 691 children, with the majority of the signers from
District #6 and surrounding area of the Haddon site. She pointed
out there is not a single park along the north side from Highway #3
down Kitsap Way to llth Street and then on down to Warren Avenue.
Larry Green stated he was appointed by NAACP President Barbara
Payton to handle matters dealing with labor and industry and he was
at the City Council meeting in that capacity. He referenced the
City's Employment Application fee that is required for applying for
a job with the City. He quoted the following: Office Assistant I -
"Application fee pursuant to Resolution 2505 a non-refundable fee
of $15.00 must be submitted with the application. Checks must be
made payable to the City of Bremerton and if paying by cash exact
amount is required. In addition, those applicants participating in
the written test will be required to pay a testing fee at the time
of the test." Mr. Green's response to that statement was the NAACP
finds this to be asinine. He questioned why should people, who
can't afford it or don't have a job, have to pay $15.00 to apply
for a job with the City? He understands that all someone has to do
is say they can't pay the fee and it will be waived. Who, reading
the application, would know that - no one. He asked what must
someone do to declare that they are unable to pay the fee...provide
their 1994 income tax form, birth certificate, etc.? He was told
all a person had to do was to say they did not have the money to
pay it. He also questioned is there a penalty if someone is caught
lying about their ability to pay? He could not understand how
intelligent people could pass such a resolution when there are many
poor people in Bremerton that don't have $10.00 let along $15.00.
If he told the people he represents about a job opportunity, by the
time they raised the fee the application would be closed. He
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 4 of 30
begged the City Council to change the requirement for the fee. He
was also told the City did it because other cities have done it.
Well, other cities do lots of things we don't do. He noticed none
of the cities that have organizations that will resist this kind of
action, such as Seattle and Tacoma, are listed as having
application fees. Even though it may be legal, at one time it was
legal to make him, as a black man, sit at the back of a bus, but
did the Bremerton City Council decide to adopted that policy too,
of course not! The NAACP pleas to the City Council to change the
requirement of a fee. He does not believe he has to pay to apply
for a job in the City of Bremerton because he is a citizen and pays
taxes.
Another concern raised by the NAACP was the fact that the
Affirmative Action Officer left the City some 8 months ago and
weeks prior to his leaving he broadcast loud and clear that he was
leaving. Eight months later the City still doesn't have an
Affirmative Action Officer. The other cities have them, why don't
we follow that pattern.
In his travels around the City of Bremerton, he sees all kinds of
projects going on, particular in the streets. It is easy to find
the last drop of water on Noah's ark before it would be to find a
black face at one of those construction projects. That is unfair,
both the shipyard,'Keyport and some of the other areas are laying
off people. Black people are last hired and first fired and it
seems to him the City should offer a better hiring policy than they
do. He had a copy of some information from HUD, when Louis Mentor
was Mayor, that HUD was encouraging the City to improve its hiring
practices. He would make that information available to anyone.
These are the concerns of the NAACP, who believe they are
legitimate and moral concerns that the City Council should address.
We are requesting with all the energy we can muster that you do
that. He is not apologizing for the stand he is taking on behalf
of the NAACP.
Mr. Green concluded his comments by pointing out the City has a
display case in the lobby of City Hall showing picture from the
Human Resources Department...it is lily white.
Jim Welling, President of the local Vietnam Veterans Organization,
stated he was on a mission to let everyone know that their planning
efforts are in full throttle for Rendezvous Northwest, which will
be a large reunion and banquet at the Kitsap Pavilion on September
2. This event will feature a prime rib and salmon dinner, live
entertainment, and guest speakers. He encouraged members of the
public to purchase their tickets from the various outlets and that
tickets will not be available at the door the night of the event.
It is their hope that veterans of all wars, all family members, all
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 5 of 30
DOD workers supporting the war efforts, friends of veterans be
represented at that program. Additionally, they are working with
Bremerton Main Street Association to fund a Fire Works Salute in
the bay the night of September 2nd and they are aggressively
raising $25,000 in donations for the fireworks. He publicly
thanked all of the people, who have helped out on this project so
far, such as Washington Mutual, and many taverns through Jennings
Distributing Company.
Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, commented on the
excellent performance of the Mexican Band on August 11, which was
sponsored by the Asteca Restaurants. The last Concert on the
Boardwalk will be held August 18, featuring Jumblassey, caribbean
dance music.
Don Atklnson announced the 2nd Annual Tour Day Bike Ride will be
held August 19, starting at the boardwalk at 8:30 AM and traveling
south to the Sunnyslope area and Bremerton National Airport.
Participants can choose a 20-mile ride and a 35-mile ride, with a
$15.00 admission fee. This event is co-sponsored by West Coast
Cycling and Bremerton Main Street Association.
Barbara Payton, President NAACP - announced the NAACP will hold a
forum on September 8, 6:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers. On a
personal note, she'called the City regarding the need for a yield
sign or something indicating traffic caution where traffic can turn
into and out of the Red Apple Grocery store on Kitsap Way. No one
responded to her earlier call and she felt the issue was very
important because she had an accident at that site and she is being
accused of hitting someone whereas the guy hit the side of her car.
She feels it is very dangerous going in and out at that location.
7A - CASAD DAMEVALUATION -- PROFESSIONAL SERVICE8 WITH R.W. BECK,
#AB95-162
The City's Casad Dam was constructed in the mid - 1950's to impound
drinking water supplies. The Department of Ecology inspected the
dam structure and concluded in 1994 that the dam was well
constructed, maintained, and could handle stresses due to floods
and earthquake. As a requirement of our dam safety program,
Ecology has requested a geotechnical evaluation of the rock
abutments. R.W. Beck was selected for this work for their
expertise in dam engineering. The cost of this project is $50,466.
Kathleen Caha11, Water Resources Manager, stated Casad Dam sits in
a valley that is butted with basalt rock. The subject contract is
for geological work for the area surrounding and abutting the dam
and will include collecting data on the rock joints, verifying the
strength of the rock, possible erosion and seepage around the dam,
and develop maps and a final report. The project manager selected
#1204
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 6 of 30
for this project is an internationally known dam expert and
president of an International Dam Association.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson stated one of the primary results of this contract is
a report. He asked if a copy of the report or an executive summary
of the findings will be generally available to the public for their
review, such as public libraries? Ms. Caha11 stated copies of the
report would be available upon request. She agreed that having the
report available at the Kitsap Regional Library would be a good
idea along with other information they have about Casad Dam.
Mr. Law complimented Ms. Cahall on her display and her involvement
with the public at the Kids Day event on the boardwalk. He had a
concern with Section 7 - Insurance And Hold Harmless, in that one
paragraph indemnifies R.W. Beck and a second paragraph indemnifies
the City, which to him looks like an attorney's holiday. He asked
how do we keep from having this happening? Ian Sievers, City
Attorney, stated this is not the first time it has happened. As
mentioned in the Pre-council Study Session, the City has used
reciprocal indemnity paragraphs with other contracting parties,
typically Kitsap County, when entering into interlocal agreements.
He was not sure there was a way around including them, it does not
do a lot if both parties are partially at fault, there will simply
be an allocation of'fault and neither party will be responsible for
defending the action for the other party or indemnifying the other
party. Possibly in the future simpler language will be proposed
instead of all the verbiage that cancels each other out. Mr. Law
stated he was not comfortable having the two paragraphs in the
contract.
M/S/C/U(Neville/Dawkins) to approve the Professional Services
Agreement with R.W. Beck, and authorize the Mayor to sign, subject
to City administrative policies and procedures.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Overson, Neville, Huff-Menees,
Dawkins, Colvin, Winters
Law
7B - CONTI~CT WITH PACIFIC PLAYGROUND FOR PLAYGROUND EOUIP~ENT AT
WI~x~EN AVENUE PLaYFIELD, #AB95-171
FunCo, Inc. contracted with the City of Bremerton in June of 1994
for installation of barrier free playground equipment at Warren
Avenue Playfield. FunCo was unable to provide the system specified
in the contract.
This project is possible because of funding made possible through
a Community Development Block Grant. An extension of this grant
#1326
#1340
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 7 of 30
has been secured through December 31, 1995.
The second lowest bidder, Pacific Playground, Inc. has agreed to
provide the playground equipment at their April 1994 bid of $31,349
(including tax). Request permission to contract with Pacific
Playground, Inc., for installation of the playground equipment for
Warren Avenue Playfield at the aforementioned price.
Jodi Wroblewski, Assistant Parks Director, briefly restated the
facts identified in the summary statement and added that the "ship"
would be handicap accessible.
Public comment - None.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Law) authorize the Mayor to contract with Pacific
Playground, Inc. to supply playground equipment, as bid, at Warren
Avenue Playfield for an amount of $31,349.00.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Winters) to authorize Budget Adjustment 95-30 to
move the funds out of 1994 to 1995.
7C - INTERGOVERNMENTAL PURCHASING AGREEMENT: OFFICE OF STATE
PROCUREMENT, #AB95-172
Purchasing through the (Washington) Office of State Procurement
(OSP) has provided' the City of Bremerton with access to a wide
range of products and services at volume-discount prices at a
significant savings. The cost of providing OSP services has been
supported by a 1.9% Purchasing Administrative Fee (PAF) applied to
all non-vehicle purchases. A $100.00 fee has been charged for each
vehicle purchased through state contracts.
The Intergovernmental Agreement represents a fundamental change of
OSP organization to a subscriber supported State Purchasing
Cooperative. The Cooperative is supported by an annual
subscription on a scale based on each political subdivisions annual
budgeted expenditures.
The City of Bremerton's subscription fee is $2,000.00 per year.
Prorated by OSP for 1995 at one-third (September 1 - December 31),
and 12 months of 1996 the fee is $2,660.00. The fee was set by OSP
from the 1993 State Auditor's Report, "Local Government Comparative
Statistics" using the City's 1993 budget of $35,893,403. OSP will
continue to invoice $100.00 per vehicle purchased from state
contract. 1995 fee paid for Non-vehicle purchases was $68.00. In
1995, the City purchased 20 vehicles and paid a fee of $2,000.00.
If the City does not participate in the Cooperative, it will not
have access to State vehicle contracts and will have to
independently bid for its vehicle needs. When the City has bid
#1524
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 8 of 30
vehicles, costs have been minimally $2,000.00 per unit higher than
state contract pricing.
Gil Johnson, Purchasing Supervisor, stated as identified in the
Summary Statement, the City has availed itself of a number of State
contracts. The State Division Of Purchasing has also allowed the
City to go directly to vendors and contractors to buy the
commodities, with the exception of vehicles, and in doing so have
been able to bypass the 1.9% Purchase Administrative Fee. It is
apparent such action was upsetting to the State and they have come
back with a Purchasing Subscription Fee. If the City does not
participate in the intergovernmental cooperative purchase
agreement, we'll not have access to those contracts and vendors
that have provided State contract pricing. It is to the City
advantage to sign into the subscription cooperative.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Neville pointed out the agreement also states that the City
retains their right to go out independently and seek bids. Mr.
Johnson stated that was correct.
Mr. Overson stated what is proposed is essentially doubling the fee
and questioned the motive for the increase? Mr. Johnson stated the
revenue it would generate was probably part of it. History has
shown that a number of cities and other agencies have done what the
City has and bypassed the 1.9% administrative fee by going straight
to contractors. State agencies are required to buy items through
the State Purchasing Division, but municipalities, school
districts, counties and other special agencies are not. He
requested a copy of the State's OSP budget, both expenditures and
revenues, so the City could take a first hand look. He is aware
the City of Seattle is paying $5,000 per year to belong to the
cooperative and Kitsap County is paying $4,000 to join the
cooperative.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) authorize the Mayor to approve the State of
Washington Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement.
President Huff-Menees noted Mr. Johnson has agreed to provide a
letter for the Council to State legislators so that issue can be
addressed with them. Mr. Johnson stated in discussing this issue
with the City Clerk, they came to the conclusion that a more
responsive response might be made if the request was directed
through the Association Of Washington Cities preliminarily.
7E - BUDGET AMENDMENT - 14TH STREET (PARK AVENUE - SHELDON BLVD)
RELOCATION DESIGN, #AB95-174
The Engineering Division, in cooperation with the Parks Department,
#1764
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 9 of 30
plans to initiate the Evergreen Park Expansion project with design
of the relocation of 14th Street between Park Avenue and Sheldon
Boulevard (approximately 180 feet south) this fall if adequate
funds are provided. The relocated 14th Street will have curb and
gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, lighting, asphalt pavement, and
a traffic circle at 14th and Park. The Engineering Division
requests a budget adjustment allocating $10,000 from the Real
Estate Excise Tax Fund to design the relocated 14th Street for
construction next spring.
Mark Souza, Senior Engineer, stated the Engineering Division in
conjunction with the Parks Department feels that this would be the
time to design 14th Street relocation in conjunction with the
Evergreen Park expansion. This request addresses just the funding
for the design with construction taking place in 1996.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Neville asked if he understood correctly that the design would
relocate 14th street through the City owned property where the old
quonset hut currently sits; and if it will tie in with the artist
conception for the Evergreen Park Plan? Mr. Souza stated that was
correct. Mr. Nev~lle noted it ties in with what is desired to
preserve the neighborhood into a solid neighborhood. Mr. Sousa
pointed out it should also slow down traffic traveling along Park
Avenue.
Mr. Overson noted one of the big applications of Evergreen Park is
the boat launch. The change being proposed will make the access
significantly more difficult for boats, particularly for larger
boats. He asked if that has been taken into account? Mr. Sou=a
asked if Mr. Overson was talking about the traffic circle at Park
Avenue or access on sheldon Boulevard? Mr. Overson stated all of
them would be a concern. Mr. Souza explained the traffic circle at
Park Avenue could be maneuverable by a good driver and they will
make sure the design allows them to access the boat launch. Mr.
Overson pointed out the drawing in the Agenda Packet shows the tie
in to Sheldon Blvd., and 14th as a real sharp curve. He asked if
that access will be improved in the design? Mr. Souza noted it was
a preliminary drawing and not a final drawing. Mr. Overson stated
Mr. Neville just reminded him that Sheldon Boulevard may change its
course to accommodate the access. He also questioned if additional
parking will be part of the new design? Mr. Souza stated yes.
Mr. Colvin asked who would be developing the design for this
project? Mr. Souza stated an outside firm.
M/S/C/U(Neville/Winters) to approve a budget adjustment allocating
$10,000 of Real Estate Excise Tax monies to the project.
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 10 of 30
8A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) DEFINING CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND,
#M395-176
This ordinance will re-define Fund No. 103 so that it will serve as
both a contingency reserve for the General Fund and as a source of
capital funding when the required level of contingency reserve has
been fully funded. The contingency reserve balance is set at a
minimum of $550,000, and a maximum of $650,000. Use of the
reserved money will require a unanimous vote of the City Council.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated the City has had a
Cumulative Reserve Fund for a number of years, but there were no
minimums or maximums set on that fund. This action will preserve
the amount of money for contingency that can only be spent by a
unanimous vote of the City Council. It will also free up money in
excess of that balance for capital expenditures, which is what.it
has been used for, but with no definition or policy. This proposal
creates the policy, reserves money for emergency situations, and
allows the Mayor and staff to allocate, through the budget process,
additional funds and interest for expenditures.
Mayor Horton stated when going through the budget each budget
cycle, discussion would revolve around the Cumulative Reserve Fund
and what constituted non-recurring capital expenditure. By the
time all was said and done, not much was spent out of the Fund, yet
we have a City wher'e the infrastructure is deteriorating and aging
without the hope of finding any dollars to replace things. This
does both, it makes the City Treasurer and Bond Council feel more
comfortable about having a contingency, helps the City's bond
rating, and also gives the City an amount of capital, when it
exceeds the $650,000 level, that can be drawn from to replace some
of the capital items that typically need to be replaced.
Mr. Neville asked what percentage of the General Fund was set aside
as reserve? And, how close will this approach that percentage?
Ms. McCluskey stated there is not a specific percentage mandated,
but the $650,000 figure was agreed upon as a "comfortable" amount.
Out of the $18 million General Fund budget (excluding all of the
Utility Fund), this amount is acceptable, however, the higher the
better. This figure does put the City in a better position than it
has been in the past.
Mr. Overson had a concern about placing money in the fund without
the ordinance stipulating that a certain amount of money is placed
in the fund annually. Mayor Horton explained in the past, this was
an accumulative reserve fund that could only be spent on non-
recurring capital items. Mr. Overson asked the source of the
money? In the past, money was put in this fund every year. Mayor
Hotton explained the idea was to use those funds toward capital
expenditures, but by the time the discussion got down to which
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 11 of 30
pieces of capital would truly fit the definition, we always wound
up spending no money. This insures that there will be a minimum
and maximum of $500-650,000, and it will provide the City with some
capital to spend on City needs. She reminded Council out of an
almost $20 million dollar budget, excluding Police vehicles, we
spent about $15,000 on capital. You cannot run an organization
like the City with that small amount of capital anymore than
managing our own home without eventually having to take care of the
roof, heating system, etc., and that is what the City has been
looking at. This does two things, it provides a stable savings
account and provides revenue to do some capital needs expenditures
that are desperately needed. Mr. Overson stated he understood what
the Mayor was saying; however, he was concerned that the ordinance
did not contain an amount to be added annually. Mayor Morton
stated Mr. Overson was correct, if Council desires to see the
contingency build beyond the $650,000 mark. At this point, the
Administration felt the $500,000 -$650,000 was a good starting
point and as time goes by it may be desired to increase that
amount. Mr. Overson asked if the Mayor was saying she has
identified capital needs that this fund will be the source of
funding, or that there are capital needs that she intends to fund
in 1996, thereby not having to put money into this fund and using
that money potential for the capital needs defined? Mayor Hotton
stated she is wanting to earmark the funds in excess of the
$650,000. Mr. O~erson again pointed out nothing has been
identified as to how money gets into the fund. Mayor Morton stated
if the account goes below $650,000, the Administration will develop
a plan, with Council's approval, to put money back into the fund
until it reaches the minimum of $500,000 up to $650,000. Mr.
Overson questioned if he understood correctly that the $100,000
that was being added to the Cumulative Reserve Fund was just a
policy and not something that was required. Mayor Morton stated
Mr. Overson was correct and basically it was looking at having
$100,000 go into capital needs, but it did not get spent in that
direction.
Mr. Winters stated he would support this proposal; however, it is
his hope that in future years the account can grow to a 10% level.
Mayor Morton stated if the City had $1,800,000 in the contingency
fund it would mean we would have more money overall to do other
things. In 1996 she is looking at having to spend $75,000 on Police
vehicle replacement, as well as the requirement to remove 2-3
underground storage tanks, which will cost from a few thousand
dollars up to $15,000 each. She is also looking at some computer
needs that need to be addressed, but that isn't all that needs to
be considered as capital projects. This proposal is not the ideal,
but it is a start to address both the reserve and deal with some of
the City's capital needs.
#2459
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 12 of 30
Mr. Law stated his support of the proposal, but he did observe the
City is not that affluent and having to issue bonds each year for
the City's operating budget. Mayor Hotton pointed out what Mr. Law
was referring to is the TAN, which has more to do with "cash flow"
than money. Mr. Law stated he looked forward to the time when the
City had enough money that it did not have to use a TAN.
Mr. Colvin asked if there was a plan to incrementally increase the
contingency account? Mayor Horton stated not at this point. Mr.
Colvin pointed out for the public's benefit, the use of a TAN does
not lose money on that type of operation. Mr. Overson stated to
put this in a better perspective, the City does have a Capital
Improvement Plan, which is used to plan for investment of funds to
replenish and/or repair the capital owned by the City. And, the
City must have that plan in order to obtain necessary funding.in
some areas. Mayor Hotton stated yes, in theory and what happens
when you look at the aggregated needs in a city for capital, we far
exceed the amount available to spend. The Capital Facilities Plan
stipulates that anything on the list must have a revenue stream to
match. But, beyond that the City has a lot of other capital needs
that are smaller in nature, but have no funding source.. In terms
of the larger projects, the City is in a little better shape and
funding through State and Federal dollars is available for the
Arterial Street Plan, but it does not address the Non-arterial
Street Plan. The R~al Estate Excise Tax fund can be used for items
such as parks and any capital items. Historically, over the past
6-8 years almost 100% of those funds have been spent for park
projects, such as the boardwalk and Pendergast Regional Park. But,
when it comes to the smaller items the City does not have a
dedicated funding stream, which is what is now being established
through this proposal.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Law) to approve ordinance on first reading,
establishing a Special Revenue Fund of the City to be called the
Contingency Reserve Fund and repealing BMC 3.36.
9A - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO ISSUE A
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER FOR A ,'JUNKYARD" LAND USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL (IG)" SONE, WHICH IS IN USE WITHOUT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT;
APPELLANTz WILLIAM SESKO= LOCATION: TAX PARCEL e4564-001-027-00
NORTH SIDE OF WHRNER ROAD, 265 FEET WEST OF KEAN STREET, #AB95-169
The CEASE and DESIST ORDER was issued in response to apparent
illegal use of the subject property as a junkyard. The Order was
appealed and upheld by the Planning Commission. The City Council
is the hearing body for appeals of Planning Commission decisions.
When hearing an appeal, the City Council may take any of the
following actions:
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 13 of 30
Uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
Overturn the decision, recognizing the structure as a legal
but nonconforming duplex.
Modify the decision by adding or deleting conditions.
Remand the decision back to the Planning Commission for
further review of circumstances or impacts identified by the
City Council. (The City Council should include specific
issues to be considered).
President Huff-Menees announced anyone wishing to testify at this
public hearing to please sign the Declaration Statement located in
the back of the Council Chambers. And, she asked the "Appearance
Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members
being seated.
Shahs Jensen, Planning Department, stated as per the reason for
continuance of this hearing, a list of exhibits presented to the
Planning Commission, which Mr. Sesko requested, were included in
the Agenda packet. He also included one of the exhibits in that
documentation. He raised a point of clarification as to the
procedure Council wished to follow in this hearing, since there was
discussion about a discrepancy as to procedure at the previous
Council meeting when this issue was discussed? President Huff-
Menees directed Mr. Jensen to use the same basis as before.
Mr. Jensen provided view graphs showing the subject property
located on the north side of Werner Road just west of Kean Street.
He provided the following background on the City's enforcement
actions on the property: The property was annexed into the City in
late 1994. Two buildings were moved onto the site from Kean Street
after the parcel was purchased. One of the houses on the property
was without a foundation. On March 29, 1995, three abatements for
attractive nuisances and open and dangerous buildings were issued
by the Building Department along with the Planning Department's
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER for an illegal junkyard use. The
requirement within the Industrial General (IG) zone to operate a
junkyard is a Special Use Permit or proof that prior to annexation
the property was a legal nonconforming use in the County. The
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER outlines the violations and requires the
following action to be obeyed: cease and desist the use of the
property as a junkyard, to remove houses stored on runners,
furniture, wood scraps, appliances, chairs, paint, cans, tires,
mattresses, oil containers, four bulldozers, railroad ties, bottles
and general debris from the property. This ORDER was appealed to
the Planning Commission, who upheld the ORDER as being valid and
the ORDER has now been appealed to the City Council. Mr. Jensen
provided a view graph of the Land Use Table from the Zoning
Ordinance, which specifies that a junkyard in an IG zone requires
a Special Use Permit. Mr. Sesko will probably claim that the
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 14 of 30
property is a legal nonconforming use. To operate a junkyard in
Kitsap County a site must have a zoning designation that will
allow that use. Prior to annexation the subject site was zoned
residential. Following annexation, the site was rezoned as
Industrial General incongruence with the Auto Center Way area. Mr.
Jensen stated he reserved the right to show a video of the subject
property following Mr Sesko's presentation.
William Sesko 3536 Arsenal Way, questioned the correctness of
Exhibit A being comments submitted by the public rather than the
notice he received from the City? President Huff-Menees asked Mr.
Sesko if all of the exhibits are listed on the itemized list he was
given and did he have an opportunity to view them prior to this
hearing? Mr. Sesko stated he was not sure if the Notice Of Appeal
should be listed as an exhibit. President Huff-Menees stated she
did not believe that was necessary Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
confirmed the Notice Of Appeal would not be an exhibit. Mr. Sesko
questioned shouldn't the Planning Department's video tape be listed
as Exhibit A? President Huff-Menees stated she did not believe
Council was concerned with the order of the exhibits as they were
with addressing his concern of last week that he be made aware of
the exhibits. So, if we can proceed knowing that you have seen the
exhibits and are aware of what Council will see during this
hearing. Mr. Sesko stated ok. He next raised an issue of not
receiving the proper notification for the Planning Commission
hearing, which in his opinion required the inclusion of a statement
of the appeal including a summary of the factual findings and
conclusions disputed in the letter of appeal. When he brought that
point to the Planning Commission's attention they did not give it,
in his opinion, serious consideration and showed an appearance of
disregard for the way to conduct a public meeting. He asked for
Council's comment on that point. He also believed this issue
should be remanded back to the Planning Commission so it could be
brought forward in the proper manner. President Huff-Menees
questioned if the point about the Notice Of Appeal had been raised
by Mr. Sesko at the previous Council meeting? Mr. Sesko stated no,
the hearing was continued because he didn't receive a listing of
exhibits. President Huff-Menees explained the City had satisfied
the issue of exhibits and she was inclined to agree with the
Planning Commission in terms of the Notice of Appeal having been
made available to him thereby satisfying the City's requirement in
that respect; and it didn't need to be remanded back to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Sesko asked then why would it be
specifically stated in the Council's rules of procedure. He
emphasized it states "the notice shall contain...", it does not
make it optional. Mr. Overson pointed out the Notice Of Appeal
does contain the information identified by Mr. Sesko. Mr. Sesko
stated on subsequent notices he received elaborated on their
intent. Mr. Overson stated from his viewpoint they have
TAPE #1307
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 15 of 30
substantially met the requirement. President Huff-Menees stated
she supported Mr. Overson's position and the City Attorney concurs
with that position; therefore the hearing should proceed.
Sievers, City Attorney, stated he felt there was substantial
compliance with the Ordinance. The scope of the appeal was well
stated and how much fact finding is included is pretty much
discretionary.
TAPE #1308
President Huff-Menees reminded Mr. Sesko that at the previous
Council meeting he was asked him if there was anything else he
wanted addressed in terms of continuing this public hearing. At
that time, he stated his concern was the list of the exhibits and
that nothing else needed to be address, in his opinion, and the
hearing could go forward once he received the list of exhibits,
which the Planning Department provided. Mr. Sesko stated he had a
difference of opinion and felt the issue should go back to the
Planning Commission. President Buff-Menees restated the City
complied with his request from the previous Council meeting and the
pubic hearing needs to move forward. Mr. Sesko stated he realized
that, but his factual point is the Notice Of Hearing issued for the
Planning Commission Hearing. Mr. Neville called for a point of
order and explained remanding something back to the Planning
Commission is an option for the Council, but the discussion on the
issue must take place to find out which option is appropriate. Mr.
Sesko stated the point he wants to bring up is that because of his
concern over the validity of the Notice Of Appeal, he was not
prepared to make a proper presentation to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Sievers stated one of the reasons he did not think a
prejudicial hearing should be remanded was that the notice is given
to surrounding property owners to inform them of the nature of the
appeal. Mr. Sesko was certainly aware of the Planning Commission
hearing. The second thing is the notice for tonight's hearing,
which also invites public comment and testimony, did contain a more
detailed scope of the appeal and those people would be entitled to
testify for Council's consideration, which is a reason they can
take that testimony into account and probably should not remand it
back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sesko emphasized when he
brought up this issue to the Planning Commission they did not
respond to him, but went onto take a vote against him without
completing the public hearing.
Mr. Sesko moved forward with his presentation and explained he felt
the site met the criteria of a "storage yard or outdoor storage"
rather than the City's definition of a "junkyard". He agreed that
the subject site needed to be cleaned up and a lot of the materials
were just plain junk. He is renting the site to Mr. Burley as a
favor to Chuck Haselwood. He acknowledged under the City's Zoning
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 16 of 30
Ordinance the use as a junkyard did require a Special Use Permit.
He felt a nonconforming use would not apply to the site because it
could be legally zoned. He brought up the use as a "construction
services yard" and felt his site fit that category as well. That
use is permitted outright in the IG zoning, and that use was
established prior to the annexation. He did not understand how
that would violate the zoning rules. He referenced Resolution
#2508, adopting the City's revised Comprehensive Plan in which it
shows Werner Road as an industrial corridor. Under recommended
policies within the Comprehensive Plan, it states: "The City shall
work with the Kitsap County to insure both the County plan has
designed this corridor for future industrial development. The City
shall insure that a utility capacity can adequately serve this area
and plan for needed service extension and infrastructure
improvements. The City shall work with local property owners.to
coordinate annexation of unincorporated islands as soon as
possible. The Werner corridor is within its jurisdiction ..... "
Sesko stressed this property was used for a contractor service
storage yard before annexation. Evan Burley was working with the
City to remove the houses off Madison Street. If the property was
in the County, Mr. Burley could have located the houses within that
island. When the site was annexed and the zoning was lost, Mr.
Burley was not able to move them further into that area. Now there
is a process where Chuck Haselwood may give Mr. Burley a piece of
land further up that is still in the County. It may take some time
to get all of that worked out, but in the meantime as a "contractor
storage yard" he believed the equipment stored there would be
legal. He noted he now has access to the back of this property and
if Mr. Burley doesn't clean up the area he will do it himself.
Mr. Jensen submitted Exhibit A from the Planning Commission
hearing, which is an aerial photo submitted by Dave Barcelon, owner
of the adjacent property, showing the condition of his property
under construction and the Mr. Sesko's lot. Mr. Winters asked how
current was the photo? Mr. Barcolon stated it was taken about four
months ago. Mr. Winters asked Mr. Sesko how long he owned the
subject site? Mr. Sesko stated 15-20 years, he bought it as a
favor for Evan Burley and gave him an option to purchase back the
property. Mr. Winters asked how long the site looked in its
present state? Mr. Sesko stated since Evan Burley moved onto the
property, which took place shortly before the property was annexed.
The County was requiring Mr. Burley to tear down the houses, which
is what created the mess. Mr. Winters asked how long ago since the
County asked Mr. Burley to clean up the houses. Mr. Sesko
explained about a year ago the County allowed the houses to be
moved out of the city onto County property and then asked him to
tear them down. Mr. Winters asked Mr. Sesko when he planned to
clean up the site? Mr. Sesko stated right a way.
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 17 of 30
Mr. Jensen referenced Exhibit B - a letter, and noted Mr. Sesko
stated Mr. Burley had an agreement with Kitsap County regarding
some houses that were moved off his property onto the subject lot.
He quoted the following from that agreement: "Mr. Burley agrees to
demolish all four structures (three stick frame houses and one old
mobile) currently situated off Werner Road on the parcel with the
Assessor's Account #4564-001-027-0007 by June 15. 1994." (Note that
is the subject property.) Mr. Jensen pointed out three of those
houses are still there and one is now being demolished. The
agreement went on to say: "Upon demolition of the above mentioned
structures. KitsaD County will agree to the moving of the remaining
house currently on Madison Street to the lot with Assessor's
Account #4564-001-027-0007 upon the submittal of a Building Permit
for the structure; further .... " Mr. Jensen has seen no evidence of
a Building Permit for the structure, obviously the other structures
are still there over a year later. Therefore, the agreement with
the County was not in effect because it was violated by not meeting
the June 15, 1994, deadline. Secondly, Mr. Sesko picked out a
couple of uses from the Zoning Code that would be allowed outright
in that zone. However, anyone exerting the existence of a use,
whether legal or nonconforming has to prove it is a legal use
through land use permits, building permits or business licenses.
He would ask Mr. Burley to produce those as evidence so some type
of use could be established and resolve any misunderstanding. Mr.
Jensen proceeded tO show the video, which was made about the time
the CEASE AND DESIST ORDER was issued.
David Barcelon, 4701 Kean Avenue, stated he just built the new
Truck Town in front of Mr. Sesko's property. He spent
approximately one million dollars on the new facility and the
property directly behind him has three dilapidated houses, numerous
bulldozers, and vehicles in different states of disrepair. He is
appalled that the City has to go through such a lengthy process to
clean up the mess. He would not consider the subject property to
be a junkyard, he'd consider it a garbage dump.
David Nelson, Building Official, gave a brief history of the City's
enforcement actions on the subject site: All but one of the homes
shown along Kean Street were under abatement when Mr. Barcelon
purchased the "Truck Town" site and the houses were moved into the
County. Kitsap County immediately took enforcement action and put
the houses under abatement as dangerous buildings. (Note: the
letter Mr. Jensen quoted from indicated that Mr. Burley agreed to
demolish the houses, except for one. That letter also stated these
structures were previously condemned by the City of Bremerton.)
There were nine structures at the time they did an earlier
inventory of the "Truck Town" property. As indicated, there has
been no permit activity on the remaining houses, although Mr.
Burley has been encouraged to seek proper permits. Mr. Burley was
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 18 of 30
informed the property was to be zoned Industrial General, thereby
giving him an opportunity to apply under current zoning, which he
failed to do. The City's latest enforcement action was taken in
March of this year and after visiting the site today he could see
that very little if anything had been done to clean up the area.
All deadlines are passed for these issues. An appeal was made to
the Appeals Board, who uphold the decision that it was dangerous,
so he is proceeding with that activity. He supports the position
that there was not an established used on the site and nothing but
residential units were visible, most of which were dangerous or
derelict buildings.
Mr. Sesko stated the property has been used as "storage" since he
became the owner. When the site was annexed into the City he
expected it to have IG zoning, which was accomplished. The IG zone
allows storage yard out right, which should be a continued use. He
feels the bulldozers and the house on wheels would be legal
storage. The mess around the property was created by the
demolition of the buildings by Evan Burley, which was not done in
a very professional manner. He noted there was not a lower access
to the property because Mr. Barcalon had it blocked off during
construction of "Truck Town". Mr. Barcalon told Mr. Sesko
emphatically that he could not cross his property, yet he had the
alley that the City vacated blocked with his equipment/construction
process, which is a'problem for him even up to today. He does have
a demolition permit for the one house that was on the property. He
thought the non-attached houses had been moved onto his property
with the City and County's approval since they were moved during
daylight hours and very visible to the public. He will appeal the
use as a "storage yard" because that is his right. He finds this
type of process to be a waste of time. Getting into a legal
process to protect his right is not the way it should have to be
done, but was something he had to do. If we look at the
nonconforming use as a junkyard, which the City has designated the
site, if it was used as a junkyard prior to annexation it requires
a Special Use Permit and consequently cannot become a nonconforming
use. The only option available is being a legal use, which it is.
He questioned that point in prior discussions. The nonconforming
use is for only activities that are not permitted within a zone
with a Special Use Permit. He questioned how would that use, if it
was proved that it existed before, be allowed? Mr. Jensen stated
the definition of a nonconforming use includes all types of uses.
He quoted: "Any activity, development or condition which is legallv
established prior to the effective date of this ordinance or
subsequent amendments to this ordinance. and which would not be
permitted out right nor as an accessory use under this ordinance
and is not specifically listed as being permitted by Special Use
Permit, P.U.D. or other special permitting process". He went on to
explain there has not been an established use on the property, if
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 19 of 30
there had then there would be a record of an application for a
Special Use Permit to prove legal use before annexation. Mr. Sesko
stated if that was a legal nonconforming use before annexation,
then he would have to apply for a Special Use Permit before it
could continue to be used in that manner. Mr. Jensen stated he has
no proof of any use legally established or illegally established on
the property prior to annexation. Mr. Sesko stated no, it wouldn't
apply. Mr. Sievers stated the difficult part is whether or not it
was legally established in the County. Mr. Jensen stated the City
makes no assertion that there is a legal nonconforming use on the
site, that is Mr. Sesko's assertion if he chose to make such a
statement. To be legal in the City he needs to apply for a Special
Use Permit, then it would not be a nonconforming use. Mr. 8levers
explained first of all the development has to be legally
established by the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance. In the
case of annexation, the City recognizes the County's zoning was
legally established under the County's Zoning Code. Before
annexation, State Law requires the City to continue recognizing
that use as a nonconforming use. To establish a nonconforming use
as the defense to a violation of the City's zoning code, it first
of all has to be legally established under someone's law. The
City's point is there has not been any evidence produced that it
was a permitted use or an accessory to a permitted use in the
County. Mr. Sesko stated his interpretation would indicated that
if it is permitted'with a Special Use Permit or outright, it does
not require any further action. Therefore, a non-legal use in the
County has been continued and annexed into the City, then, the use
becomes legal. Mr. Sievers explained no, it stays non-legal. Mr.
Sesko stated it was approved under that zoning with a Special Use
Permit within the County. Mr. Sievers pointed out there was no
action initiated for a Special Use Permit when the site was in the
county. Mr. Sesko restated if a person has a illegal use and he
applies for zoning that makes that use legal, then he should not
have to go through a Special Use Permit process. This exclusion
more or less indicates that if the use requires a Special Use
Permit then it can't be a nonconforming use, it would be an out-
right approved use. Mr. Sievers stated no, you can get it approved
as a legal use if you go through one of those processes, i.e.
Special Use Permit, P.U.D., etc, then it becomes a legal use. Mr.
Sesko stated then if he proved prior use it wouldn't do any good
under such a scenario because it precludes that. Say the site was
a nonconforming junkyard that had been in use for 20 years and
there were records validating that use, but because it required a
Special Use Permit it could not come in under the nonconforming
use. Mr. Law called for a point of order and emphasized we are
beating a dead horse because this was already established as being
illegal when the property was in the County and upon annexation it
was also not zoned in the City, so there is no legal justification.
Mr. Sesko repeated the zoning specifically allows a junkyard.
#1078
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 20 of 30
Overson suggested Mr. Sesko read the document sent to him that
clearly defines that it is not legal and why it is not legal. Mr.
Sesko again responded that he believes it to be a storage yard and
not a junkyard. And, the junk was strewn around because the City
required the demolition of the houses. All of that was done with
the City's and County's permission.
Mr. Colvin asked the City attorney what is demanded of the Council
in this case and what are the real issues? Mr. Sievers explained
the nonconforming status is a defense to the CEASE AND DESIST
ORDER, which he views as a pure legal issue especially given the
fact that there hasn't been any evidence provided that would
support Mr. Sesko's position. The legal issue on that is it was
not a legally established as a nonconforming use; therefore it has
no legitimacy and no defense to its current operation as. a
junkyard. The other issue is what is a junkyard and is the position
taken by the appellant in that he believes it falls under a
different definition and is an outright permitted use in the IG
zone. It is up to the City Council to waive the various things on
this site, the way the site is maintained whether that falls within
the junkyard definition or storage definition that was mentioned by
the appellant. There has been no evidence presented that it is a
legal nonconforming use, so it needs to move on to see if it fits
within the junkyard definition.
Mr. Winters stated after viewing the video and listening to the
testimony he was concerned about the direction this issue seemed to
be going. He believes the Building Department represents health
safety and welfare; and the City is lucky that nothing has happened
at this point because the what he viewed on the video looked pretty
dangerous. He stated his support to uphold the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
M/S/C/U(Winters/Law) to UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision
to uphold the CEASE and DESIST ORDER and hereby recognize the
property at Tax Parcel #4564-001-027-00 (Werner Road) as being used
as a "JUNKYARD", which is not allowed in the "Industrial General
(IG)" zone without approval of a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Overson stated Mr. Sesko admitted that the site is a storage
yard and he does not dispute the City's action against baring it as
a junkyard. He was not sure how the issue got this far, but he
tends to support the motion.
Motion received a unanimous vote.
9B - PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT & REZONE REOUEST
FORTWOAD jOiNiNG PARCELS TOTALING 3.7 ACRES; AND ORDiNANCE (FIRST
READING) 7 APPLICANT: FPH MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7 LOCATION:
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 21 of 30
WEST END OF EAST BROAD STREET, #AB95-177
The parcels are located at 1000 East Broad Street, off of Wheaton
Way at the west end of East Broad Street. A Comprehensive Plan
Designation amendment from "GENERAL & HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (C-G)" to
"MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)" is requested, along with a
Zoning Designation amendment from "General Business (GB)" to
"Multiple-Family Residential (MFR)".
This proposal was presented and discussed at the Planning
Commission public hearing on July 18, 1995. The Planning
Commission recommends APPROVAL of the applications. The City
Council is required to make a final determination on these
requests, and if approved, pass an ordinance for the action. An
Ordinance is included for consideration and first reading.
President Huff-Menees asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question. Mr. Winters stated he was personally
acquainted with several of the proponents and asked if anyone had
a problem with him being seated on this issue? President Huff-
Menees announced there was no objection; therefore all members of
the City Council were seated.
Shane Jensen, Planning Department, displayed a view graph showing
the location of the two vacant parcels with a combined area of
approximately 3.7 'acres. The reason for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and a rezone at the same time is because the City is
required to have consistency between the long range Comprehensive
Plan and the zoning of the property, which enacts the development
requirement of specific uses on the property. The reason behind
this request is the applicant is proposing to build a 43-1ot
subdivision on the subject property. His discussion will center on
what is the best land use in the subject area and whether or not it
should be changed from Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation
zoning to a Residential Comprehensive Plan designation zone. The
requests go on the Comprehensive Plan from General Highway
Commercial to Medium Density Residential, allowing residential
dwelling units to a maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre. We
would then see a general borderline between commercial properties
to the north and residential to the south near East Broad Street.
The zoning designation requested from General Business to Multiple
Family, which would extend the residential zoning to south of East
Broad Street. Considerable discussion took place over what is the
best use of this property, which is located in an area that is
abutting a residential zone. In the vicinity there are some small
businesses on East Broad Street and some vacant buildings, Kings
Table Restaurant and Family Pancake House Restaurant, with Parker
Lumber located to the north along Wheaton Way. The abutting
commercial property to the north is a vacant parcel owned by James
Robinson.
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 22 of 30
When amending the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning, certain criteria
must be addressed: (1) to see if the plan, map and elements and
zoning would be consistent (by doing a rezone and Comprehensive
Plan Amendment at the same time that requirement is being
fulfilled). (2) There is a listing in the report about the
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that are most consistent with
this request and some that are least consistent, so that Council
can make their evaluation based on that information. Under Goal
#3(D) in the staff report it states: "Keep major roads outside of
Bremerton's neighborhoods." Mr. Jensen pointed out originally
there was a proposed commercial access road that would be an
extension of East Broad Street. Discussion between staff members
and the developers addressed taking careful consideration when
considering losing a piece of commercial property. Only about 9%
of the City's land use is in commercial and 35% is residential, so
Planning staff had to make some tough choices prior to their making
a recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve it as
presented. When this item went before the Planning Commission, it
did so with this proposed road. Staff wanted to see the extension
of East Broad Street to connect to the commercial areas and
eventually be the first leg of an eventual road that would work its
way up to Riddell Road and free up some of the commercial
properties in the back. The Planning Commission did not find the
idea of extending East Broad Street would be a good facilitator for
commercial development; therefore they gave up on that idea and in
their discussion and findings decided there needed to be some type
of transitions between commercial zoning and residential zoning in
the subject area. The Planning Commission decided, with their
recommendation to rezone, they would look at getting development to
be encouraged to the parcels to the west and south and to put a
stub road along a small utilities easement that would eventually
connect with Hanford Avenue to promote some residential circulation
access. It would also extend East Broad Street out to connect with
the parcel to the west, so when it developed it would have access.
One of the policies that this proposal is least consistent with is
economic development - residential encroachment into a commercial
center can erode economic development possibilities and establish
new incompatible neighbors. Mr. Jensen noted that was a valid
point, but as mentioned in the subject area there will be
incompatible neighbors on one of the properties that abuts the
commercial zone. As part of the Comprehensive Plan review, Section
2(c) "Interests of the entire community" addresses the following:
"It is in the City Council's purview, and is at the heart of the
decision, to look at the different policies and even though they
may conflict in some way, we need to find what the overall goals
and policies should be...not look at them literally, but look at
what is most appropriate for this location and at this time. An
argument posed by the applicant is that it is hard to find
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 23 of 30
residential properties of an acre or more or properties that can be
conglomerate to develop into a housing project. Regarding that
issue, the Planning Commission and City Council needs to make the
value judgements on the public interest for the City.
The next criteria is what would the effects of the amendment be on
the natural, economic and social environment of the City and will
those affects be beneficial Mr. Jensen pointed out there is
minimal effect on the "natural environment". On the issue of
economic effect, that could go either way. Typically, rezones are
usually changing zoning designations from residential to commercial
for more property value, but in this case it would generally be
considered a down zone, but in light of its location it may be a
good place for such action to take place. The applicants have
tired to make provisions that address seeing further residential
development to the south and west. The subject area would be
developed initially as its own isolated community focusing in on
itself, but then providing later connections to other properties.
Rezone criteria involves showing the need for the rezone for the
following reasons: (1) there have been marked changes in the area
that would necessitate a rezone or make a rezone ok if requested.
Mr. Jensen highlighted there has been lots of commercial
development within the past 10 years along the Wheaton Way corridor
and is a viable commercial area, but we have seen vacancies come up
as several businesses have moved to the north, just outside of the
City limits. Part of the applicant's rational for the reason is
that by providing more population closer to commercial centers
there is usually an increase in demand for commercial services.
The applicants hope to be the catalyst by providing a development
that would be adjacent to commercial services. (2) The fezone will
correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was
inappropriate when established - Mr. Jensen identified that there
was no incorrect zoning classification before and there is no
overlay zoning designation that is being changed. (3) The rezone
bears a substantial relation to the Public interest or welfare
because there is a public need for a change of the kind in
question; and that public need will be best served by changing the
zoning classification of the subject property. Mr. Jensen
explained there is a definite demand in the City for entry-level
housing that this project would propose. However, consideration
also needs to be given that under the City's comprehensive
planning, we have found there is land within the City to
accommodate the 20-year projection allotment of 20,000 people. (4)
Are public facilities and services presently available and adeuuate
or can be reasonably made available. Mr. Jensen stated all
services are available and adequate upon extension to the property,
which would come along with any subdivision application.
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 24 of 30
In conclusion, Mr Jensen touched on the connector street, which the
Planning Commission took out based on testimony at that hearing.
However, it was still Council's option to consider different types
of development on a commercial project. The main reason the road
idea for East Broad Street being a commercial road was dropped had
to do with working with the applicant and Mr. Robinson, a property
owner to the north of the subject site. Mr. Robinson felt the road
extension would not facilitate growth to those properties to the
north and somewhere it would have to bisect his lot, thereby
reducing its development potential. Mr. Robinson also showed that
he and the other property owners in the area have easement access
to Wheaton Way and Riddell Road. It was shown that the property
can be a good transitional use from commercial to residential.
What is proposed is a fairly high intensity single family use.
When we see commercial bordered by a dense residential development
to a lower residential use there is protection for the properties.
It was also concluded that if this rezone is granted and the
project is approved, there should be a provision for an adequate
buffer that is created by the applicants now on their property to
protect the commercial property to the north, which is currently
undeveloped, and stipulated as a condition. The Planning
Commission found and recommended approval of the rezone and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on the testimony given.
Mr. Overson asked far clarification the density of the 3.7 acres as
requested by the applicant? Mr. Jensen explained it would allow 12
units per acre. Mr. Overson stated he understood what was being
proposed is to up to 18 at 3.7 acres, which equates to 67 units.
Mr. Jensen explained the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation
would allow that much under the rezone. He pointed out the project
would not be asking for that much density. Mr. Overson pointed out
Council could not, at this time, consider the make up of the
project and he hoped Council would not be troubled with site plans
that are inappropriate for this hearing.
Michael Brown, 1904 Marine Drive - partner in the Broadmoor
Partnership, stated he and Bob Mathwig purchased the subject
property over the past two years and have demolished four
dilapidated residences, which were a source of concern to both the
Planning Department and Police Department. During the past two
years they have made extensive effort to meet the thrust of the
Growth Management Act by locating infill sites in urban areas,
which can accept incoming populations and reduce urban sprawl. It
is further their feeling that this type of high density single
family development in tight quarters in the downtown will also
provide a means by which other planning goals more specific to the
needs of our city can be accomplished. Some of these include: (1)
creating ownership and pride of ownership, which elevates the
overall quality of neighborhoods and community; (2) creating a
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 25 of 30
customer base for those businesses and commercial uses, who have
already made a substantial commitment to be in Bremerton; (3) to
capture for Bremerton a portion of the 4,000 incoming jobs and
families as well as the estimated 6,000 service and support related
jobs that will necessarily follow. Studies have shown that for
every job created via the Federal government, it takes
approximately 1.5 service support related jobs to sustain that one
created by Federal employment. Studies have shown people will shop
within 1/2 mile of their homes. Much effort by many people and
organizations have gone into the revitalization effort of
Bremerton. These efforts have been rewarded by the Navy's
realignment of bases and Bremerton's success in having PSNS become
the hub of a super port. This measure is expected to generate yet
4,000 Federal jobs after subtracting some prior reductions in
force. Coupled with the Federal side are valuable efforts Ito
attract other businesses to diversify Bremerton and reduce its
dependency on Federal government employment. In deed, these
efforts have resulted in several companies relocate here, such as
Westinghouse, which is located in the commercial/industrial area
west of SR-3. The infrastructure in Bremerton is largely completed
and paid for except for some unfortunate rework of the sewer
treatment plant. The Bremerton School District is in excellent
physical condition with substantial capacity in many schools
and a multimillion dollar fund on hand for new construction.
Bremerton can absorb substantial additional population without
incurring either capital or operating costs, that will generate
substantial new revenues in the form of property taxes and sales
tax revenues, if these residents will shop in Bremerton.
Berry Keenan 1616 Arvon Avenue - partner in the Broadmoor Village
Partnership, provided the following information from the most
recent Kitsap County Real Estate Trends Report Spring/Vol. 6, which
may help to understand what a new residential community can do for
the City.of Bremerton: The current housing stock in Bremerton is
growing older and increasing numbers of homes are being turned into
rental units and commercial use and lost through obsolescence and
condemnation. As a result, over the past 15 years homeownership in
Bremerton has gone from 60-70%, down to 30-40% of the current
housing stock. Along with this decrease in homeownership, the
population has also declined steadily over this period. During
this same 15 year period, single family homes in Kitsap County have
increased 50% and commercial has also grown along with that
population increase. Bremerton needs revitalization and it needs
to reverse the trend of negative population growth. We need people
living here to support the City facilities and businesses that have
made a commitment to be here. When the population declines
business declines, and the City declines. At the present time,
Bremerton has over 80 acre of Commercial property available for
development. Mr. Keenan felt the Warnet Road corridor was better
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 26 of 30
suited for commercial development due to its proximity to the
highway system and other commercial developments. The City has
conducted a research of available and unutilized residential lands
and concluded that 20,000 more people can be accommodated without
any rezones. They had no argument with that mathematical research;
however, there are serious economically feasibility problems with
the actual availability of such land, particularly with the parcel
size of greater than one acre and close to the urban core. Much of
this land has the proper medium density zoning, but is beyond its
economical value to development because of the existing structures,
undelineated wetlands or unbuildable terrain, unsuitable soil
conditions, such as the Haddon School site, and public opposition.
In short, if there were other parcels available for affordable
communities, they would not be looking for a rezone on the East
Broad Street parcel. The subject parcel meets their criteria for
development of a successful residential project because of its
infill location, access to schools needing students, close location
to public transportation and walking distance to a wonderful
commercial shopping area. Forty three homes within walking
distance to Bag-N-Save may have been the deciding factor for them
to continue business in their location. The property has all
infrastructure close by and in quick response area from Police and
Fire agencies. In conclusion, Mr. Keenan provided a slide
presentation showing the vacant commercial properties that are for
sale or for lease in a close radius of the subject site.
Mr. Brown stated over the past 15 years regional retailers have
been lost to the Kitsap Mall because population growth has boomed
in central Kitsap and north Kitsap because regional circulation
best serves the Silverdale area via SR-3. During that same time,
Bremerton has seen a shift north along the Wheaton Way corridor to
follow population density and be convenient to customers. As new
centers are open, competition is created for those closer to
downtown thus creating vacant space along the Wheaton Way corridor,
i.e. Azteca, bag-N-Save, etc., all of which are moving from centers
with excellent ingress and egress, signage and frontage. To
further complicate the situation for existing businesses,
population continues to move north. With the hub of jobs in PSNS
and in the downtown on the south and residential populations in the
north, Wheaton Way becomes a travel corridor from point "A" to
point "B", more congested and less attractive to local consumers.
Their position is that there is a vast and expanding vacancy of
commercial along Wheaton Way and what is really needed is to turn
around the tide of loss of residency and to shore up the businesses
and commercial enterprises that already exist, not more commercial
to compete with those that exist. The regional retailers can
remain in Kitsap Mall and a healthy commercial center can exist in
Bremerton only if we have a population base to sustain it. No one
would argue that new industrial expansion is also essential to
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 27 of 30
create a healthy, diversified Bremerton, the only question then is
where to locate it. He applauded the ongoing efforts to slate that
kind of development along National Avenue and Werner Road
corridors, which are excellent expansion potential and good
regional circulation opportunities. These are two excellent
points, which the subject site does not have. The thought that
this was a good site for industrial expansion warrants
consideration, but reality is it is not best suited for that use
for reasons just stated.
Emily Moshey, 1206 Park Avenue, stated her support of this proposal
and felt it could only compliment what is being proposed for
redevelopment of the downtown waterfront.
Bob Mathwig, 8150 Chico Way - member of the Broadmoor Village
Partnership, stated this was the first time he has ever down zoned
a piece of property, but he felt it was important. He looks
forward to continue cleaning up the area. He believes the best use
of the site was residential due to it being a less desirable area
for commercial. He felt strongly that Bremerton needed something
to draw the population back within its borders to purchase homes.
He pointed out entry-level homes fall within the $90-100,000 range
and not considered real low income. He has been impressed with
projects in that price range and if they are developed correctly
they look good. 'He also agreed that bringing in additional
population will be a positive influence on local business in the
Wheaton Way corridor.
Elizabeth Bue11, High Avenue, stated she agreed that the subject
site was not best suited for a commercial use due to its location.
A housing project may be fine, but she cautioned the City to be
watchful about the width of the houses.
James Robinson, 4904 Kitsap Way, stated he owns the rectangular
piece of property directly north of the subject property. He
purchased his property in 1971 and he agreed, in writing, at that
time to annex into the City if and when, and he joined every
petition to annex into the City until it was accomplished. The
City has always determined the highest and best use of his property
and that to the north and some to the east would be for commercial
use. The subject property has been residential in the
Comprehensive Plan until more recent versions. He is an advocate
for property owners' rights within consistent and reasonable
regulation. The proponents of this project have a viable proposal
for the use of their property and have been very cooperative in
affecting an orderly transition from and between their proposed
residential zoning and his Commercial General zoning. Given that
and the approval process in place, he believes they can coexist
very nicely. Therefore, he concurs in their request and
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 28 of 30
respectfully asked the Council's
Commission's recommendation.
approval of the Planning
David Smith, member of the Broadmoor Village partnership, reviewed
the criteria for consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and requested change in zoning. He viewed the discussion between
the developers of the subject site and Planning staff over whether
or not the site should be retained as commercial or rezoned to
residential as being very beneficial. He reminded Council of Arvon
Village, a project that was approved two years ago and was somewhat
of a pioneering effort both in the size of the lots and developing
it in an older developed part of the City. This project has a
little different consideration since it is zoned commercial and is
desirous by some to see commercial uses developed. The central
argument in the Partnership's point of view is that new residential
population, who will purchase the homes, will become a part of the
City and will be consumers interested in supporting the businesses.
It does concern him to see more vacancies in commercial buildings
growing and loss of businesses along the Wheaton Way corridor.
One way to address this problem is to look at other communities and
learn what they have done to reverse the exact trends that
Bremerton is facing, such as Boise, Idaho, and Salem, Oregon.
Those cities found that a serious effort had to be made to
encourage homeownership and additional population as their own
population shrank.' The Partnership's argument with staff was they
would like to change the priorities a little, and the partnership's
goals are the same as the Planning Department. The goal of adding
additional residential owners is the most important goal, because
it is the key to changing the others. This also shows the
commitment to keeping the city vital with affordable housing. He
has heard that this was one reason why Bremerton won out as a
"Super Port", because of the affordable housing along with all the
other amenities that are here. In conclusion, the concept of
additional residential is where their argument is based, that by
bringing a residential community into an area, which is suffering
from vacancies, they are in effect, bringing in customers for the
commercial.
Mr. Colvin stated Mr. Brown's comments indicate that he and his
company have confidence in the future of Bremerton, and he admires
the group for investing in Bremerton. He inquired if Mr. Brown was
aware of a letter from Mr. Barry, and if so, had he addressed his
concerns? Mr. Brown stated that in the letter, Mr. Barry made a
request to the City to address his concerns about stormwater and
runoff, and he assured Council that these concerns were all studied
and analyzed by Engineering professionals, and are all included in
the Engineering package that was submitted with the application.
Mr. Colvin then questioned the price range of the homes in the
#0279
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 29 of 30
proposed project, but Mr. Overson interjected that the issue before
Council was the change in zoning for the property. Mr. Dawkins
referred to the preliminary community sight plan, and questioned
Mr. Brown if the center of the project was all open-space, and Mr.
Overson again reminded Council that the issue before them was a
change in zoning.
Mr. Law stated he was enthused about the rezoning, but did have a
concern with the time-frames of the project and wanted some
clarification as to how the area will be accessed. Mr. Brown
addressed the time-frame question, since that does pertain to the
re-zone, and stated a plan for the site had to be developed and
implemented in a one-year period from the date of the approval, or
the approval would revert to the existing zoning.
Mr. Overson wanted Council to realize that if this rezone was
approved by them tonight, "Mr. Brown & Company" could quite
possibly decide to sell this property to another company, who could
then decide to build a 67-unit apartment on the property. It would
be legal and within their rights. He wants Council to fully
understand what they are deciding on, that this is a change in land
use, and the change is long-term.
Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney for any remarks on those
comments. Mr. 8ievers stated he agreed with Mr. Overson's
comments, and that there is a lot more detail in the packet than is
really before them for decision tonight. ME. Winters wanted it on
record that he believes, with the direction the Comprehensive Plan
is going and the need for medium density residential, that this re-
zone is very appropriate, and agrees with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Mr. Jensen stated that in the conditions attached, the intent was
to have a one-year window of opportunity for this developer, on
this site. It was felt that the property was too valuable as
commercial to leave it with nothing going on it. If they are going
to build this project, they are going to do it now, or it is going
to go back to commercial. He also clarified these conditions are
on both the rezone and the Comprehensive Plan change to be
consistent. Mr. Winters stated for clarification that in the event
they don't build the project within a year, it would revert back to
commercial zoning. Mr. Jensen stated yes, if they do not obtain
right-of-way and building permits. He apologized for not putting
this condition in the ordinance, but that it is listed under the
Planning Commission's recommendations.
M/S/C/U(Neville/Dawkins) to approve ordinance, on first reading,
amending the Official Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps of the
City of Bremerton for property located at 1000 East Broad Street,
TAPE #1308
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 16, 1995
Page 30 of 30
located at the west end of East Broad Street approximately 460 feet
west of Wheaton Way in East Bremerton. (File #RZ-02-95).
With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
KATHLEEN L~KEY, City Clerk
,~u'ncil President
City of Bremerton
KLM/SH-M/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault