The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/07/96TAPE #1353 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL APPROVED F E B 28 1996 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 1996 #0020 #0034 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, February 7, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr, and Richard Neville. Council members Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Cecil McConnell, and Lon Overson were absent due to their attending the AWC Legislative Conference in Olympia. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Pastor Bud Fraser of First Baptist Church of Bremerton. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - January 17, 1996 #AB96-029 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 M/S/C/U(Farr/Montgomery) on February 7, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 194837 through 195026 in the amount of $456,391.84. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Montgomery reported today he had the pleasure of touring the old Elks building and was amazed with its size and the decor in the building prior to its restoration. The facility is soon to be renamed the Max Hale Center and will offer 33 single occupancy rooms, 16 studio apartments, 3-one bedroom apartments, 2-two bedroom apartments. These units will house individuals below the 50% median income level and will be available for occupancy on approximately May 1. Mrs. Huff-Menees thanked those citizens attending the District Neighborhood meeting for Districts #6, #7 and #8 on February 1. The program for that meeting was a presentation of the Sinclair TAPE #1353 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 2 of 9 Landing project, which was excellent and brought out a lot of questions from members of the public. Additional presentations of the Sinclair Landing project will be coming up in the near future and she urged members of the public to take advantage of those opportunities to learn first hand what the project entails. Mr. Farr expressed his thanks to all of the people attending the combined District Neighborhood Meeting and he believes the more people see the project the more they will like it. He also urged members of the public to attend the public presentation opportunities to learn about the project. Mr. Law announced the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held February 20, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. Prosecuting Attorney Russ Houge will be the guest speaker at that meeting. MAYOR'S REPORT - State Of The City Address Mayor Lynn Hotton gave an overview of her 1995 goals and objectives describing those attained in 1995, and how some of them would be carried over into 1996. She emphasized the City's financial constraints and how to deliver services to the public within those limited funding resources, and the necessity for economic diversity, improving housing inventory, working to implement the Growth Management Act and doing the things necessary to make Bremerton an attractive and liveable city. Mayor Horton outlined her 1996 TARGET ISSUES for the City of Bremerton (copy attached and made a part of the minutes). Mr. Neville stated he has tracked the Mayor's goals since 1994, and truly appreciates her having a plan and focus to get things done. The Mayor does follow through with her plan and as always he enjoys lobbying her to move some of the items around to possibly put on a little higher priority. Mayor Hotton stated she has taken into consideration Council's goals and objectives developed at their Retreat, which was why they saw the parking issue come up on the priority list. President Law announced Councilmen Lon Overson, Cecil McConnell, Bob Winters and A1 Colvin were absent due to their attending the AWC Legislative Conference in Olympia. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Charlie Brown - Mayor Horton kept her campaign promise to reduce the City's tax on Brem-Air collection fee. Emily Moshay - YWCA Of Kitsap County's 7th Anniversary of Women of Achievement - April 30, at the Kitsap Golf and Country Club. TAPE #1353 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 3 of 9 Elizabeth Bus11 - Scotch broom issue. 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) RESTRICTING STORAGE OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES, #AB96-030 The proposed ordinance restricts reparking oversized vehicles over 10,000 lbs. or 22 feet in length to 120 hours in any 30 day period. The restriction will not apply to motor homes. Deborah Goodell, Parking Supervisor, stated this issue has been studied by the City since 1992, and she feels confident that a solution has been identified to respond to the problem that the City has experienced involving large vehicles, dump trucks, buses, paint trucks, utility vehicles, and trailers that were not addressed under current City ordinances. Terry Sears, 1919 5th Street, raised the following questions: (1) will motor homes be included in the 10,000 lb. limitation? (2) What is happening with enforcement in the 2-hour residential parking areas? (3) The source of the 10,000 lb. limit. (4) Will the City be going by a guesstimate rather than having a vehicle weighed to prove it is a specific poundage, if there is a disagreement? (5) Would the City entertain allowing a parking permit in the 2-hour parking zones if a vehicle's weight is under 10,000 lbs? (6) Will enforcement of the weight restriction be implemented only at the time the 2-hour parking limitation is implemented? (7) Prior to the 2-hour residential parking zone implemented in his neighborhood was it ok for him to park his motor home in front of his house without any restriction? Lastly, he is opposed to the limitation and he sees no good reason for it in his neighborhood where there is plenty of parking once the shipyard commuters were restricted from parking in that area during the day time. His neighbors have not have any difficulty finding parking when his motor home is parked in front of his home and the street is wide enough_ to allow emergency vehicles to pass through. He does not live in his motor home and does not feel it is a public nuisance, Ms. Goodell responded to Mr. Sears' questions in the following numbered sequence: (1) the proposed ordinance excludes motor homes and the definition being used is through Recreational Vehicle through the B.M.C.. There would not be any restriction for motor homes except in the 2-hour residential parking permit areas. (2) Enforcement would remain the same. There were no allowances for motor homes or vehicles in excess of 8,000 lbs allowed in 2-hour residential parking areas. The proposed ordinance raises the weight limit to 10,000, which would allow a little more, but most motor homes will usually exceed the 10,000 lbs. (3) The City would generally go through the makes of registered vehicles with the Department of Motor Vehicles or with the manufacturer to find TAPE #1353 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 4 of 9 out the gross weight. (4) The City will not guess the weight; however,if the owner has documentation from the manufacturer specifying the weight is less than 10,000 lbs., the City would accept that data. If such documentation was not available, the City could have the vehicle weighed at a truck scale. (4) As far as entertaining, she would go by the ordinance, which is stated in the B.M.C., that they will not issue a residential permit to a vehicle exceeding 10,000 lbs. (5) The proposed ordinance does not affect Mr. Sears particular motor home. It was affected in the first place - this action is not amending that portion of the ordinance except to raise the restriction. (6) During the past five years the 8,000 lbs limit has been in effect as far as the residential permit requirement. (7) Answer to #7 was yes. Mr. Sears could petition his neighborhood and get 65% of the petitioners to agree to withdraw the 2-hour parking zone, then it would be back the way it was previously. Mrs. Muff-Menees called for a point of order and recommended that Council note Mr. Sear's objection to the ordinance and if wishes to discuss the issue further with Ms. Goodell he do so at another time. Mr. Montgomery acknowledged Mr. Sear's objection to motor homes; however, he personally did not concur in his rational. Many City streets are too narrow to allow parking of motor homes and it would be too difficult to identify that some areas are acceptable and other not acceptable. The ordinance needs to apply to the whole City and if a person owns a motor home they should be able to afford to house them on their own property away from the street or into a rental lot. The same thing applies to people, who have boats on trailers and travel trailers. Mr. Farr asked if the proposed ordinance was in response to a long standing history of complaints? Ms. Goodell stated yes, she is personally aware of 5-years of background of chasing paisley covered buses, dump trucks, paint wagons, utility vehicles, etc. One City resident owned a construction business and would bring 4-8 construction vehicles back to the residential neighborhood and park them. That kind of activity resulted in sight limitations when residents backed out of their driveways. There were instances of several buses being moved once every 72 hours on to City rights-of- way then on to private property and then back to City rights-of- way. Parking oversized vehicles in residential neighborhoods impacts a lot of people and because there are more vehicles per household there is more congestion to contend with. An oversized vehicle in most areas takes up the space of two vehicles. Mr. Meville stated he believed Mr. Sears could address his concerns to not just Ms. Goodell, but also the Traffic Safety Committee Ms. #1823 TAPE #1353 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 5 of 9 Goodell stated Mr. Sears would have several options: (1) Under the Residential Parking Permit process, 65% of the residents of an area is necessary to petition the City for a Residential Parking zone. If Mr. Sears wants to remove the 2-hour parking, then he would be back to regular parking and he would be allowed to park his motor home. If he wants a combination of the 2-hour parking, but wants to exclude the motor home, she believed his option at that point would be to try the Traffic Safety Committee and see if he could get some relief for just that street. Mr. Sears is the only complaint she has received as far as parking a motor home in a 2- hour residential area. Mr. Seville emphasized the intent of this ordinance is to get commercial vehicles off City streets in residential areas. M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve ordinance on first reading, amending the parking code to restrict reparking of oversized vehicles; and amending BMC Title 10. Vote on motion: In Favor: Law, Neville, Farr, Huff-Menees, Motion carried. Opposed: Montgomery 8A - PUBLIC HEARING ON TRACYTON BEACH PRE-ANNEXATION ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION; AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING), #AB96-031 The City of Bremerton is considering the annexation of properties located adjacent to the west of city limits and along Tracyton Beach Road. Prior to the final decisions on the annexation, the City must determine the most appropriate Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for these parcels when they become part of Bremerton. On January 16, 1996, the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public hearing and developed a recommendation for the area. It is recommended that, upon annexation, the are be designated "Low Density Residential (LDR)" on the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The Commission further recommended SF-2, which allows for a density of four dwelling units per acre. Deputv City Clerk Gil Johnson announced the City Council received a petition signed by 76 individuals requesting that the hearing on this issue be delayed one week because they were concerned their District representative A1 Colvin, as well as three other Council members, will not be present at this hearing and they felt it was important to have full representation. President Law stated he would entertain a motion at this time in response to that request. #1909 TAPE #1353 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 6 of 9 M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Farr) moved that the presentation on this issue be made this evening and comments received from those individuals wishing to comment this evening, but the decision and further comments be held over one week when all of the Council members will be present. Mr. Law announced the following ground rules: (1) the City Council members not present at this meeting will be requested to review the tape of this meeting prior to their being seated; (2) it is hoped individuals making comment during this hearing would be courteous enough not to repeat the same comments at next week's hearing. That is not saying they could not come back and comment again, if they have new information to present. Deputy Clerk Johnson read into the record letters received from the following individuals opposing any zoning greater than SF-2: Mr. & Mrs. Palmer L. Drachenberg, 313 E. 29th Street; RoD and Marianne Gavre, 314 E. 28th Street; Jerome and Carolyn Nelson, 2932 Pawnee Drive. President Law asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members present being seated. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, explained this proposal is a pre- annexation, Comprehensive Plan and zoning issue. The subject site is located in East Bremerton and comprised of 15.22 acres made up of fifteen parcels of different shapes and sizes. The site includes six existing dwellings. The City's boundary line is on the south, which includes an apartment complex that is zoned Multi-family. There are Single Family residential neighborhoods to the east and north east zoned SF-3 and generally on lots of 8-10,000 sq. ft.. Access to the site would be by Tracyton Beach Road and E. 19th Street. Adequate Utility services are available and can be provided for urban level development. The City received a Letter Of Intent to annex property within this area into the City, which was accepted in December 1995, and directed staff to proceed with the annexation process. The procedure in this case is to first take it through the pre- annexation, Comprehensive Plan and zoning, which starts at the Planning Commission level. Planning staff prepared a report that included looking at the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning and the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning, the City's policies for future growth and development, population, etc. Four zones were considered under the Low Density Residential designation, which is in the City is 3-8 units per acre. There were three zoning TAPE #1353 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 7 of 9 categories that fell into that designation, SF-1, SF-2-3, and Duplex. They analyzed all of those zones to determine which would be the most suitable. SF-1 is the City's lowest zone and allows lots about 1/3 an acre size. Generally, the only time that designation is applied is when sewers are not available. SF-2 is also large lot zone, about 1/4 acre in size, and generally applied in shoreline areas where density is already low, and usually applied to existing developments. There is not much call for SF-2 for new development. SF-3 is most typical of the new subdivisions being built around the County and offers a density up to 9-units per acre and a bonus density up to 10-12 units given additional open space/common areas or other amenities. Duplex Residential isn't applied to any new areas in the City, but is applied to existing Duplex neighborhoods. Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was Low Density Residential and a Comprehensive Plan designation with City zoning of SF-3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 16, 1996, and took considerable testimony that touched on the following: view blockage, density is not consistent with the existing neighborhood, lot sizes, access by E. 29th Street was not a good idea because that street goes through an existing residential neighborhood. The property owners that live in this particular neighborhood are looking at the proposed zoning of SF-3, which would allow roughly 120 units on that 15 acres, if developed to the maximum. The impact of traffic from those 120 single family residences out onto 29th Street would cause considerable impact on their neighborhood. Also, noise associated with such traffic was another concern. Members of the public felt if the lots were larger they would generate higher value homes that would have a more positive impact on the values of their own neighborhood as opposed to a higher density, smaller house on smaller lots, less value that might have adverse impact on their property values. The Planning Commission listened to all of the concerns and came to the conclusion that Low Density Residential was the best Plan designation and SF-2 as opposed to SF-3 would be the best zoning. SF-2 allows roughly 4- units per acre contrasting with about 9-units per acre for SF-3. The minimum lot size for SF-2 is 9,600 sq. ft.,(nearly 1/4 acre) and it also allows a bonus density. Compared to the recommendation from the Planning Commission of 4-units per acre, there is a decision to be made on the potential annexed property owners to remain in the County in order to achieve a high density. Mr. Neville asked if he understood correctly that Kitsap County's Comprehensive Plan shows Urban low residential with a density of 1- 6 units per acre? Mr. Hough explained the Comprehensive Plan shows 1-9 units per acre, not Low Density Residential and zoned Urban Residential 6. The next step up in the County's zoning is Urban Residential 9, which would also be consistent with their TAPE #1353 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 8 of 9 Comprehensive Plan designation. Mr. Farr asked Mr. Hough to elaborate on the bonus density at the SF-2 designation. Mr. Hough stated bonus densities are allowed in all residential zones, which is identified in a Table in the City's Planned Unit Development section of the Zoning Ordinance, that provides a certain additional density based on additional open space provided. A PUD requires 15% open space as part of a sub- division/new development. If up to 25% of open space is provided, a few more units per acre are granted. Mr. Montgomery asked if it wouldn't be advantageous for the property owner to remain in the County in order to gain the higher density designation and apply for annexation later on? Mr. Mough responded that would be a possibility. David Smith, representing the applicant, stated they have had quite a bit of discussion over the events that have occurred over the absence of several Council members. He and the applicant would like to make their presentation next week before the full Council. Doug Berger, 2926 Pawnee Drive, stated the petition with 70+ signatures was generated from a neighborhood meeting and they supported the idea of making any formal presentation at the hearing on February 14. He also supported the idea of delaying the hearing an additional week if the Council's Agenda was already full for the February 14th meeting. He asked for a show of hands of those in the audience that were in support of the Planning Commissions recommendation. John McCennell, E. 28th Street, registered his concern over impact of traffic onto E. 28th Street and E. 29th Street. He is not opposed to development, but did support the SF-2 designation. Jim McDonald, 2994 Pawnee Drive, stated he hoped Council would make their decision based on testimony and what is best for Bremerton. Adrian Weaver, 2801 Cierra Road, stated her property is adjacent to the subject site. She urged any Council members not familiar with the site to please make a visit so they understand the topography of that area. TAPE #1354 Bob Tyson, Alta Drive, stated he was in support of the lower density and was not sure why SF-1 was not being considered. TAPE #1353 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 7, 1996 Page 9 of 9 With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:05 P.M.. ~TJ~HLEEN~L.~, City Clerk KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault TOP PRIORITIES Z MARKET BREMERTON · Finalize development of marketing tools for- Bremerton Residents Commercial development Multi-family & single family infill housing · Implement a community newsletter · Adopt development incentives · Continue streamlining permit process conduct development/contractor workshop · Institutionalize customer service · Initiate town meetings in conjunction with Bremerton School District PROVIDE WATER/WASTEWATER/STORMWATER SERVICE AT RATES WHICH DON'T EXCEED COST OF LIVING · Complete treatment plant and stormwater improvements · Monitor in house treatment plant maintenance · Integrate pump station maintenance CRIME PREVENTION FOCUS · Burglary reduction · Business crime reduction · Gang violence and graffiti · Drug activity FACILITATE SINCLAIR LANDING DEVELOPMENT UJ (J HIGH PRIORITIES CONTINUE COMMUNITY POLICING SUPPORT · D.A.R,E. · G.R.E.A.T. · Bicycle Patrol CONTINUE HOUSING STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION · First time home buyer program · Housing and rental rehab programs · Establish neighborhood target sites · Continue abatement program PARKS · · · · · CAPITAL PROGRAM Complete golf course expansion Complete Arvon children's park development Complete skateboard park development Complete Haddon acquisition Evergreen Park upgrades and expansion TARGET REDEVELOPMENT SITES · Smith Cove · Charleston District · Werner Road/Auto Center · Sheridan Neighborhood FINALIZE STREET MAINTENANCE PLAN · Complete 1996 improvements REVIEW FUNDING OPTIONS NEEDED FOR ADEQUATE STREET MAINTENANCE FINALIZE DIVERSIFICATION PLAN Z in !_1_1 n" MODERATE PRIORITIES ESTABLISH DROP OFF SITE FOR BULK GOODS FINALIZE COUNTY WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION FINALIZE NEW UTILITY BILLING FORMAT IMPLEMENT PARKING CHANGES · Eliminate "repark" issues in business district FINALIZE CHARTER REVIEW FOR FALL BALLOT COMPLETE IVY GREEN CEMETERY UPGRADES · Assist in removal of Evergreen Park Training Tower EXPAND URBAN TREE NURSERY CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TRAINING FACILITY ELIMINATE SCOTCH BROOM PROBLEM ALONG WARREN AVENUE REVIEW STREET LIGHTING OPTIONS REVIEW TRAFFIC LIGHTS FOR BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW COMPLETE GORST CONNECTOR DESIGN CONTINUE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION · Expand Neighborhood K Prep CONTINUE EMPLOYEE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM CONTINUE PROVIDING PROACTIVE LEGAL SERVICE CONTINUE YOUTH AGENDA SUPPORT · Coordinating Council on Youth · Bremerton Youth Council 2001 GOALS GORST CONNECTOR · Property acquisition and construction PENDERGAST REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX · Phase II