HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/95TAPE #1305
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
COUNCIL
APPROVED
AUG 23 1995
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 9, 1995
#0022
#0037
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 9, 1995, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. Council
members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, Carlos
Montgomery, John Law, and Lon Overson. Councilmen David Farr and
Richard Neville 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
President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Pastor Gary
Fogelquist of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
CONSENT AGENUA
A. Minutes of Meeting - July 26, 1995
#AB95-165
M/S/C/U(Overson/Montgomery) 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 9, 1995, the Council does approve
for payment those vouchers included and further described as
follows: 186963, 186967 through 187107 in the amount of
$388,012.13; and Regular Payroll for the period ending July 31,
1995, in the amount of $738,546.17.
President Huff-Menees make the following announcements:
(1) City Council Study Session - August 21, starting at 5:30 P.M.,
in the Council Conference Room. Topics to be discussed:
Construction Projects Update; Corrosion Control Plan submitted to
Washington State; Wellhead Protection Update; Biosolids Program
Update.
(2) City Council Executive Session - August 23, 1995, 5:00 - 5:20
P.M., in the Council Conference Room. Topic to be discussed:
"Review Of Personnel Performance", per Chapter 42.30,110(g).
(3) City Council Study Session, August 23, 1995, immediately
following the City Council Meeting, in the City Council Chambers.
Topic to be discussed: "Gorst to Bremerton Connector Project".
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 2 of 22
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Winters reported he had a wonderful time at the Westpark
Community Unity event. He thanked Police Chief Du Fresne and his
wife, the D.A.R.E. Officers and all the volunteers for their
assistance in the Westpark event. He reminded everyone of the
City's Kids Day event on the boardwalk Friday, August 11, 12:00 -
3:00 P.M. He hoped everyone would support Kids Day and bring their
singing voices and stop by his Karioke setup.
Mr. Colvln reported this morning he enjoyed breakfast aboard the
USS Missouri where Mayor Horton gave an outstanding speech on
keeping the USS Missouri in Bremerton. He commended the Save The
Missouri Committee for the wonderful job they did in setting up the
morning gathering. He did have a difference of opinion about who
the USS Missouri belongs to...he does not regard it as a Bremerton
or Washington State ship, but an American ship for the whole United
States and that we, in Bremerton, would keep it in trust for the
visitors coming to see it, and we certainly welcome them.
Mr. Dawkins reported the Bremerton Central Lions Club has
volunteered to man the Information Kiosk at the USS Missouri site
each Sunday afternoon. He was amazed at the number of visitors to
the Missouri on a rainy Sunday.
Mr. Montgomery announced the Parks Department has been busy in
Forest Ridge Park and pointed out the following: tennis courts
have been refurbished, children's playground equipment is being
installed, horseshoe pits are being put in, picnic tables are being
set up, the side street will be repaved into a parking lot this
month and the parking lot in front of the playground will be paved,
and the restroom are to be refurbished.
Mr. Overson reported his daughter Nicole is back in Bremerton
having been away for some time in Alaska, and she is observing
notable changes taking place and is positively impressed. Part of
that change will include covers being put up covering the picnic
table area of the First Street Dock, which he felt would benefit
the people waiting for the walk on ferries. Aside from the
Missouri being an exciting event in town, lots of activity is
happening on the boardwalk, particularly on Friday evenings at the
concerts on the boardwalk. For those who would like to demonstrate
support to retain the USS Missouri in Bremerton, he encouraged a
visit to the Gift Shop on the boardwalk and the opportunity to
purchase a Missouri cup in various sizes and prices.
Mrs. Huff-Menees wanted to bring everyone's attention to the
hanging flower baskets in the downtown area and along the boardwalk
and how they dress up the City. She extended "compliments" to the
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 3 of 22
Parks Department, who constructed the baskets and maintain
s them, and to the South Kitsap High School Horticulture Class, who
planted them. Districts s#6, #7 and #8 held their joint District
Neighborhood Meeting on August 3. She thanked everyone who
attended that meeting and felt they had an excellent discussion on
the proposed Juvenile Detention Facility Ballot measure.
MAYORS REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton thanked Councilman Colvin for his compliment.
She tried to come up with a speech that would stir the group of
people gathered to support retaining the USS Missouri, which she
views as a good project for the City of Bremerton and is fully
supportive to have it remain here.
This afternoon she, Jim spencer, Interim Parks Director, and Jodi
Wroblewski, Assistant Parks Director, made a presentation before
the Inter-Agency For Outdoor Recreation (IAC) in the hopes of
obtaining grant funding for development of White's Blue Berry Farm
and the expansion of Evergreen Park. She found the process to be
very interesting and the City was competing with 20 applications
for local parks with approximately 2.5 million dollars available
within that category with a high end for each grant in the amount
of $300,000. The City will hear the results of their submittal in
September.
The City just received notification that a 2.5 million dollar loan
for the Callow Avenue stormwater project has been authorized by the
Public Works Trust Fund; and a second loan in the amount of 2
million dollars is available for that same project from the
Department Of Ecology (DOE). The City cannot use both loans
combined for one project, but may be able to use portions of both
loans and maximize what the City is trying to do by leveraging City
dollars. She extended "compliments" to the Public Works Department
for their efforts to obtain the low interest loans. The previous
Public Works Trust Fund, in the amount of 3.5 million dollars, will
save the City, over the life of the loan, in excess of one million
dollars.
Police Chief Paul Du Fresne briefly explained the Master Patrol
Officer Designation Program and the criteria required for an
officer to qualify. Mayor Horton, Police Chief Paul Du Fresne and
Captain Hatfield acknowledged the following seven members of the
Police force being inducted into that program: Officer Thomas
Ainslie, Officer Brian Johnson, Officer Dan Scott, Officer Luis
Olan, Officer Greg Steele, Officer Roy Alloway, Officer Alan
Hornburg.
Mayor Horton administered the Oath Of Office to Police Officer
Daniel Fatt, a lateral transfer from Honolulu Police Department.
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 4 of 22
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Charlotte Du Fresne, and Carol Atkinson, Executive Director of
Bremerton Main street Association, and AnnLaubach invited everyone
to the next Concert On The Boardwalk featuring Fiesta Mexicana,
authentic Mexican music, sponsored by The Azteca Mexican
Restaurants. Mrs. Atkinson displayed the 1995 Blackberry Festival
poster and announced they are available through the Mainstreet
Office.
De1 Knauss thanked the City Council for holding the public hearing
on the downtown waterfront urban renewal proposal; however, he
found it very disturbing that City Council members applauded in
response to a presentation made at a public hearing where the
public was asked to provide input, but no formal action would be
taken by the City Council. Again, he felt such action was
displaying a Council members vote on an issue prior to it coming
before them for a vote. Further, he attended Council's Study
Session on August 7 and he observed what he felt was totally
inappropriate action for a Council member, Mr. Winters, to be rude
and obnoxious saying things about the waterfront development to a
member of the public, who had not attended the Study Session held
on that issue.
7B - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CITIZENADVISORY COMMITTEE:
JACK LEFCOSKI, CHERYL KINSER, AND HELEN DAVIS, #AB95-166
On July 26, 1995, the City Council approved the 1996 CDBG Policy
Plan for the City of Bremerton. The next step in implementing the
plan and allocation process for CDBG funds is the formation of a
Citizen's Advisory Committee. Their roll will be to review the
CDBG applications, interview the applicants, and then present their
CDBG funding recommendations to the City Council for approval.
The Mayor's Office provided Development with several names of
citizen's interested in serving on City committees. The following
individuals have indicated a desire to be on the CDBG Citizen's
Advisory Committee: Jack Lefcoski, Cheryl Kinser, and Helen Davis.
Mayor Lynn Hotton explained this committee will have the
responsiblity to interview all of the Block Grant applications and
make a recommendation to the City Council as to which applications
should receive funding. She sees this opportunity as a wonderful
way for citizens to participate in government. The three people
being appointed to this committee bring with them strengths and
understanding of the make up of the Bremerton community. She urged
Council's confirmation of the CDBG Advisory Committee as presented.
Public comment - none.
!
#0840
#0880
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 5 of 22
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Overson) to confirm the Mayor's appointment of
Jack Lefcoski, Cheryl Kinser, and Helen Davis to the CDBG Advisory
Committee
8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4523 (SECOND READING), AMENDING BMC 2.12.040
CLARIFYING THE ENABLINO AUTHORITY FOR CITY PLANNING FUNCTIONS,
#AB95-163
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Montgomery) to pass Ordinance No. 4523 on second
reading, amending Bremerton Municipal Code Section 2.12,040 to
clarify the enabling authority for planning functions of the City.
9A - RESOLUTION NO. 2517, REGARDING 8ELECTION OF FLETCHERWRIGHT AS
DEVELOPER OF THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT UREANRENEWALAREA, ='~AD95-164
Representatives from Kitsap Transit and the City of Bremerton,
together with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce -
Downtown/Waterfront Task Force, the Port of Bremerton, Kitsap
Transit, and Washington State Ferries have reviewed the three (3)
responses to the Joint Request for Proposals for the Bremerton
Waterfront Redevelopment and Intermodal Terminal Project. The
committee has recommended the Fletcher Wright proposal for
negotiations leading to development of the Urban Renewal area and
design of the Intermodal Terminal. The Administration desires to
hear Council's impression of the selected team prior to commencing
intensive negotiations on the Memorandum of Understanding.
Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, explained this is a
continuation of discussion before the City Council for the last
several weeks. The issue is whether or not the Council supports
the Mayor's selection of the Fletcher Wright Development Team for
negotiations of a Memorandum Of Understanding, followed by a
specific Business Agreement. Over the last week the public
discussion has generated several questions, several criticisms and
many praises. One thing that he and Mayor Horton feel strongly
about is that we keep in front of us this is a very large project
with a long way to go. There are numerous details that must be
worked out, any one of which could dramatically affect the
proposal, but none of which will get addressed unless Council gives
its endorsement to go forward with the project. Several comments
have been made that caused the Administration to rethink some of
those details, which is a positive aspect, and will be evident as
the project moves forward. The Administration strongly supports
this proposal and urges Councilts favorable approval.
Robert Schnidler, President of Kitsap Physician Service (KPS),
revealed that KPS has been a Bremerton business since 1946 and
currently employs about 125 employees in their location on Warren
Avenue while conducting two businesses. They have made a
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 6 of 22
significant investment in Bremerton by purchasing their own
building where they are located along with other tenants. They are
also proud of sponsorship of the first softball tournament
conducted at the Pendergast Regional Park. He is also the
volunteer President of the Admiral Theater Foundation and was
pleased to announce they are near the completion of their three
million dollar capital campaign and looking forward, upon
completion, to negotiations with the City to proceed with final
renovation work. He believes Kitsap County and Bremerton residents
are very fortunate to have developers of the stature of Fletcher
Wright development team dedicated to assist us in developing the
waterfront area. He feels they have presented an excellent design
concept and they deserve an opportunity to proceed on that concept.
Speaking on behalf of the Board Of Directors of the Admiral
Theater Foundation, who are dedicated to the renovation of the
downtown area, any action to delay this process is going to be
viewed as an irresponsible action and not in the best interest of
Bremerton. Therefore, he encouraged the City Council to adopt the
resolution as presented.
Bonnie McDade, Director of Diversification for the Economic
Development Council of Kitsap County (EDC) and speaking on behalf
of Earl Smith, President of the EDC, stated their full fledged
support in favor of this redevelopment project. Bremerton has seen
many changes since the time she was born in this community. As an
adult returning to the community after being absent a number of
years, she recognizes that Bremerton is the cornerstone of Kitsap
County as the largest City, and it must be the "shining star." They
feel very strongly this redevelopment project is perhaps that
shining star. The EDC offers their support to the City Council and
City staff either with staff support or garnering advisors or
whatever else they could do to assist. The EDC encourages the City
Council to approve the resolution.
Lou Weir, downtown property owner, expressed his support for the
project and encouraged the Council to move ahead cautiously. He
echoes all of the previous speakers on this issue and recognizes
that this is a major project and all of the answers cannot be given
or received at one time. After meeting with Fletcher Wright team
members and reviewing the plan, he is very excited, but has lots of
questions about the proposal/process. In his opinion, this is a
project that should have been done years and years ago. If we
don't do something this opportunity, we may never have the
opportunity again and it is something that will take a lot of
support from the entire community, as well as a lot of money. He
has questions as to whose money will be used, who will take the
risk, who will be liable for the project? When the project is
complete, hopefully to Bremerton's satisfaction, Fletcher Wright
will go down the street with their profits, as they should, but
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 7 of 22
someone else will be left with the investment and the liability.
Certainly, the City will have a portion of that liability, as will
property owners and investors. For those reasons, we need to
proceed cautiously and work together to get the total community
involved.
Sandy Ward, Executive Director of the Kitsap Peninsular Visitor and
Convention Bureau, stated the VCB also wishes to encourage
Council's approval of this proposed project. They see it as a
wonderful way to promote tourism, not just in Bremerton but
throughout Kitsap County. It is their understanding that the
proposal calls for a full service hotel on the waterfront, which
would be a fantastic facility that would take in the beauty of the
water and ferry traffic.
Joe Shoemaker, downtown business owner, stated there are people in
support of the Fletcher Wright proposal, which is a beautiful
concept. He has reviewed the plans for a new entrance into
Bremerton as well as the proposal for a new ferry terminal;
however, that proposal would take out his business as well as two
others. Ideas about redeveloping the waterfront have been on going
since 1975, when he was involved in the traffic planning. He
questioned what happened to the bonded indebtedness for the dock?
The response he received was the bonds were transferred to the
Pendergast Sports Complex project. It was his understanding that
the City needs approximately $85,000 per year to retire those
bonds. He wants to know what revenue will the City derive from the
proposed development? He believes the City would have to write in
some tax relief for the developer as an incentive and questioned
where are those funds coming from? He feels citizens of the
community are being put into a tremendous amount of indebtedness
that they don't have answers as to where the money is coming from.
He has been told the "money is in the bank". These things are not
being answered to his satisfaction of himself or business people on
the First Street area. If he did not have some background in what
has been going on as to studies and ideas over the years, he'd be
confused. Before Council leaps forward on this proposal, they
should take a good long look and see what it will cost the City and
the citizens of the community. He did not feel enough private
funds could be found to back up the project nor that Fletcher
Wright will put in enough money to develop it; and he did not think
it was the kind of thing that could be done piecemeal. He does not
support the proposal to "one-way" Burwell and 6th Street. He saw
no reason why the streets couldn't be left as two-way. He would
like to see more publicity in The Sun telling the public what is
going on locally than what is coming off the Wire Service in
Seattle.
Tim Rvan stated he and his wife own property at 6th & Pacific, 5th
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 8 of 22
& Pacific, and 1st & Pacific. They have invested in Bremerton
because they believe in Bremerton. He sees this proposal as
something involving more than the waterfront, and it starts to
bring a lot of things together, which is important. They, as
investors, try to do one thing at a time and it becomes piecemeal.
As Rob Schneidler stated, the Admiral Theater will be redeveloped,
the Elks building is being renovated and redeveloped, the
previously know National Bank of Bremerton is investing a million
dollars on their expansion program in Bremerton. It is time now
that we get on the bandwagon and get the project rolling, it would
be a real mistake to wait. He expounded on the kinds of successes
coming from the Fletcher Wright development team members and the
depth of their financial resources.
Gene Hart, 5823 Harlow Drive, stated as an active and concerned
citizens of Bremerton, he supports the idea of developing downtown
Bremerton. He recalls Bremerton being an active and vibrant city
in the late 1970's, however, now he feels it is way past time to
develop a plan and get it implemented. He hears the concerns about
the source of funding, but he also hears. that the City of
Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington State, and Kitsap Transit are
all involved in the Fletcher Wright proposal.
Elizabeth Bus11, High Avenue, stated she supports this proposal and
urged Council to proceed cautiously and make sure the money is
behind it.
Mr. Law explained Council has been assured there is no financial
obligation with adoption of the resolution, but that it will allow
going to the next step of selecting an individual to negotiate, as
the City's representative, a Memorandum Of Understanding. That
Memorandum Of Understanding in turn will be presented to the
Council for a vote and accepting the responsibility at that point.
He believes approximately 11 studies plus Flagship's study have
been conducted relating to development of the Bremerton waterfront.
Some of those studies were very good and some where not so good.
One proposal for the waterfront was within 14 hours of being
announced when it was cancelled. It is his hope that the Fletcher
Wright proposal is the "right one". Many unanswered questions are
pending and if the answers are not satisfactory so that financially
we are safe, the Council vote will not be unanimous. If anyone in
the public has concerns/questions relating to this project, he
encouraged them to call the City Council Office so that Council can
see they get addressed.
Mr. Overson noted some are using the Fletcher Wright proposal as a
scorecard - how we got to where we are and where we are going from
here. The proposal is an excellent document; however, as a
scorecard it misses a little because it says in the next steps that
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 9 of 22
the Memorandum Of Understanding would be between the developer and
the City for a parking garage. He emphasized "not so," in
actuality the resolution states the Memorandum Of Understanding
will propose a business plan, terms and conditions regarding
redevelopment of the waterfront urban area. He found the concerns
presented to be excellent points. The taxpayers/citizens that are
concerned about their funds being correctly watched over are the
same ones that have watched funds being misused by other
organizations and want to not see that happen under this proposal.
The City has excellent staff that are veryknowledgeable of what is
happening and they are excellent stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars. He emphasized there are some very strict guidance on what
can and cannot be done with this new organization and that will be
monitored to the finest detail. Some of the strongest proponents
are also some of the largest taxpayers in the City - the
businesses. When we see strong support from those people it was
getting very close to the right plan and now is the right time. He
recalled when people could purchase property in the Silverdale area
for very low cost and many people, who passed up that opportunity,
were surprised when such a development happened. He is of the
opinion that from all indications this project "will happen".
Mr. Colvin stated he supports the citizens' questions as to how
much the project will cost. He noted everything that glitters isn't
gold; however, he believes there are enough players of importance
and stature to make this project work. He felt it was misleading
to the citizens of Bremerton to say it won't cost the taxpayers
money or try to make them believe it won't cost them any money.
Mr. Dawkins stated he has been serving the City as an elected
officials for 13 years and 12 years on the Parks Commission and has
seen every plan that has come along during that time frame. He
believes the City is at the point of "now or never" ...either we
close the downtown or redevelop. Fletcher Wright has a good track
record and he supported making the move and start the process.
Mr. Montgomer7 stated he moved into the City from the County in
1990 and one of the reasons he was hesitant about moving into the
City was what happened to downtown Bremerton in the 1970's and
early 1980's. At that time, he had the belief that within five
years the City would see a turn around and he believes it will
happen.
President Huff-Menees stated she appreciated the concerns voiced
with respect to this project, which is monumental in scope in terms
of the kinds of things seen in the past. As Mr. Pratt commented,
there will be an immense amount of time spent on working out the
details. It has also been stated we have the opportunity, but if
we didn't take a step forward could well represent irresponsibility
#2070
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 10 of 22
as well. There have been missed opportunities in Bremerton as
well. There certainly might have been missed opportunities in
other areas of the County in terms of land that is now priced
beyond many of our ability to purchase. What she has come to
realize, along with those who have businesses in the City, is that
without being willing to take that first step and bit of risk you
won't progress any where, resulting in staying the same or even
worsen. She emphasized there are some timely opportunities for
Bremerton right now with the USS Missouri, this project, Admiral
Theater, etc., it couldn't be more clear that the time is now and
she intends to support this proposal. She feels very fortunate
that the City has a development group of the stature of this group,
who has international stature. She has come away with all of her
questions and research feeling very confident. To the gentleman
who chastised Council for showing some enthusiasm last week, she
asked them to acknowledge that Council members are human too and
don't always say the right thing or do the right thing. But some of
us, who have been a part of this process for a long time, and she
is one, have no problem expressing their support and will vote to
go forward.
Mr. Winters noted he was born and raised in the City of Bremerton
and when he became a City Councilman people encouraged him to
simply "make a change". There has been much talk and many studies
on redeveloping the waterfront, but there has been lack of action.
This is an issue of action and one that has been carefully planned
by a professional team. He will vote for this proposal and he will
applaud anyone that steps up to the plate to make a change for the
better for the City of Bremerton.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Overson) to pass Resolution No. 2517, regarding
selection of Fletcher Wright as Developer of the Downtown
Waterfront Urban Renewal Area.
9B - RESOLUTION NO. 2518, BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE
CAMPAIGN TO KEEP THE USS MISSOURI IN KITSAP COUNTY, #AB95-167
The Bremerton City Council recognizes the significant contribution
the USS Missouri has made in world-wide peacekeeping and the
importance of its being a maritime historical attraction drawing
thousands of visitors. Retaining the USS Missouri in the Bremerton
area greatly enhances tourism throughout Kitsap County. The
proposed Resolution reveals the City Council's strong support of
efforts to see the USS Missouri permanently moored in the Bremerton
area.
Amy Morrison, Campaign Assistant for the Save The Missouri
Campaign, stated having grown up in Bremerton, attended college
out-of-state and out-of-the-country, she found that people, who
knew about Bremerton did so because of the USS Missouri. She
#2183
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 11 of 22
emphasized the USS Missouri is a namesake that we cannot lose. In
addition, the Missouri will provide an economic diversification
tool for the downtown area as well as the Kitsap peninsula.
Keeping the Missouri here will also represent preservation of our
local and cultural history. Finally, for her generation and
generations to follow, she urged Council to keep the Missouri here
for the education of our future.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Montgomery) to pass Resolution No. 2518, supporting
the campaign to keep the USS Missouri in Kitsap County.
10A - PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PIa&NNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REGARDING THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING 8TATUS OF A DUPLEX AT 6029 BARLOW
DRIVE~ APPELLANT: ESTATE OF JAMES SKIRVING, #]&B95-168
The appellant requested City utility services for the use of the
subject property as a legal but nonconforming duplex. The use was
not recognized as legal, but nonconforming duplex by the Director
of Community Development. The decision 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,
following actions:
1.
2.
the City Council may take any of the
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 asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Shane Jensen, Current Planning, stated upon looking into past files
relating to this site they were unable to find any evidence that
there was ever legal occupancy in the building, or the building
being finished and any utility services extended to the site. In
1975, when application was made for a Building Permit, the current
zoning in the City allowed a duplex to be located anywhere as long
as there was a 5,800 sq. ft. lot. In 1988 that changed and many
areas were restricted to Single Family use only. From all evidence
of research, the Building Permit was issued in 1975, and the
process allowed 180 days between inspection times. If an
inspection is not completed within that time frame, the permit
expires. Assuming all inspections were made on the subject site,
they have been unable to find any record that a final inspection
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 12 of 22
was approved. A final inspection would require that there be some
type of sewage or septic disposal and water on the property. Also,
there has been no other permit activity on the property and in 1988
the zoning changed to not allow duplex. What remains is a building
sitting on the site in some state of construction that is allowable
to be used as a single family residence and the City could extend
water service, but other than that the City has not recognized it
as a legal nonconforming use.
Mr. Jensen provided view graphs showing the location of the subject
site and pointed out all surrounding properties are designated SF
zoning, which restricts duplex uses since 1988. He then referenced
a Land Use Table from the Zoning Ordinance where it speaks about
duplex use - indicating that it is not allowed in the location of
the subject property.
In reference to availability of utilities, B.M.C. Chapter 15.02.030
states: "Water service is considered available if the property is
situated within the utility service area defined in the City of
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and is adjacent ~o the distribution
system and further provided that: (a)...; (b)...; (c)...;(d) The
connection is in compliance with applicable federal, state and
local rules, regulations and codes," which would include compliance
with zoning.
Upon hearing this evidence, the Planning Commission moved to uphold
the Director's decision and consider the building as an illegal
nonconforming use duplex.
Loren Johnson, Realtor with Century 21 Cameron Real Estate and
representing the Skirving Estate, asked if he could submit exhibits
during his commentary? President Huff-Menees explained Council
cannot view any materials that were not made available to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson stated a permit was applied for
by Mr. Skirving in 1975, to build a duplex, which was built on the
property on Harlow Drive; however, the only thing he didn't do was
to have the utilities connected. The building sits back off the
road and is surrounded by trees. Mr. Skirving built the duplex as
a model for another 50-100 units off of Werner Road under a Section
8 program, but that program was denied by H.U.D., so he locked up
the duplex and walked away. The duplex is complete.
In reference to the zoning, the zoning was changed in 1988, and Mr.
Johnson did not know if Mr. Skirving had been notified of the
impending change. He felt it was obviously a down zone of the
subject sites since the duplex existed at the time. When he was
asked by the Estate to check into the property and calculate its
value for I.R.S. purposes, he went to the Building Department three
different times to talk with them about this property and they told
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 13 of 22
him it was grandfathered..."you don't need a permit any longer."
He was told if an Electrical Permit was needed he should get one
otherwise they didn't want to see it because they would have to
open up walls, etc. Based on that information, he calculated the
value of the site and they have been going along thinking "duplex"
until they found a buyer and went to get a letter of what was
required for occupancy. In the meantime, he talked with the City's
Utility department and was told verbally that utilities are
available for a duplex. But, when a buyer for a duplex fixer upper
came along requiring everything in writing, Mr. Johnson then went
back to the Utility department and asked them to give the utility
hook up information in writing. He then returned to the Building
Department and learned that the Planning Department determined that
it could not be occupied as a duplex even though it is an existing
structure. Mr. Johnson pointed out there are other duplexes in the
surrounding neighborhood (Lyle Avenue, Harlow Drive). He did not
know why Mr. Skirving did not complete his permit, but his plans
were checked and approved, building was finished except for the
connection of utilities and in 1978 the Tax Assessor's statement
indicated the property was 100% complete an~ was assessed as a
duplex since 1978. In 1981 the Tax Assessor indicated the
structure was not hooked up to utilities.
Back in 1975 some people did not get final inspections and some
structures were built without permits. There are buildings in the
City of Bremerton that were built after 1975 that had no permits.
The value of the duplex is affected by at least $10,000 in
remodeling costs, if this property cannot be a duplex. There is a
need for rental properties in the City of Bremerton. He emphasized
a Building Permit was taken out and the structure was built
legally. He did not know that Mr. Skirving wasn't told the same
thing he was told when he went to build - that the building exists
and it would be grandfathered in. He hoped the City would allow
occupancy as a duplex. He felt this was what Referendum 48 and 164
are all about... taking private property rights from individuals.
As a realtor, he is not here only because of his livelihood, but he
did not think it was right to take people's private property rights
from them. He stressed the structure has stood as a duplex for 20
years and it looks brand new inside...carpet is new and appliances
have never been used.
There was a permit for a new roof in 1992, but again there was no
final inspection.
Mr. Jensen stated as cited in the Staff Report, establishment of a
nonconforming use is based upon the appellant's proof and it is
their burden to show that it was legal. Mr. Johnson referenced a
zoning change...such a change requires ample public notice and
during the adoption of a new Zoning Ordinance in 1988 there was
considerable public notice and plenty of public opportunity for
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 14 of 22
input. There has not been any action on the subject property for
many years. When a person requests utilities services from the
City, the department will check to see if sewer/water services are
available in a particular area and will state if it is available,
then the Planning Department is contacted to determine if a
particular use is allowable in a specific zone. If it is, then the
utilities service will be extended. In this instance, the Utility
Department contracted him and in turn they reviewed their
permitting records and found nothing that would legally allow this
property to be recognized as a duplex. As far as taking away a
reasonable use of the property, it is believed a Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning District were established through a public process over
years of time and uses have been established in the majority of
the Kitsap Lake neighborhood. And, the uses of the property as a
single family resident is a reasonable use and something that is
very applicable to the neighborhood area.
Kathy Christopherson stated her property adjoins the subject site
and as she stated at the last appeal, it is interesting that Mr.
Johnson stated the duplex is in "like new" eondition. She has
tired to purchase the property for a number of years, when she had
resources. Recently, she tried to purchase it from the Skirving
Estate at which time she took a close look at the property. The
duplex building does not look "like new" and none of us would
probably want to live in it. The carpet is moldy/smelly, the walls
are moldy, the roof leaked and was replaced. Because she lives in
a neighboring property, she is aware that vagrants and run away
kids have lived in the house, and kids have vandalized it by
throwing rocks at windows, etc. At the time of her tour of the
building, the whole flooring in front of the front door in the
larger of the two units is gone, windows are broken, one bathroom
has a moldy wall, sheetrock has been stripped away leaving areas
exposed, appliances are rusty and it has been an eyesore from her
property for years. When she moved into their property they were
told the Neighborhood Association had stopped Mr. Skirving from
developing similar buildings down the hill to Lake Drive. The
duplex has an unusual history because it was completed and if you
went inside today there are men's clothing hanging in the closet.
She feels a sense of frustration because this piece of property has
affected her property values. It concerns her that if this site
does become an existing duplex it will change the whole environment
nicer single family homes in their area. Her home is up for sale
and has had out-of-state people looking at it, but no one wants to
pay the price her house is worth and live next to an occupied
duplex. Even though it has been an eyesore for many years, it is
better than having it occupied by renters. Mr. Johnson talked
about the referendum and property rights and what we have here also
is her property right compared to a large estate that is fighting
for certain rights of their own. She is a long time believer in
TAPE #1305
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 15 of 22
property rights, so she understands their concerns, but, she
requested Council to not allow the site to be used as a duplex.
There may be other duplexes located in the area, but she was not
familiar with them.
TAPE #1306
Mr. Winters asked Ms. Christopherson when she personally walked
through the property? Ms. Christopherson stated one month ago.
She explained her driveway parallels the subject property and she
is the most impacted by the condition of the subject site.
Roy McInnis, Bremerton resident, stated he was confused while
listening to the discussion on this issue. The previous speaker
stated she purchased her property in 1980 and he heard the duplex
was built in 1975 - somewhere he is missing a point and Mr. Johnson
testified to the fact that there other duplexes in the area. Since
there was a permit submitted for electrical hookups, he questioned
if it wasn't up to the City Planning Department to insure the
building is up to state codes or has to be repaired prior to any
electrical hookup? He also questioned what's wrong with the City's
record keeping process? If the building was illegal since the time
it was completed, why hasn't something been done about it before
now? He does not want anyone living in the building. Ms.
Christopherson explained her property was purchased with the intent
to build a home prior to the duplex being built. They tried to
purchase the property prior to her divorce so they could fix it up
so it wouldn't be an eyesore. Her ex-husband and Mr. Skirving had
a quasi-agreement that they could do certain things with the
property to try and enhance the looks of their property. However,
after her divorce she did not have the finances to do anything to
improve the area. Her property was purchased with the intent to
have a home and she recalled that her driveway was used to build
the duplex.
Mildred Wood, Realtor at Windermere Real Estate, stated she
currently has the listing for Ms. Christopherson's home and feels
if the subject property was rezoned it would serious impair Ms.
Christopherson's property value. It would also constitute a taking
by the City without just compensation to adjacent homeowners.
Having lived in other areas, she is keenly aware of what happens
when there is no zoning or haphazard development permitted. She
felt changing the zoning would substantially change the character
of the single family residential neighborhood. The development of
any property should be consistent with the existing neighborhood.
She feels the Planning Commission's decision denying the rezone
should be upheld. As a realtor and representing the seller of the
adjacent property, she is required by law to disclose to any
prospective buyer anything that would materially affect their
TAPE #1306
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 16 of 22
decision to purchase the property. An inquiry has already been
made about the duplex, so that information has to be provided and
it can affect a purchaser's decision.
Mr. Johnson submitted to Council for their review copies of the
permits and receipts that were presented to the Planning
Commission. After sitting vacant for 20 years, he believes the
condition of the duplex is remarkable. The carpet may smell musty,
but it still looks new. He understood the concerns of the
neighbors on the value of their property. He personally believes
with a nice building next door and properly landscaped, it would
enhance the property value. No one can actually see the duplex
except for one neighbor. It does inhibit the right of the property
owner not to allow them to use the building for which it was built.
He hopes that in the spirit of the conversation about the
revitalization of Bremerton that the City will allow the duplex be
used as a duplex.
Mr. Jensen stated for clarification the following points: (1)
electrical permits - the City's Planning Department does not do
electrical inspections or issue permits, that is done through the
State Labor and Industries Office. Someone could apply for an
Electrical Permit for a structure without coordinating with the
Planning Department; (2) The Zoning Ordinance provides that the
burden of proof in establishing a nonconforming use is on the
appellant. Often office files are purged, things are lost or
record keeping was different in past years. Files relating to this
project show that the Building Permit lapsed before a final
inspection was made. And, a final inspection could not have been
made without water and sewer to the building. Therefore, it lost
its ability, under that zoning, to be a duplex in 1988. (3)
Question - why hasn't there been any building enforcement on the
structure? There is a procedure to identify a structure that is
deemed dangerous. If a structure is falling down, windows are open
or broken and a dangerous situation exists, then the City takes on
abatement proceedings. The last time he viewed the property it was
locked up, windows appeared to be intact and it did not appear to
be falling down, so no building enforcement actions were required.
Mr. Law pointed out a statement in the Planning Commission's
minutes that Mr. Skitying was alive in 1988 and did not testify in
opposition to the zoning that was adopted. Mr. Johnson stated Mr.
law was correct; however, it would be difficult to say Mr. Skirving
never attended any of the public meetings.
Mr. Winters referenced one of Mr. Johnson's handouts - a clean
piece of letter head stipulating November 19, 1975 interoffice
communication from the City Engineer to the Field Engineer;
however, there was no one's name on the sheet. He asked Mr.
#0687
TAPE #1306
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 17 of 22
Johnson where he obtained that piece of paper? Mr. Johnson stated
he got that item from the Building Department at the time they were
denied the occupancy permit. Even though the plans were no longer
in the file, it helps prove that an application for a Building
Permit was made for a duplex.
Mr. Overson asked Mr. Johnson to point out the location of the
duplex on Lyle Avenue. Mr. Johnson directed Mr. Overson's
attention to the map just past Kitsap Drive. He noted two other
duplexes were located just beyond East Lake Drive on Harlow. Mr.
Overson asked Mr. Jensen to validate the information relating to
the building on Lyle Avenue. He believed that was not a duplex but
rather a split piece of property owned by two owners, which was the
way it was established in 1979-80. Mr. Jensen stated he may not
have a map with him that shows that parcel. Mr. Overson explained
the only facts that have any pertinence are there was never a use
authorized and occupancy was never gained; therefore, no "use" ever
existed, nonconforming or otherwise. If they had established a
nonconforming use and not used it for one year, the nonconforming
use goes away by law. He felt Council was being presented some
inaccurate information by some "sales" people.
Mr. Colvin wanted to clarify that a permit to build a duplex was
applied for, paid for, and received. He questioned when a permit
is applied for, is there a time limit to build? Mr. Sievers stated
whenever a building permit is applied for the applicant has 180
days to commence work. They can also request an extension of one
year. After that, the building application expires and the
applicant must go through the process all over again. It is
uncertain if that is what happened in this situation. Apparently
there was a certain percentage uncompleted in 1978, but the
assessor's records show it was complete in 1979. City records do
not show a final inspection, and no certificate of occupancy, which
may mean building code violations, if in fact it was occupied. He
concurs with Mr. Overson that the real issue is the status of the
non-conforming use now.
M/S/C(Montgomery/Overson) to UPHOLD the Planning Commission's
decision to not recognize the structure at 6029 Harlow Drive as a
legal but nonconforming duplex and find that delivery of utility
service to this land use (as a duplex) would not be in compliance
with the Bremerton Municipal Code.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Abstain:
Overson, Law, Huff-Menees, Montgomery,
Colvin, Winters
Dawkins
Mr. Law stated Mr. Johnson brought up Referendum 164 and he felt
TAPE #1306
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 18 of 22
Council had seen an example of three different parties that could
file a lawsuit under this referendum and make this into an
attorneys' circus because each one of them have cited a reason for
a lawsuit for compensation under Referendum 164.
10B - PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO
ISSUE A 'CEASE & DESIST ORDER' FOR A JUNKYARD,, LAND USE IN THE
"INDUSTRIAL GENERAL (IG)" ZONE, WHICH IS IN USE WITHOUT A SPECIAL
USE PERMIT; APPELLANT: WlLLIAM SESCO; LOCATION: TAX PARCEL
REGARDING THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS OF A DUPLEX AT 6029 HARLOW
DRIVE; APPELLANT: ESTATE OF JAMES SKIRVING, #AB95-168
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:
1.
2.
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 asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Shane Jensen, Current Planning and Zoning enforcement actions,
stated in late 1994 the subject site was annexed into the City.
The annexation area included Madison Street, Monroe Street, Bloomer
Street and Werner Road. The subject property was zoned in the
County as a Residential Zoning District and came into the City
under Residential Zoning (SF-3), followed by a rezone to Industrial
General (IG) to match the surrounding Auto Center area. Two
buildings were moved on to the site from Kean Street (from Mr.
Burley's property) and one of the houses is without foundation on
the lot. On March 19, 1995, three abatements for attractive
nuisances and open and dangerous buildings were initiated by the
Building Department. On that same day, the Director of Community
Development issued a CEASE and DESIST ORDER for a junkyard use of
the property that was being used without a Special Use Permit. In
this zone a junkyard is allowable, if the proper permitting process
is completed and a Special Use Permit issued. He anticipated the
appellant using an argument that a junkyard use was established in
the County, but as stated the City did not have Industrial or other
TAPE #1306
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 19 of 22
zoning that would allow a junkyard in the County prior to its
annexation in the City. He referenced the Land Use Table within
the Zoning Ordinance and pointed out under the IG zone a Special
Use Permit is required to allow a junkyard.
The CEASE and DESIST ORDER states the violation: "Junkyard land use
needs a Special Use Permit and it is being operated without one".
At the bottom of the Order it states the action the City would like
to happen to make this property a legal use and the following was
requested: "cease and desist the use of the property as a junkyard,
remove houses stored on runners, furniture, wood scrapes,
appliances, chairs, paint cans, tires, mattresses, oil containers,
bulldozers, railroad ties, bottles and general debris from the
property." Mr. Jensen noted he would show a video of the subject
site showing the condition of the site around the time the issuance
of the CEASE AND DESIST ORDER following Mr. Sesko's presentation.
WilliamSesko, 3536 Arsenal Way, stated he and his wife Natasha own
the subject property. He tried to obtain a list of exhibits used
at the Planning Commission hearing from the Planning Department,
but none was available. He was not sure how to make sure that the
same information given to the Planning Commission is heard by the
City Council. He attempted to get a copy of the procedure that is
to be used during this hearing and the copy given to him by the
Planning Department was quite new and did not correspond to the
procedure given to him from the City Council Office. He felt in
order for Council to follow a new procedure they would initiate
formal adoption of those procedures; however, that does not seem to
be the case. He asked if he was presumptuous to assume such action
would be taken? Mr. Jensen explained he was asked to produce the
document in question (procedures for this hearing) by the Planning
Director to help them work through an appeal hearing, since it was
different than a typical land use hearing. The proponent of the
appeal is Mr. Sesko, and the staff planner or someone else is the
proponent in a typical hearing. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, asked
if the subject procedure handout was substantially different in
some way from Council's adopted procedure? Mr. Sesko stated no,
but it is different in the fact that it was not formally "adopted"
by Council prior to its being used at this hearing. Since Council
is very strict on rules of evidence presented to Council, he wanted
a list of the exhibits and the file presented to Council so that he
could follow the same format. He is also confused that this is a
public hearing and Council could possibly hear testimony that was
not heard at the Planning Commission hearing; and he should have an
opportunity to make a response to that testimony by maybe
submitting new evidence. He asked "is this not a public hearing?"
President Huff-Menees stated this is a public hearing; however, she
did not understand what Mr. Sesko was seeking. Mr. Sesko pointed
out if this is a public hearing someone from the public could make
TAPE #1306
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 20 of 22
a presentation that was not made at the Planning Commission
hearing. He questioned would they have to attend both meetings
before they could make a presentation? Mr. Law asked the City
Attorney if this was a public hearing? Mr. Sievers stated yes.
Mr. Colvin asked for clarification if this was an "appeal" of the
Planning Commission's decision? Mr. Sievers stated yes. Mr.
Colvin re-emphasized any evidence that was brought to the Planning
Commission has to be presented to the City Council. Mr. Overson
stated true, but by the same consideration if Mr. Sesko presents a
case to the Planning Commission and they uphold the staff and then
it comes to the City Council and Mr. Sesko or anyone provides
additional information Council's only option is to remand it back
to the Planning Commission. Mr. 8ievers stated he felt that was
fair and if Mr. Sesko was disadvantaged in some way because someone
else wants to present testimony, but didn't speak before the
Planning Commission hearing, it can be remanded back to the
Planning Commission for them to consider Mr. Sesko's new evidence.
He believed the City Council's rules are primarily directed to the
appellant who can control their appeal and they didn't want him to
present new exhibits or evidence at the later'hearing that wasn't
made at the first hearing. Mr. 8esko pointed out the procedure
handed out by Mr. Jensen does not address that issue plus he was
not able to obtain a list of the exhibits that were presented to
the Planning Commission and he feels he is somewhat disadvantaged.
Mr. Sievers stated he believed that was fair and those would be
public documents, if they were submitted at the hearing. He
talked with Mr. Jensen about providing a list of exhibits and felt
it was needed in order to avoid any confusion and have to rely on
people's memory as to what was submitted at a prior hearing. He
asked Mr. Jensen if such a list was available from the Planning
Department at this time? Mr. ~ensen noted there were two exhibits
and he had a video tape. Mr. Sesko stated he would like to see the
video tape prior to presenting his case. President Huff-Menees
asked Mr. Sesko if he was satisfied with Mr. Jensen's comment that
the exhibits he has are the same as those presented at the Planning
Commission hearing? Mr. Sesko stated Mr. Jensen stated he had two
exhibits and then added on that he had a video tape. President
Huff-Menees asked if the video tape was the third exhibit utilized
at the Planning Commission hearing? Mr. Sesko stated he thought
so. President Huff-Menees asked Mr. Sesko if he had seen all of
the exhibits? Mr. Sesko stated yes. He again restated that there
should be a list of the exhibits in the file and he should be
allowed to have a copy prior to his addressing the City Council.
If Council did think that was necessary, then he would proceed, but
he felt it was important. Mr. Sievers stated he did not understand
Mr. Sesko's concern when he was aware of all three exhibits and
since he saw the video at the prior hearing. The matter of having
the list listing three items isn't prejudicial, but if Mr. Sesko
felt it was then it is his right to request a continuance of the
TAPE #1306
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 21 of 22
hearing so that the list can be prepared and further study given to
those exhibits. Mr. Sesko stated he did want that opportunity.
Mr. 8ievers asked if there was a problem continuing this issue?
Mr. Jensen stated the Planning Commission minutes recorded that
David Barcelone submitted an aerial photograph (labeled Exhibit A),
which was in the Planning Commission file for that month. A letter
was submitted by Evan Burley, who testified on Mr. Sesko's behalf
at the Planning Commission hearing, but he did not find a copy that
had an Exhibit stamp on the back; however, he did know it was
submitted as evidence at that hearing. The third exhibit is a
video tap that included several enforcement actions and there was
no way for him to stamp it as an "exhibit". Those same exhibits
are available for Council's review at this time.
President Huff-Menees asked Mr. Jensen the Planning Department's
policy with respect to providing exhibits for the appellant? Mr.
Jensen stated they like to make those items available. In the
recent past they experienced equipment problems and have been short
on staff at several Planning Commission meetings, which may have
contributed to the items not getting stamped as "exhibits".
President Huff-Menees asked Mr. Sesko if he wished to request a
continuance? Mr. Sesko stated yes and he felt the procedures
submitted by Mr. Jensen should be adopted prior to their being
used. He should not depend on Mr. Jensen to tell him how the City
Council will run the hearing, that should be up to the City
Council. President Buff-Menees stated she did not agree with Mr.
Sesko on that point because what Mr. Jensen presented was merely a
guideline for Council in terms of order of proceedings. Mr. Sesko
expressed his confusion between Council's Policy and Procedures and
what Mr. Jensen presented as to how the hearing will be conducted.
Mr. Jensen apologized for any confusion relating to the handout.
Development of the procedure was only for clarification purposes
for those who came into the hearing and also for the appellant.
The hearing could have proceeded with a typical hearing outline and
not had this problem. He did not feel it was something that should
stop this hearing. Mr. Sesko stated he was mainly concerned about
the minutes and the lack of exhibits being included.
Mr. Winters asked if continuing the hearing would incur any
additional cost to the appellant? Mr. Jensen stated there would be
no charge.
Mr. Law asked if there would be a charge to the appellant to
duplicate the exhibits? Mr. Sievers stated the department would
have to determine the actual cost for any duplication and that
should be included in the City's public document disclosure
resolution. Mr. Jensen added he was not asked to duplicate the
video tape, photograph or Mr. Burley's letter until this afternoon.
Mr. Sesko had knowledge of all three exhibits at the prior hearing.
#1441
TAPE #1306
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 9, 1995
Page 22 of 22
He urged Council to proceed with the hearing as planned.
Mr. Montgomery asked what Mr. Sesko thought the video tape would
show that isn't already in the paperwork provided? Mr. Sesko
stated he asked for a list of exhibits. President Huff-Menees
stated Council already agreed that Mr. Sesko was within his rights
to ask for a continuance based on the fact that he was not provided
with those exhibits. Mr. Colvin ask if the appellant had the right
to the material in question? Mr. Slevers stated anyone has the
right to the materials, it is a public document that can be
reproduced and part of the record, if it was submitted and admitted
at the Planning Commission hearing. The video tape is public
property as well and can be copied.
Mr. Law stated he would like to see this item continued to a
specific date and asked Mr. Sesko and Mr. Jensen if a one week
continuance would be acceptable? Mr. Sesko stated one week would
be fine. Mr. Law also asked for a date when Mr. Sesko could be
provided copies of the exhibits. Mr. Overson interjected that the
concern is whether or not Mr. Sesko has a listing of the three
exhibits, not receiving duplications. Mr. Sesko stated yes, the
items are public record and he can view them in the Planning
Office, if that is the extent of the exhibits.
M/S/C(Law/Winters) to continue this hearing to August 16, 1995.
Vote On Motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Abstain:
Overson, Law, Huff-Menees, Colvin
Dawkins, Winters
Montgomery
With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
/~~"~ Co~ncil President
KLM/SH-M/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault