HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/97
TAPE #1485
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 20, 1997
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 20, 1997, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members
present were Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, Lon Overson,
John Law, Cecil McConnell, Al Colvin, Richard Neville. Councilman
Bob Winters was absent. Also, present were City Attorney Ian
Sievers and Acting Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President David Farr and the Invocation given by Reverend Louis
Sparks of the Abundant Life Foursquare Church.
President Farr made the following announcement:
(1) The City Council will hold a Study Session on August 27, 1997,
immediately following the City Council meeting. The topic of
discussion will be "Sinclair Landing Association Update."
(2) Bremerton Kitsap Access Television can be reached by calling
(360) 308-0139 or FAX (360) 308-0239.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting -- August 6, 1997 #AB97-188
B. Minutes of Meeting -- August 13, 1997 #AB97-189
#0050 M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
#0069 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on August 20, 1997, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 211836 through 211987 in the amount of $274,042.48; and
Regular Payroll for the period ending 8-15-97, in the amount of
$758,401.85.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin stated it was good to back after experiencing some
health problems the prior week.
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 2 of 19
Mr. McConnell expressed his concern over the recent increase in the
number of drivers creating traffic hazards when crossing multiple
lanes to make left or right turns, proceeding through red lights
and speeding on City streets. He cautioned drivers to please
observe traffic laws.
Mr. Law reported he recently received a number of telephone calls
from constituents regarding new construction or remodeling projects
that affect view corridors and the lack of notification of such
projects to surrounding property owners. As a follow up, he has
asked the Department of Community Development, and briefly
discussed with the Mayor, the possibility of developing a
notification procedure to affected neighbors under those kinds of
circumstances.
Mr. Overson stated he was glad to see new activity taking place at
the Roxy Theater.
Mr. Neville extended a "welcome back" to Councilman Colvin; and
reminded everyone the Kitsap County Fair and Rodeo is underway and
will run through August 24.
Mr. Montgomery reported the last of the Concerts on the Boardwalk
was held on August 15. True to the tradition being carried on by
Carol Atkinson, all of the concerts experienced good weather and
large crowds. He hoped the Blackberry Festival will also enjoy
sunny and warm weather. He reminded everyone. The Missouri on The
Mainland Committee (MOM) is holding a Rally on September 6,
starting at 10:00 A.M., on the Boardwalk. This past week he had
the opportunity to observe the Street Department crews performing
street repairs to a very dangerous situation at the intersections
of Park Avenue and Olympus Street.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton reported she observed Mr. Montgomery, who was
wearing a striped safety vest, observing the Street Department crew
working. After seeing Mr. Montgomery sitting and watching the
repair working being done, she anticipated receiving a telephone
call from a concerned citizen questioning why a City employee was
"sitting" and watching other crew members work. She noted City
employees do appreciate interest shown by the Council members and
her as elected officials.
At the August 13 City Council meeting, several residents from the
Wycoff area expressed their concern over speeding traffic along
Wycoff Avenue. One of the speakers, Karen Boles, called the Police
Chief and expressed her appreciation of the effort by the Police
Department to help make their neighborhood safer. The Police
Department will be setting up a digital speed sign that will
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 3 of 19
register the speed of vehicles as they travel along Wycoff Avenue.
She agreed with Mr. McConnell's earlier comments about people
speeding through the City and causing danger to others.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Elizabeth Buell, Bremerton resident, pointed out since the last
Council meeting, the masking tape around the exit sign in the City
Council Chambers had been removed.
Roy McInnis, Bremerton Resident, agreed with Mr. McConnell about
traffic hazards being created by drivers not following traffic
laws. He wasn't sure if he understood Mr. Law's comments about new
construction/remodeling creating problems for residents; however,
he welcomes new construction in Bremerton. He noted he did not
personally attend the August 13 City Council meeting due to his
visiting with Mr. Colvin at his home. Mr. Law clarified his
earlier statement regarding view corridors.
8A - CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT - JOHNSTON & CULBERSON, #AB97-
190
The City self-insures its workers' compensation obligations and
utilizes the services of a certified third party claims
administrator to make claim payments. In March 1996, the City
selected Johnston & Culberson to administer its claim after a
formal RFP process. The current contract with Johnston & Culberson
expires on August 31, 1997, and the city wishes to extend it for an
additional 17 months. The annual fee for this service will be
$13,650 for the first 50 claims and $260 per claim for each claim
after the first 50.
Peggy Lessor, Risk Manager, explained this item had been discussed
at length at both Council committees. She would be available to
answer any questions Council might have.
Public comments - none.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated because the recommended motion includes a
reference to text, she asked Mrs. Lessor to explain why item "4C"
should be stricken from the contract? Mrs. Lessor stated the
amendatory endorsement has a paragraph designated as "C" stricken
from the contract. The City's Claims Administrator is of the
opinion that paragraph "C" might have some financial benefit to the
City; however, she did not agree with that opinion. In order to
resolve that difference of opinion, the City Treasurer will conduct
a financial analysis of the impact of leaving that paragraph in the
contract. If the financial analysis concludes that the City will be
in a better financial position with the inclusion of the paragraph,
Ms. Lessor will be notified and the paragraph will be reinserted in
the contract. The intent of the proposed motion is to provide the
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 4 of 19
City Treasurer the opportunity to conduct a financial analysis,
which has not been completed.
Mr. Law noted he supported the removal of paragraph "C,' based on
the lengthy discussion of that item during the Council Operations
Committee meeting.
Mr. McConnell asked if the City Treasurer's analysis determines
that it would be to the City's benefit to include the paragraph,
would it be reinserted automatically or would it come back to
Council for further action? Mrs. Lessor pointed out the
recommended motion is that Council provides staff with the
authority to add that provision back into the contract without
further Council action.
Mr. Overson questioned the financial comparison between the
previous contract and the proposed amendment? Mrs. Lessor stated
the proposed amendment has a longer term than the earlier contract
and includes a slight fee increase (4%).
#0576 M/S/F(Montgomery/Colvin) Motion to approve the amendatory
endorsement to the Professional Services Agreement with Johnston &
Culberson, excluding paragraph C.
Mr. Overson stated his understanding of the recommended motion
would give staff the opportunity to review the financial
considerations and determine if it would be of financial benefit to
the citizens to include paragraph "C." He did not support Mr.
Montgomery's proposal, which would take away that opportunity for
a financial analysis. Mr. Montgomery stated he based his motion on
Mrs. Lessor's opinion that there would be no benefit to the City.
Mr. Neville asked the City Attorney's opinion on whether or not the
City would benefit by including paragraph "C?" Ian Sievers stated
since staff is uncertain and is willing to investigate it further,
he would not take a position. Maybe it was more of a matter as to
who would review the study, i.e., Mayor or the City Council.
Apparently, Johnston & Culberson would be willing to add the
paragraph at a later time and it could be stipulated to have that
action brought before the City Council.
Vote on motion: In Favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees
Opposed: Neville, Overson, Law, McConnell,
Colvin, Farr
Motion failed.
Mr. Colvin asked if there is any advantage to the City if paragraph
"C" is included in the contract? Mrs. Lessor stated paragraph "C,'
as presented to Council in a deleted fashion, has both a cost and
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 5 of 19
potential benefit. The Claims Administrator believes that the
benefit associated with that paragraph will result in a net savings
to the City. It is her opinion that the cost associated with that
paragraph will out weigh the savings. Part of what is driving this
action is the fact the contract will expire on August 31, 1997, and
she needs to have some kind of contract in place before the
expiration date. What is before Council is her own uncertainty and
she is looking to the City Treasurer's financial analysis ability
to dete£mine any benefit to the City.
Mr. McConnell questioned if it would be possible to include the
first part of paragraph "C" as an inducement? Mrs. Lessor stated
no, the Claims Administrator is unwilling to agree to such action.
Mr. Colvin questioned if he understood correctly that under
paragraph "C" the city would pay the Claims Administrator 15% of
the savings they obtain for the City? Mrs. Lessor stated Mr.
Colvin was correct; however, at the moment this Claims
Administrator and all Claims Administrators reduce fees and provide
the services for the basic contract charge. What this Claims
Administrator is proposing is charge the City the reduced fees and
then charge a little more of what they have reduced. She doubts
the Claims Administrator can save the City more than what they are
proposing as a charge and the data she has reviewed indicates that
is correct.
#0806 M/S/C(Law/McConnell) Motion to approve the amendatory endorsement
to the Professional Services Agreement with Johnston & Culberson
with staff authority to revise the endorsement to include paragraph
C, if financial review finds that provision to be beneficial to the
City.
Mr. Montgomery stated he supported excluding paragraph "C' because
he believes Mrs. Lessor and the City Treasurer have more important
responsibilities, i.e., 1998 budget preparation, than pursuing
further analysis of this contract. He believes their assumptions
will prove out to be beneficial for the City by not including
paragraph "C."
Mr. Colvin asked the City Treasurer to comment on the benefit to
the City, if the recommended motion is approved. Rich Hanna,
City Treasurer, explained the recommended motion would delegate
authority to staff to conduct an analysis to determine whether or
not to include or exclude paragraph "C" from the contract. Any
benefit to keeping paragraph "C" in the contract has not yet been
determined.
vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Law, McConnell, Colvin,
Huff-Menees, Neville, Farr
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 6 of 19
Opposed; Montgomery
Motion carried.
9A - RESOLUTION #2622 ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(CIP) FOR THE YEARS 1997-2002. #AB97-191
The Mayor and staff have produced the attached CIP document for the
years 1997-2002. Copies of the draft document have been provided
to Council for review and it has been presented to Council in Study
Session. It is now requested that the Council adopt the CIP for
the years 1997 - 2002.
Mayor Lynn Horton state for several years the City has had a
Capital Improvement Plan and over those years it has become a
better document. Her goal is to include as many of the capital
requests as possible so that the document can be used as a road map
and tool, for discussion purposes, in financial planning for the
City. In past years, amendments would be made to the Plan when
projects would materialize, but had not been included as a future
project. There are multiple projects within the proposed document
that may not be constructed during the life time of this plan.
If projects are brought up "midstream,' it invalidates this
planning process. There may be items within the plan that Council
may disagree with, but her intent is to have them identified and
then brought to Council for discussion. In preparation of the
plan, input was received from all City Departments; however, not
all proposals were included because the City does not have the
financial resources to complete them within the next 5-year period.
Public comment - None.
Gil Johnson, Acting Deputy City Clerk, read the following statement
submitted by Councilman Bob Winters, who was not present at the
Council meeting: "Councilman Bob Winters cannot support this
document as presented based on two reasons: (1) $355,000 for an
erosion control facility for fluoridation; (2) cannot support the
cost of $3.5 million for a new City Hall."
Mr. Overson stated he recognized Councilman Winters' concerns;
however, a Capital Improvement Plan has to be somewhat aggressive
and a type of wish list that is optimistic, particularly the way
funding programs become available, which then gets pruned by
reality when the financial feasibility is established. He urged
his fellow Council members to support the proposal as presented.
Mayor Horton pointed out the inclusion of a new City Hall might be
a misnomer. It may be a rehab of the current building. If the
rehab of the current City hall is selected, she would like to look
at incorporating an on-site jail facility (24-48 hour holding
facility), which is where most of the City's jail costs with Kitsap
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Aug,/st 20, 1997
Page 7 of 19
County occur. It also may make sense to look at a new downtown
fire station in conjunction with a remodel of the existing building
or new facility into one location.
President Farr stated in regard to Mr. Winters' comment about the
expenditures for fluoridation, it was his understanding
implementation of fluoridation would be combined with the erosion
control facility, which was previously approved by a unanimous vote
of the Council earlier in the year.
Mr. Neville stated he was in total support of the CIP Plan and
great strides have already been made following the plan, i.e.,
Campus Evergreen Plan, Charleston District Plan, Harrison District
Plan, etc. Once an item is in the Plan, the City can look for
grant funding or other funding sources that look favorable on
proposals that were identified and adopted into a plan for future
consideration.
Mr. Colvin pointed out the CIP is not etched in concrete and he
will support the document as presented.
#1065 M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) Motion to pass Resolution #2622
adopting the City of Bremerton CIP for the years 1997 through 2002.
10A - PUBLIC HEARING - 1997 DOCKET OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTSt RELATED REZONES AND THE ADOPTING ORDINi%NCEt #AB97-192
The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan may be amended only once each
year. The process begins with the April 1 deadline for
applications. This year's ten amendment proposals were submitted
to State agencies and other individuals and jurisdictions for
review, and were processed by staff and the Planning Commission
before arriving at the city council for final public hearings. Six
proposals, if approved, will require Rezones to maintain
Plan/Zoning consistency. To expedite the process, the Planning
Commission has considered their zones at public hearings and staff
has scheduled both the Plan Amendments and their related Rezones
for simultaneous action by the City Council. Because of the number
of proposals and the complexity of some, the public hearing has
been divided into two parts. It will begin on August 20 and
continue to August 27 to allow time for questions and discussion.
President Farr announced the items to be discussed during this
hearing will include: (1) Harbor Heights Apartments - Plan
Amendment and Rezone; (2) Bremerton School District - Plan
Amendment and Rezone; (3) Auto Center Area Industrial - Plan
Amendment and Rezone; (4) Broad Street Residential - Plan Amendment
and Rezone; (5) South Smith code - Plan Amendment and Rezone; (6)
Merit Company - Plan Amendment and Rezone; (7) Waterfront Access
Plan - WAP Amendment only. This hearing will be continued to
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Aug,/st 20, 1997
Page 8 of 19
August 27, 1997, where the following items will be discussed: (8)
Land Use Descriptions - Plan text amendment only; (9) Removal of
"cemetery" Designation - Plan text amendment only; continuation of
earlier discussions from August 20 City Council meeting; and first
reading of ordinances, adopting Plan Amendments and Rezones. The
final vote on the ordinances will take place on September 3, 1997.
He emphasized Council will limit public comment to one comment per
person per item and to limit those comments to 3-minutes.
President Farr asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, pointed out public notice of this
hearing was sent out to the surrounding property owners for the
seven items that will be discussed during this hearing. The
Planning Commission processed the items in June through the Plan
Amendment process. During the interim, the State had a 60-day
period for commenting. The City received some comments from the
following State agencies: State Department of Community Trade and
Economic Development (comments were positive and would not impact
what is being proposed); Washington State Department of
Transportation (comments were fairly neutral). To streamline the
process, the Planning Commission processed the related Rezones in
July so that could be brought to Council along with the Plan
Amendments. Six of the seven items are being considered as
combined Comprehensive Plan/Rezone Amendments.
(1) Harbor Heights Apartments - To change the Comprehensive Plan
designation from "U" (Utilities) to "MDR (Medium Density
Residential) on a small area of the West Hills neighborhood south
of Roosevelt Avenue. This is part of a larger parcel that was
recently annexed with the designation "MDR" and consistent (MF)
zoning. Related Rezone proposals would change the zoning of two
small parts of the development from "FM" (Forest Management) and
SF-3" (approximately 1/3 acre - Residential Low Density" to "MF"
(Residential Medium Density)" to be consistent with the Plan
designation and to ensure that the designations of the entire
property are consistent. During the Planning Commission
discussion, there was no opposition and the Planning Commission
recommends approval for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
related Rezone.
Public Comment - none.
Mr. Montgomery questioned if City sewer service was available to
the subject area as described by Mr. Hough? Mr. Hough stated
sewers will be available to the site.
Mr. McConnell questioned if the subject parcel was involved in a
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 9 of 19
previous land trade transaction? Mr. Hough stated Mr. McConnell
was correct.
(2) Bremerton School District - To change the designation of two
small lots fronting on the east side of Wheaton Way from "S"
(School) to "C-G" (General & Highway Commercial). The property is
undeveloped and has been used for many years for access to an
elementary school and for parking. The related Rezone proposal
would change the zoning from "PS" (Parks & Schools) to "GB"
(General Business) to be consistent with the Plan designation. The
School District no longer needs the property for school purposes
and would like to make it surplus and sell it for development. The
District requested that the zoning be changed to the same
designation as the properties on the north and south sides of the
site. If the commercial designation is approved, the next step
would be to rezone the sites to a commercial designation. The
Planning Commission's recommendation is to designate the area GB.
Mr. Hough noted two letters ( Bettie Schwendemann, 1115 Dibb
Street; and C. W. Wareham, 1111 Dibb), opposing the proposed Rezone
were included in the documentation and were also considered by the
Planning Commission.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Montgomery referenced Page 13 of the Plan Amendments, item #3
Transportation and quoted: " .... where left turn movements are
nearly impossible much of the time. This proposal is good for
traffic." He did not understand what was meant by that statement
considering making left turns onto Wheaton Way, regardless which
side of the street, is not good for traffic. He also referenced
the State Department of Transportation's (DOT) letter in which it
states: "The City of Bremerton may want to consider taking
advantage of the State access management law and prohibit left turn
lanes at this location." Mr. Montgomery noted if the City followed
that recommendation, it could be done along the entire corridor.
He believes any references to left turns is moot. Mr. Hough noted
the State was referencing school traffic coming in and out of that
location. He quoted from Mr. Brotherton's letter (DOT): "...Given
your description, we support your suggestion to route school
traffic onto other streets rather than use Wheaton Way. The City
of Bremerton may want to consider taking advantage of the State's
access management law and prohibit left turn lanes at this
location." He noted that may be a follow up consideration later on
when the Wheaton Way corridor is studied. Mr. Montgomery stated he
views left turns in that area to be a problem whether it has to do
with schools or businesses.
Mr. Overson stated he would not hold up a proposed rezone based on
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 10 of 19
traffic. There are other ways to solve traffic problems, such as
more stop lights along the Wheaton Way corridor, which would allow
access into malls/shopping areas within the City. He encourages
staff to pursue that suggestion. Mr. Hough stated there has been
discussion about a Planned Unit Development on the larger school
site, if it becomes surplus. He noted the number of driveways
along the Wheaton Way corridor does create traffic problems.
(3) Auto Center Area Industrial - To change the designation of two
parcels on a hillside west of the auto Center district of West
Bremerton from "C-P" (General & Professional Offices) to "IP"
(Industrial Park). The change will allow uses that are compatible
with light industrial character of the Auto Center area. The
related Rezone would change the zoning from "PO" (Professional
office) to "IP" (Industrial Park) to ensure consistency with the
Plan designation. Mr. Hough noted HMI Inc., requested this change.
Originally, the whole area was designated Heavy Industrial in an
earlier Compressive Plan and when it was reviewed consideration was
given to the hillsides, slopes, trees, access, visibility from the
freeway, etc., it was determined not to be the best place to site
Heavy Industrial, so it was down graded to Office Professional and
the current designation is CP, which is basically commercial and
professional offices. HMI Inc., feels there is not a market for
"offices" now or in the foreseeable future. However, because of
the other industrial activity in the Auto Center district, they
believed they would have a better chance to provide more uses that
were related to heavy commercial and industrial, which would be
more suitable for the hillside. The requested rezone would affect
Lots A and B, which are owned by HMI, Inc. When staff reviewed
that request, they saw that such a change would leave parcel C
designated as Office Professional, which was not desired, and
parcel D, which is a very narrow piece owned by Peninsula Truck
Lines, who also own the property next to it and using part of
parcel D as part of their operation. Based on that information,
staff combined parcels C and D with A and B and propose they all be
changed to the Industrial Park designation. If approved by the
City Council, the follow up rezone will change the designation from
PO to IP on all four properties. The Planning Commission
recommended the following conditions be applied to Lots A, B and C:
(1) New development shall be designed to encourage a campus-like
arrangement of buildings, parking, pedestrian walkways and open
space. (2) All areas not paved or built upon shall be landscaped
or left in natural vegetation to minimize dust, mud and erosion.
(3) Development projects shall be designed to include a minimum of
15 percent open space, exclusive of required setbacks. When such
open space is used primarily for hillside stabilization, visual
enhancement, or sensitive area protection, the City shall consider
waiving or reducing the requirement that 60% or more of the open
space be used for active recreation. (4) Outdoor storage of
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 11 of 19
equipment, materials, products, etc., shall be placed toward the
uphill side of buildings (not the view side) whenever feasible
and/or effectively screened from view with landscaping or a
combination of fences and landscaping.
Roy McInnis stated he has always supported proposals to bring in
new business to Bremerton. However, because there has been a
history of a water problem in the subject area, he was concerned as
to what will be done to correct that problem.
Mr. McConnell referenced Lot D, and asked if Peninsula Trucking
Company was aware of and agreed with what is being proposed for
rezoning? Mr. Bouqh stated letters and notices have been sent to
that company; however, he was not aware that they had responded to
that notification. Mr. McConnell asked if the City had sufficient
enforcement to address problems that might arise out of outside
storage of materials and equipment? Mr. Hough stated the
recommendation would apply design review to ensure the design would
accommodate outside activities on the site. If there is a
violation of those conditions of approval of the site plan, the
City would follow up with enforcement.
Mr. Montgomery referenced a small strip of land on Lot B and asked
if it was a platted City Street or was it a private driveway? Mr.
Bouqh stated it is not a platted street nor is it an easement. Mr.
Montgomery asked if the City's street codes will insure
construction of curbs, sidewalks, and sewer service? Mr. Hough
stated no decision has been made on the access to the lots, which
will come along as the site plan is developed and processed. He
also noted there could be a connection made to Werner Road, which
would require some major improvements. Mr. Montgomery noted
Bloomer Street is in very bad shape and asked if it was used as an
access would the city be responsible for improvements? Mr. Bouqh
stated no, the developer would make the improvements if they used
it as access to their property. Mr. Montgomery noted the City does
have a plan to develop storm sewers in the subject area, which
would eliminate the stormwater problem.
Mr. Neville questioned the degree of slope to be considered a
"critical land?" Mr. Hough pointed out the slope can be
changed/graded to suit building needs. In the process of
development, steeper slopes may be formed that may have to be
landscaped or treated differently. He did not believe the slope in
the subject area is considered a sensitive area. Mr. Neville
thanked the Planning Commission for the effort put into each of the
items. Mr. Hough pointed out not all of the criteria is listed in
the Staff Report. There is a list of criteria for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, a list of criteria for the rezone
and the 13 Statewide planning goals and all the goals and policies
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 12 of 19
within the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Overson noted the applicant for the recommended change does not
own lots A, B, C and D, which he views as a mild contradiction.
Nr. Houqh explained the owner of lots A and B has given his
permission to the applicant to apply for the Plan amendment as a
future property owner and developer of the site. He noted the
owners of lots C and D were contacted and sent notices through the
entire procedure process; however, no response was received as a
result of that notification. Because the proposed rezone would
allow offices, he did not see how there would be any damage to the
lots and in fact would offer more opportunities for the site. Mr.
Overson questioned for clarification if the property had been
designated "critical land" or "sensitive" by any other methods?
Mr. Houqh stated no.
4. Broad Street Residential - To change the designation of two
small lots from "C-G" (General & Highway Commercial) to "MDR"
(Medium Density Residential). The lots are located at the entrance
to a new (MDR) residential development and not suitable for
commercial use. The related Rezone proposal would change the
zoning from "GB" (General Business) to "MF" (Residential Medium
Density)." Mr. Hough pointed out Broad Street is a short street
off of Wheaton way with some commercial businesses to the north and
to the south. The owners of the lots would like to change the
designation of the lots to residential from commercial since they
are located far enough off of Wheaton Way that there is no
visibility for passing traffic for commercial use and they are too
small to develop for any reasonable commercial endeavor and provide
the required off street parking.
Bob Mathwig, owner of the subject lots, stated it is his desire to
expand the Broadmore Village project by two lots, which would clean
up the subject area. He has been unable to come up with any
commercial value to develop the lots and believes putting the area
into residential will enhance the entire block.
Mr. Montgomery referenced a letter from Paul Schmidt, who owns a 70
by 70 foot lot to the east of the two subject lots, in which he
states the proposed change would cause him undue financial
hardship. He asked what would Mr. Schmidt's options be regarding
his concern? Mr. Houqh explained Mr. Schmidt could possibly apply
for a Special Exception relating to the "setback" requirements on
his property similar to what the property owner north of Broadmore
Village did after that earlier rezone.
5. South Smith Cove - (1) To show all areas north of Sheldon
Boulevard/Thirteenth Street and west of Highland, with the
exception of the union building at the corner of Highland, as "P"
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 13 of 19
(Park) and remove the "MU" (Mixed Use) designation from those
areas, this is the area of the Evergreen Park Master Plan. (2) To
Remove the "MU" (Mixed Use) designation from properties east of
Highland Avenue and replace with the designation "HDR (High Density
Residential). Two properties would be affected by this change. An
existing office building would continue to be a conforming use in
either of the City's high density zones. The owners of the larger
property have no interest in a mixed use or business type
development, they feel the site is best suited for a high-density
residential development that would take advantage of the views,
parks, recreation and other locational features.
Mr. Hough pointed out the Parks zoning was never extended south of
14th Street even though the City's Comprehensive Plan showed it
extending along Sheldon Boulevard. The current zoning of that area
is Business Park and it is now desired to bring that zoning into
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan by changing it to "PS"
(Parks & Schools) to cover the entire Evergreen Park Master Plan.
The union hall would be left in the Business Park zone and the
Standard Oil property and office building would be included in the
Mixed Residential Zone. The Planning Commission recommends
approval of the noted changes.
Gar Freymann, Bremerton resident, asked if the City intended to
fill in a portion of Smith Cove as an extension of Evergreen Park?
Mr. Houqh stated for clarification that the "fill" he referenced
would be the capping of the soil contaminated area. And, the
possible source of that fill may come from the construction site of
the new underground parking garage proposed in the Sinclair Landing
Project. It is not proposed to do any filling in of the water area
of Smith Cove
Mr. Montgomery questioned how close to completion is Standard Oil
Company in the removal of contaminated soils in preparation of the
site for development to residential use? Mr. Hough stated today a
representative from Standard Oil had indicated he would provide
comments for this hearing; however, his office did not receive
anything prior to commencement of this hearing. If comments are
received, they can be presented at the Public Hearing on August 27.
He did not know specifics about the clean up of contaminated soils,
but he was aware the owners have been talking with the Department
of Ecology (DOE) about a solution so they can develop the site into
residential. Mr. Montgomery questioned if the City wasn't a little
premature since DOE had not given their approval and shouldn't the
City act on that segment later? Mr. Houqh emphasized the approval
for construction would not be approved before DOE gave their
approval. He did not think it would necessary to hold that site
out of the proposed action since they would have to go through the
approval process. If the zoning was left as BP (Business Park),
TAPE #1485
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 14 of 19
there would be no guarantee they could get a rezone at a later date
and would have to wait a full year before a Comprehensive Plan
amendment could be processed.
Mr. Law questioned in regard to the Standard Oil property, if
Council approves a rezone, could a proviso be included that it must
pass environmental requirements before the zoning takes affect?
Hr. Hough stated he was not sure that would be necessary, since it
would be a requirement for development to meet the minimum State
requirements, lan 8ievers, City Attorney, stated it is difficult in
land use planning to anticipate approval of other agencies. In
this situation, he agreed with Mr. Hough that there is not much at
risk, if in fact Standard Oil was not able to clean up to DOE's
standards to allow for a residential use. It would certainly be
grounds for another rezone amendment to some economically viable
use and that could be done any time.
President Farr asked if the Standard Oil site was on the State's
list of suspected and confirmed contamination sites? Mr. Sievers
stated yes.
Mr. Overson stated he believes Council should emphases concern with
what is best for the citizens as to the use of that property and is
it best to be multi-residential. In this case it appears that it
is, but whether it can pass all State requirements isn't within
Council's purview. He supported the proposed rezone designation
for that site.
TAPE #1486
6. Merit Company - To change the designation of approximately ten
acres of a 20 acre parcel at the southwest corner of Riddell Road
and Almira Drive from "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) to MU-PUD"
(Mixed Use/PUD). This will allow some existing businesses that
currently front on Wheaton Way to expand into an undeveloped area
to the east and to offer an opportunity for a mixed use
(residential/commercial) development on the site. The related
Rezone proposal would change the zoning from "MF" (Residential,
Medium-density) to "MX" (Mixed Use) to be consistent with the Plan.
Mr. Hough pointed out the Highway 303 corridor (including Wheaton
Way) is continuing to develop as an important commercial corridor.
Large scale new developments, anchored by Fred Meyer, Safeway and
Wal-Mart and others have located along this corridor, but outside
the City limits. The unincorporated areas offer the advantage of
larger undeveloped parcels that are fully served with utilities and
urban services. Bremerton would like to provide opportunities for
commercial expansion of existing business within the City limits so
that they don't have to move into the unincorporated areas of the
TAPE #1486
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 15 of 19
County. The impacts of local expansion are significant in terms of
cost, service to increasing urban densities, reducing sprawl,
public transportation, reducing traffic congestion, and making the
most efficient use of our existing infrastructure.
The major concern of the neighborhood over this proposal is what
impacts will be felt by the residential community. One of the
solutions discussed by the Planning Commission was to allow the
change to MU, but make sure that traffic enters the site from the
west side through the shopping center. It was also suggested that
a 50-ft., buffer strip be required along Almira Drive if it is
developed as commercial. It the site is developed as a Mixed Use,
possibly in cooperation with the adjoining 10 acres, it could be a
mixture of residential and commercial. If residential fronts on
Almira Drive it would be consistent with the residential
neighborhood across the street and a buffer would not be necessary.
The Planning Commission liked changing the Zoning to Mixed Use (MX)
to allow the opportunities for a PUD that mixes different zones and
commercial with residential. The Commission also liked the idea of
providing a buffer. Conditions of approval include: (1) If a true
residential/commercial mixed use development is proposed for the
subject site, it shall be designed so that only residential uses
front on Almira Drive and non-residential uses are oriented toward
the Wheaton Way corridor. (2) Site design shall not allow
commercial traffic access from Almira Drive, but shall encourage
pedestrian and bicycle access from surrounding neighborhoods. (3)
If a commercial expansion is designed for the subject site without
residential along Almira Drive, it shall be separated from Almira
Drive by a buffer of landscaping and trees to a depth of no less
than 50 feet. (4) Development of the site is subject to site plan
approval by the Bremerton City Council following a Public Hearing.
Dave Manganette, resident on Westview Drive, referenced Mr. Hough's
Planning Commission item of August 19...the conclusions of that
agenda item document do not appear to be substantiated. He wanted
Mr. Hough to clarify the mention that this wooded 20-acre parcel
behind the commercial center has served as an effective buffer, but
then the conclusion continues that its loss should not result in
adverse impacts on the pease and stability of the neighborhood. He
also wanted Mr. Hough to respond to the enforcement of the
recommendations, which appear to have changed since the August 19
meeting wherein the buffer was identified as 100 feet. He believed
that the condition encouraging pedestrian and bicycle access would
have an averse impact on the peace of the surrounding neighborhood.
He believed most people were knowledge that the subject site is
currently used as a congregating area for illegal activities during
late night time hours.
TAPE #1486
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 16 of 19
Mr. Hough stated what he meant by his comment regarding the buffer
was that the 20-acres of natural vegetation and trees ~t had
buffered the neighborhood from the commercial for years. The
following statement in the August 19 document stated the proposed
change should not create adverse impacts on the neighborhood. The
idea is that a design should not be approved that will have an
adverse affect, but it may remove most of the existing buffer;
however, the Planning Commission is recommending that some buffer
be retained. He noted as of this date there is no proposal for a
project for the subject property. The Planning Commission held a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment hearing in June on this proposal and
most of the rezone issues were conducted in July. This item did
not come to the Planning Commission in July because they were a
little uneasy about what was being proposed, so it was held over
until August when the Planning Commission held its rezone meeting
on August 19. At that meeting, the buffer recommendation was
changed from 100 ft., to 50 ft., based on their discussion. The
four recommended conditions of a rezone would apply when a site
plan is submitted. If a plan was presented with only commercial
with no residential mix, then that condition would require a buffer
strip along Almira Drive. If a plan included a mix of residential
it would not require a 50 ft. buffer.
Elizabeth Buell, Bremerton resident, wanted to know what would be
behind the commercial buildings and she pointed out delivery trucks
are noisy and should be taken into consideration. Mr. Hough stated
that is a serious concern that will be looked at the time of the
site plan review.
Mr. Neville stated he recalled several years ago there was a
proposal before Council to use the 10-acre site for multi-family
residential and during that time the developer needed the adjoining
10 acres to be in compliance with the Growth Management act meet
needed housing stock for inner Bremerton. He questioned if that
was no longer the case? Mr. Hough explained one of the arguments,
at that time, was the City of Bremerton was allocated 20,000
people as the regions growth share and they had to arrive somewhere
within City limits. That was one of the arguments for zoning the
site Medium Density. At that time and currently, the site is
considered a good location for a residential development. Mr.
Neville questioned the rational of taking away half of the acreage?
Mr. Hough stated it is a balancing act between what is more
important bringing more people into the City or allowing more
economic development by trying to keep businesses within the city
and allowing commercial sites to expand.
Mr. Montgomery stated if the site is allowed to develop a
commercial use, the developer should be required to close the north
exit out of the shopping center onto Riddell Road and move that
TAPE #1486
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 17 of 19
entrance further down and install a traffic light. Mr. Hough noted
two letters were included in the documentation that addressed
traffic issues and misalignment of the Almira Drive intersection.
Mr. Montgomery questioned if the site is developed, will it require
the developer to install sidewalks and curbs along Riddell Road and
on the west side of Almira Drive? Mr. Mouth noted at the time a
residential development is considered for the site and the approval
required that sidewalks, curbs, gutters and street improvements be
made. Mr. Oversom pointed out Council was not looking at a site
plan at this time, only a zoning issue.
Mr. McConnell stated it was his understanding that when a part of
a property is rezoned it must be platted first and new surveys
taken and boundaries established. Mr. Hough explained the boundary
lines have been established and there is a legal description on
file. If this designation is approved, a short plat will follow.
He noted Mr. McConnell is correct, the City does not split zone
properties.
7. Waterfront Access Plan - To amend the Waterfront Access Plan to
remove the designation "Minor Viewpoint" from the Link 1-B and Link
1-C Plan maps at the east end of Eleventh Street Place and to amend
the text of the WAP to remove related viewpoint recommendations.
Link 1 of the Waterfront Access Plan showed a pedestrian trail
system leading from the Ferry Terminal along the boardwalk and
moving north inland using existing sidewalks to the Manette Bridge
and then around to Smith Cove, Evergreen Park and Olympic College.
The trail would be a series of pedestrian sidewalks that would
include signing and texturing to identify it as a pedestrian trail
system. Along this trail are areas that would be suitable for
viewpoints and one of those areas was an existing vacant street end
that is currently occupied by a garage and has been for several
decades. An adjacent property owner to this specific viewpoint
area inquired into the possibility of the City vacating that right-
of-way and using it for private purposes that would be spit between
the two adjacent property owners. The City decided it could not do
that because it is a designated Comprehensive Plan viewpoint. In
order to consider a vacation, the City needed to go back to the
Waterfront Access Plan and take it through the appropriate process
to determine if the city wanted to eliminate that particular
viewpoint. If it was eliminated, then the process of vacating the
right-of-way would proceed separately. This public hearing is to
consider whether or not the City wants to remove the viewpoint
from the Plan and allow the vacation to occur.
Mr. Hough referenced several letters, which were included in the
Agenda packet (Brad Rucker, 911 Highland Avenue; Raymond Gentz,
1102 Highland Avenue), opposing any action to remove the viewpoint
TAPE #1486
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 18 of 19
from the Waterfront Access Plan.
Gil Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, read letters of opposition from the
following individuals: Nicki M. Skotdal, 645 Fir Street, Edmonds
WA 98020 (owner of a property located at 114 11th Street); Ed
Rollman, 626 Highland Avenue, Bremerton (two letters dated August
7, 1997 and August 20, 1997); Wendy Clark, 904 Highland Avenue.
NOTE: Letters will be on file in the Department Of Community
Development File.
Councilman Colvin left the City Council Chambers at 7:25 P.M.
Jack Arends, Seattle resident, stated his mother, Carol Arends, is
a resident of Bremerton. He expressed his support of the City's
proposal for a pedestrian trail system along the waterfront and the
need to preserve pedestrian space and viewpoints. He cited other
areas where property was dedicated for such a purpose that has been
a legacy to several generations.
Ed Rollman, Bremerton resident, presented the Council members with
a packet of information that identified the human factor of the
subject viewpoint. He agrees with others who want to retain the
right-of-way as a park for community use. He sees the area as a
great place to hold neighborhood blockwatch meetings. He urged
Council to not remove the site from the Plan and to keep it in City
hands. His research, which involved contacting Municipal Research
Services, revealed there may be several laws governing any proposed
later surplusing of the site or land use changes for the site.
There is a Washington State Legislative Law 1896, that states if
a roadway is platted but not used as a roadway for a period of 10
years, the property reverts back to an open space and belongs to
all of the people. He urged Council to look at RCW 35.79 of the
Revised Code of Washington that has two chapters relating to this
proposal. If the City decides to surplus the subject site, he
believes it should be open to all bidders; however, he favors
keeping it as a community park.
Rex Garland, Bremerton resident, stated he opposed the amendment.
He apologized for not attending Planning Commission meetings when
this issue was being discussed. He pointed out the perceived
threat to security from this part of the Access Plan does not seem
to be the consensus within the neighborhood. The concerned people
should be encouraged by the good, quick emergency response within
the City. The value of the site is greater than the monetary value
it would receive if it was sold to an adjacent landowner. If the
City ever wanted to regain ownership, they would pay the difference
in value for that garage owner between the property with that
access as private property compared with the access being public
property.
TAPE #1486
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 20, 1997
Page 19 of 19
Lisa Garland, Bremerton resident, stated her opposition to the
amendment, she was impressed with the response within her
neighborhood to maintain a neighborhood feeling and she is
encouraged that others are opposed to the City vacating this right-
of-way.
Mr. Overson stated he has received considerable input that strongly
supports retaining the subject area as a view site and that it
remain part of the Waterfront Access Plan. He agrees with the
reasoning of that public input and encouraged Council to remove it
from the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Montgomery stated he views this as a very unacceptable loss of
view area. If the garage is on public land, it must come down, or
the City is making the statement that it condones its right to be
on that right-of-way. For the past 2 1/2 years, he has been
working to resolve a problem, within his District, where a garage
extends 12 feet into City right-of-way. He will not support this
amendment as presented. He will support immediate action to remove
the garage at the owners expense.
Mr. McConnell stated he agreed with those who support retaining the
viewpoint, view access properties owned by the City are scarce and
need to be preserved.
President Farr stated he could not support the proposal as
presented. He believes giving away a public access to the beach
and view sights would be a mistake.
Mr. Hough asked Council President Farr to announce how the
continued public hearing will be handled at the August 27 City
Council meeting. President Fart stated additional testimony will
be taken on the issues heard during this public hearing; however,
he asked that those who had testified not repeat their comments at
the hearing on August 27.
President Farr thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Bob
Neal and James Nobel Jr.
With no further business Meeting adjourned at 7:53 P.M.
DAVID FARR, City CoUncil President
City of Bremerton
PJ/RN/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault