Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/94TAPE #1222 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL PROVED AU6 4 199 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1994 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 3, 1994, at 5:30 P.M., with Council. President Sherril Huff-Menees presiding. ~Council members present were Morrie Dawkins, Bob Winters, John Law, David Farr, Richard Neville, A1 Colvin, Lon Overson. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Huff-Menees and Invocation given by Jim Bemis, Dean of Relations at Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church. Mayor Hotton stated it was her privilege to introduce some very special guests of the City of Bremerton. This year is the 25th anniversary of the Bremerton/Kure, Japan Sister City Program and for the last 25 years the two cities have been exchanging students as well as delegations of Bremerton residents and Kure residents visiting the respective cities. Mayor Horton introduced her Secretary, Elaine Valencia, who introduced Ryo Biwaki, secretary to the Mayor of Kure. Ryo Biwaki stated it is great pleasure to introduce the Mayor of Kure, Shinya Ogasawara. Mayor Hotton announced the following Bremerton host families and their student: Gerald & Kathy Woodside hosting Tsuyoski Wada; Ben & Kerry Ambach hosting Satoko Ishii; and Paul & Franci Ferguson hosting Chie Hinoskita. A special "thank you" was extended to the host families for opening their homes and family life to the students from Kure. As part of the hosting, a brunch was held this date, followed by a tourof The Sun, several schools, and Lions Field. On Thursday, activities for the delegation will include a tour on Harbor Tours, a tour of the Naval Museum, shopping, and a tour of the Bremerton High School. Mayor Horton pointed out the City Council of Kure is made up of 40 Council members and the City Council President has a very large job. She thanked all of the delegates for coming to Bremerton Shinya Ogasawara, Mayor Of Kure, Japan, stated this is his first visit to Bremerton and he is particularly delighted and privileged to be here on the 25th anniversary of the Bremerton/Kure Sister City Program. Our two cities have enjoyed fruitful relations over the past 25 years. On behalf of the all the citizens of Kure, we will all do our very best to insure that these ties of friendship will continue to flourish long into the future. #0399 #0412 TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 2 of 31 Takashi Watanabe, Kure City Council President, stated it is an honor and a privilege to be in Bremerton and to. have this opportunity to address Bremerton City Council. The City Council has a long history of being a strong democratic government of the people and is an example to Japan. Kure City Council and he would like to wish you every success in your work to insure a thriving future for the whole city. Mayor Horton announced this evening the Kure delegation would be going on to the Bremerton Central Lions Club picnic at Evergreen Park. Again, she thanked the delegation for coming and hoped that their stay was enjoyable. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - July 20, 1994 #AB94-161 M/S/C/U(Neville/Dawkins) presented. to approve the Consent Agenda as CLAIMS/WARRANT 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/Neville) on August 3,. 1994, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 177362 through 177484 in the amount of $350,958.13. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson expressed his hope that the delegation from Kure had a great time on their visit to Bremerton. Mr. Neville expressed a special "thank you" and "welcome" to our visitors from Kure. He announced the West Narrows Neighborhood meeting will be August 9, 7:00 P.M., with Sgt. Ron Mox taking about the special forces and gang unit. This meeting will be held at the Bremerton Neighborhood Christian Center at 5th and Warren. On Tuesday evening he attended a Block Watch (root beer float social) on Elizabeth Avenue, which was well attended and lots of fun. He was pleased to see the Bike Patrolmen meeting and becoming acquainted with residents of that area. Mr. Farr also welcomed the visitors from Kure and hoped they have an enjoyable time on their visit. Mr. Law extended a "welcome" to the visitors from Kure. He also TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 3 of 31 extended a welcome to Rear Admiral Henry F. Herrera, Commander of the Submarine Group 9 and Naval Base Seattle, and a farewell to Rear Admiral Richard Riddell, who will be going to Washington, D.C. Mr. Dawkins stated in 1983 he was part of Bremerton's delegation to Kure, Japan and while there they experienced being hosted most graciously. When his group was at the train station in Kure, they were surrounded by a crowd of children, who were excited to see them and to meet them. Mr. Colvln stated he was impressed by the remarks made by the Mayor of Kure..."it is his desire that the ties of friendship between our two countries will flow on into the future", and Mr. Colvin 'felt citizens of Bremerton feel the same. way. He thanked his constituents in District #1 for the fine effort they made promoting voter registration, which will continue. Appropriate forms for voter registration/self-registering can be obtained by calling the City Council office. Mr. Winters expressed his "welcome" to the delegation from Kure and hoped that some day he will be able to visit their city and country. Mrs. Huff-Menees welcomed the Kure visitors as well and reported she enjoyed the opportunity to share brunch with them and becoming better acquainted. The City Council has been considering some structural changes to the Council meeting formats and possibilities of changes in the future regarding a Town Meeting. It has been discussed, for some time, that the City might benefit from having an opportunity, in addition to the regular business meeting, for people to come and express their views and the City to have an opportunity to present the public with more indepth information on particular issues. Therefore, Council is looking at, on a quarterly basis, taking one of the regular Council meetings and conducting the first part of City business quickly and then going directly to a Town Meeting format. Council is still working on how that might be accomplished and will be seeking input from the public as to what they would like to see the Town Meeting format include. Also, starting in approximately two weeks Council will change their business meeting format in that prior to the Council meeting (5:15-5:3.0 P.M) there will be an opportunity for "public service" announcements for those individuals who would like to come and have their message televised. With that taking place, Public Recognition will be shortened to 15 minutes and individuals who wish to be recognized during that time period will be asked to keep their comments to 3-minutes. Once that time limit has been met, any further Public Recognition comments will be allowed at the end of the business meeting. Also, Council Member Reports will be given at the end of the business meeting. It is hoped that with TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 4 of 31 the new format it will provide a meeting process that goes more smoothly and more quickly and gives the people an opportunity that are here on specific issues to hear those issues in a timely manner. MAYOR'8 REPORT Mayor Lynn Hotton stated over the past two weekends Mr. Colvin has asked her about the closure of Lions Field. At first she thought the incident was a one-time lapse, however, it happened again. After talking to the Parks Director, it was learned there was a lapse of duties by a Parks Department personnel and she believes the problem has been corrected. She stressed the City's policy is to have all'parks open on the weekend, which also include restroom facilities. If such a situation should happen in the future, she asked that someone call her and she will send someone out immediately to open the facility. She extended a special "thanks" to the residents abutting Lions Field, who graciously opened their homes for people who needed to use a restroom. A resident, who lives next to Lions Field, pointed out the sign at the entrance of Lions Field states the park is closed on weekends. Since the membership structure of the Cable Committee has been changed, she is looking for someone representing a Non-Profit Agency to serve on that committee. Applications for the open position can be obtained by calling her office. President Huff-Menees stated prior to proceeding with the Agenda, she would like Mr. Law to make a statement regarding some of the issues that are on the Agenda. Mr. Law stated for clarification while there may not be as much discussion on any subject as the public may expect, these subjects were previously reviewed either in a Study Session or by one or more Council Committees. At those meetings, which are open to the public with the dates and subject published, questions are asked of the responsible departments. In many cases, clarification is required and in some cases the requests are even returned to the department for further clarification. All of this is done with the intent of having the business of the evening move at a reasonable pace. Council will always ask for public input on any subject brought before them. If anyone has questions on any item that is going to be presented to the Council, they are asked to call the City Council office at 478- 5280. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Kal Leitchman reported he had an interesting meeting with Dan Eisses, City of Bremerton Senior Engineer. Sometimes they agreed and sometimes disagreed on certain issues, but both felt that pedestrian safety will, in part, be due to public education for pedestrians and drivers. The main disagreement they have is over TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 5 of 31 where needed cross-walks should be located. Painted cross-walks are not needed all over the City, but are required in certain areas where there is extreme danger to pedestrians. 'Dan Eisess assured him that he will look into the matter further and will get back to him. Mr. Leitchman stated that hopefully with communication, some of these problems can be solved. Nancy Buck, District i Voter Registration Coordinator, publicly thanked everyone that participated in the recent Voter Registration Drive, including the business locations: Safeway on Wheaton Way, Bag & Save on Wheaton Way, and Randish Red Apple on Lebo Blvd. Many of the people involved worked on telephone committees; set up tables, chairs, and signs; or ran back and forth to the County Auditor's office. Special "thank you" to those who coordinated the locations: Jane Carroll, Betty Throm, and Dee Fitzwater; and to the volunteers who sat at the locations from 4 to 10 hours, all on their own time: Mary Drouin, John Timmerman, Allison Johns, Mary Wagner, Pauline McBeth, LaDora Korb, Betty Throm, Beverly Baldwin, Cecelia McCrory, Elsie Domstad, Elnora Holland, Judy Watson, Dusty Rhodes, Jane Carroll, Dee Fitzwater, Joe Shoemaker, Mary Shold, George Strong, Jean Emery, Ruth Yates, Sandy Binz, Helen Eberle, and Howard Francis. Nancy stated that without citizen involvement in the City, we wouldn't be a community, and she really appreciates everything she has learned, the experience gained, and the new the new friendships she has made through meeting new neighbors. Roy McGinnis announced efforts are underway to organize an a11- men's community chorus of gospel singers. He sees the formation of such a group as a positive influence within the community and offers the opportunity for men of all ethnic backgrounds to become better acquainted and reach out to others through music. An organizational meeting will be held later this month and people interested in signing up or learning more about such a group can call John Stephenson 373-5036, or Ivy McGinnis 692-7123. Don Atkinson, Executive Director Bremerton Main Street Association, was pleased to report there was a significant amount of produce at the Sunday Farmers' Market on July 31. There was a great turn out for T.K. Bryant, who performed at the concert on the boardwalk on Friday evening. The group Cross Fire will perform at the August 5th Concert on the boardwalk. On August 7 the Tour Day/Kitsap 35 mile bicycle ride will start at the boardwalk. JAZZ IT UP will take place on August 20, which will be the second Blackberry event so this year. President Huff-Menees stated several times this pass week she encountered people who were very enthusiastic about Concerts On The Boardwalk and looked forward to upcoming performances. It pleased her to see so much enthusiasm for that event and she personally was looking forward to the blue grass songs. Mr. Atkinson noted the concerts have been well artended and TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 6 of 31 the weather has cooperated and there is excitement over the last event of the season on the 19th...JR. CADILLAC will perform from 8:00 - 10:00 P.M., followed by a "Mig" fly-over with fireworks from its wings promoting the Air Fair on Sunday, August 21. Shannon Cook reported she has collected sponsors for the Hospice Walk-A_Thon on August 6, 9:30 AM. A Blood Drive will be held August 26 at the Harrison Hospital Annex from 11:00 AM to 1:00 P.M., and 2:00 - 5:00 P.M. Gordy Byrd stated he enjoyed the Concert in the Park on Tuesday evening and was looking forward to the next concert on Tuesday, August 9, which is rebroadcast on Monday evening at 7:00 p.m., on Channel 12. He wished a "Happy Anniversary" to his parents, who will be celebrating their 53rd AnniVersary. Mayor Horton announced following the August 10th City Council meeting, there will be an open discussion on attributes wanted in a new Police Chief for the City of Bremerton. The pubic is invited to come to City Hall and provide input and/or watch the proceedings live on Channel 12, which will be rebroadcast on Thursday, August 11, in conjunction with the rebroadcasting of the City Council meeting. Richard Neville stated an issue that was tabled at the previous City Council meeting on the American Legion Field Improvement and use of the Roosevelt Field Capital Asset Fund has been pulled off the Council Agenda due to the Bremerton School District pulling their support from the project for one year. 7C - CONFIRMING HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER - JAMES MEITH, #AB94-166 The Mayor has negotiated terms of employment with James Meith for the position of Human Resource Manager and recommends appointment of Mr. Meith for confirmation. This employment contract requires Council approval in that it contains a non-standard clause allowing up to $2,000 for moving expenses (BMC 2.49,050), and authorizes a starting salary above rate one of the approved salary range. The starting salary has been negotiated at step 3 of band 7. Council confirmation is required for administrative heads under BMC 2.49.010. Although this section lists confirmation of the Personnel Director rather than a Human Resources Manager, confirmation is requested to comply with the spirit of this ordinance. An ordinance amending this section and other code sections referencing Personnel Director was recommended to Council in mid May, but was delayed for further review of Public Works positions subject to confirmation. Mayor Hotton stated she believes Mr. Meith is very qualified for #1561 TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 7 of 31 this position with over ten years of experience on the personnel side working for San Bernardino County as a Personnel Officer; and for the past ten years he has served on the labor side dealing with labor issues. San Bernardino County has one large bargaining unit that represents both the County and cities within that area. She did have some concern when she reviewed his application, however, after checking several of his references, one individual made the comment that they felt he would be more qualified on the personnel side because of his personality. Mr. Meith participated in an assessment center that included five individuals and he scored very high through that process. GordV Byrd questioned the starting salary level for this position. Mayor Horton explained the salary range for this position goes from $41,000 to approximately $51,000 and Mr. Meith's salary would amount to approximately $45,000 per year. Because the duties of the Human Resources Manager has decreased due to the City contracting out for labor negotiations, the position was downgraded from Band #4 to Band #7. Mr. Law stated after reviewing Mr. Meith's application form, he believes the City is fortunate that he has chosen to come north. M/S/C/U(Law/Colvin) to approve contract and confirm the amount of James Meith as Human Resources Manager. Mayor Horton reported Mr. Meith would be in the City on August 15th in order to sit in on the interviews for the Labor Negotiations contract and his start date will be after Labor Day. 7A - CONTRACT MODIFICATION - U.8. NAVY AND CITY OF BREMERTON (CONTRACT #N62474-85-C-6913) - CORROSION CONTROL STUDY. #AB94-162 The City of Bremerton is required by State law to perform a corrosion control study on the water system which will cost $83,000. As provided by the contract between the U.S. Navy and the City, the U.S. Navy will 'cost share 35% of this study, not to exceed $29,000. Kathleen Caha11, Water Resources Manager, stated the City and the Navy have a contract that describes the conditions of the water service. The US Navy uses approximately 1/3 of City water used on a daily basis.' Per the contract, the Navy participates in projects like this proposal in proportion to their benefit. Public comment - none. Mr. Colvin questioned the process used to determine the Navy's portion of the project? Ms. Caha11 explained the Navy uses about 1/3 of the City's water and on a water project such as this they #1730 TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 8 of 31 are contributing 35% of the cost. Mr. Dawkins questioned the date when State Law took effect mandating the City to take actions as those proposed? Ms. Cabal1 stated the State acted in 1993 and the City has until June 1995 to complete the project. The Navy has cooperated very well with the City on this project. M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve Contract Modification P00012 and authorize the Mayor to sign the U.S. Navy Contract Modification subject to City AdministrativePolicies and Procedures. 7B - CABLE CONSULTANT CONTRACT - 3H CABLE COMMUNICATION8 CONSULTANTS, #AB94-163 The franchise with TCI Cable and Falcon will expire May 1995. The City recently completed a "Request for Qualifications". Three consultants were scheduled for interviews: 1) 3H Cable Communications Consultants; 2) CTIC; and 3) MuniCom. The interview team consisted of Bob Winters, City Councilman; Jack Riggs, Cable Committee; Paula Johnston, Tax Inspector; and Kathleen McCluskey, Administrative Services Director. The interview team selected 3H Cable .Communications Consultants. The consultant will perform technical evaluation, analyze outreach information, provide survey forms, prepare a draft request for renewal for cable services, negotiate with cable operations, prepare proposed cable ordinances and franchise, and provide assistance with cable rate regulation. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated the documentation in the Agenda packet shows the refranchising schedule the City is proposing and the four phases of the Cable Consultants duties. Cost of the consultant for refranchising is $19,750.00. It is her hope that the negotiations will be concluded by May of 1995. Mr. Neville noted the City used this firm during the previous franchising process. He questioned if the City found them to be an excellent firm in that they provided alll necessary materials and were truthful and factual? Ms. McCluskeV stated Mr. Neville was correct and the City had what she would consider a "state-of-the- art" franchise 10 years ago and many cities are just now getting the kind of things the City negotiated 10 years ago. Originally, the City had decided to do the rate regulation process internally through Paula Johnston, which is still the plan, however, the proposed contract includes consulting assistance for that process. Mr. Law noted that the $19,750 needed for the refranchising process will be billed to the cable companies and the City will be #1961 TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 9 of 31 reimbursed in 1995. Ms. McCluskey stated payment to the consultant will be at the conclusion of each of the four phases. She anticipates spending one half of the funding this year and the remainder in 1995. The City will be reimbursed for those expenditures at the time the City gets into the RFP process. Mr. Winters stated he sat in on the interview process for the cable consultant and supports the recommendation to hire 3H Cable Communications Consultants,.,whichis a local firm. He noted team #2, CTIC, was very impressive as well, but they were not a local company. Mr. Colvin recognized a "job well done" by CCAC committee member Jack Riggs, Tax and License Inspector Paula Johnston and Director of Administrative Services Kathy McCluskey in the interview process. Mr. Dawkins questioned if he understood correctly that 3H Cable Communications Consultants stated they had worked with 26 -other cities in various capacitates? Ms. McCluskey stated references were checked and 3H Cable Communications Consultants received excellent recommendations from everyone called. Three or four reference calls were made on all of the applications and every response was very positive. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Winters/Colvin) motion to approve contract with 3H Cable Communications Consultants in the amount of $19,750 plus expenses. 9A - PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE SF-2 TO SF-3 OF 2.51 ACRES; LOCATION: 25TH & SNYDER & WYCOFF; APPLICANT: CHARLES HASELWOOD, #AB94-164 On July 12, 1994, the Bremerton Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request for a zoning reclassification of a 2.51 acre site from Single-FamilyTwo (SF-2) to Single Family Three (SF-3). The applicant is Charles Haselwood, and the site is the former Unocal Fuel facility located at the 2500 block of Snyder Avenue, north of the intersection of Snyder Avenue and 25th Street, west of Wycoff Avenue. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the rezone request. The City Council, as the legislative authority may accept or reject the Planning Commissions recommendation. President Huff-Menees asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with Councilman Morrie Dawkins stepping down and all remaining Council members were seated. Jack Rilingham, Current Planning Division, stated this is an action TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 10 of 31 that has been before the City Council before under SEPA appeals and the question before Council, at this time, is just a consideration of a rezone of the property. The site is located' just north of 25th Street and east of Wycoff Avenue at the terminus of Snyder Avenue, adjacent to the Port Washington Narrows. Current zoning on the site is Single Family-2 (SF-2) and the applicant is requesting a rezone to Single Family-3 (SF-3). The applicant has future plans to subdivide the property into 11 residential lots. The current zoning, under SF-2, would permit the development plans as proposed. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is low density residential (0-7 dwelling units per acre). The Comprehensive Plan essentially provides for three residential densities: (1) 0-7 dwelling units per acre density; (2) 7-15 dwelling units per acre density; (3) 15-30 dwelling units per acre density. The Planning Commission identified there is somewhat of an inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan's density designations and the City's residential densities. The Planning Commission chose to look at the densities as a low-medium- high density and found that the Comprehensive Plan designation of low density was generally consistent with the City's Single Family zoning as opposed to some of the City's higher multi-family zoning districts that are allowed. Mr. Allingham noted a correction to the Agenda Bill ... the Planning Commission held a hearing on this issue on July 12, 1994, not 1993. The Comprehensive Plan also has a "Text" element, which states the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission state relevant goals and policies that are supportive of rezone. When considering a rezone, Council has to find that the rezone is substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based on an analysis of the Comprehensive Plan Map and goals and policies of the plan. The Planning Commission found that it is substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The next criteria that must be met is that the rezone is necessary because conditions in the immediate vicinity have so markedly changed that a rezone is required in the public's 'interest. That is a difficult finding to make, but the Planning Commission found that State, regional and City wide policies pertaining to housing in land use are changing or have changed. And, that through the adoption of Housing Bremerton, which is an element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act, which mandates higher densities within.in urban areas such as Bremerton, that this TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 11 of 31 change to a slightly higher density would be consistent with changing conditions locally and regionally. Two criteria that do not apply to this proposal are: (1) whether or not the rezone will correct a zone classification or boundary that was inappropriately established; (2) that the rezone is to remove an overlay zoning district designation. The third criteria that Council must find is that therezone will not result in adverse environmental consequences. Once again, this is a difficult criteria to measure, but changing from a slightly lower density single family residential zoning district to a slightly higher density should not result in any significant environmental consequences. The fourth criteria that must be met is that the rezone must bear substantial relationship to the public welfare because there is a need for the change in question and that the public need will best be served by changing the zoning classification. The Planning Commission found that there is a need to increase densities and to allow in-fill residential development and that the public interest would be served by making more intense use of existing infrastructure, such as roads, water, wastewater and other utilities that are currently available at the site. The fifth criteria is that there is essential public facilities and services presently available or could be available.. All utilities and roads exist in the subject area and could service the higher densities that are currently allowed in a SF-3 zoning district. Based on the above listed criteria, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezone. Gar3FSexton, Attorney, representing Charles Haselwood, stated they perceive the application to rezone to be a correction to what appears to be a flaw in the existing Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out this proposal is already subject to a previously approved mitigated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Although, on the surface, this looks basically as a simple rezone, it is a rezone subject to the conditions that are contained in the mitigated EIS approval. The key issues in looking at this property are: Utilities are already in place; the proposed facilities project 4.4 dwelling units per acre; surrounding properties to the north, west, and south are already zoned SF-3 and to the east is open water. All that is being requested is to take what appears to be an inconsistency, whether there was some historical reason to give the site a SF-2 zoning designation, and bring it into conformity with the surrounding zoning. TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 12 of 31 Mr. Sexton pointed out the following language under the Comprehensive Plan "Policies": "Encourages housing construction, rehabilitation and maintenance in residential areas where public services are available and adequate". He emphasized the proposal before Council fits into that description. Additional language under the "Policies" section states: "provide opportunities for a range of various types and densities of housing throughout Bremerton to accommodate the lifestyles and income levels of present and future residents". There are already duplexes and tri- plexes and higher densities located above the site. This project would add to the Comprehensive Plan, while allowing slightly higher density than that under SF-2, as single familylots it is closer to providing variety within this particular area. The Housing Element states: "Ensure an adequate housing sUpDlV to meet changing needs of Bremerton residents". He felt the proposed project was obviously in keeping with that statement. He cited "Housing Bremerton" Objectives: "Accommodate population growth by increasing housing density as per the City's Comprehensive Plan", which seems to be what is being done today if all the utility and street infrastructures are in place instead of allowing things to move out into the sprawl. He emphasized that is precisely what this project does by bringing residential back and takes a piece of land that has been vacant for a long period of time and helps the very essence of what we are trying to do. He noted the criteria is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the general policy trend is toward higher densities in order to create more affordable housing and make better use of the infrastructure. Allowing for higher residential density is consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) planning and is in the publics' interest. The proposed project is clearly in that category. Finally, it is noted that there is a public need to increase density and to allow in-fill of the residential development, which again the proposed project falls within that criteria. This is clearly a project that is appropriate for the rezone and is in keeping with the surrounding area doing all the .things that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning identifies. He emphasized the proposed rezone was approved by the Planning Commission and urged the Council to give its approval. Doug Eide stated he and his wife have owned a piece of property. across from the subject site for approximately 10 years, which consists of four residential dwellings. The 1994 total assessed valuation for his property is slightly over $315,000 and they pay $4,400/yr. property taxes. He does not currently reside on this property, but he did in the past. In looking at his tax assessment on this property for 1995, he noted a decrease by $20,000, which he felt was a substantial decrease. Most people would be more than happy to hear their property taxes were going down, but he is not. What he has seen happening in the subject area over the past 10 years has been continuing deterioration of the neighborhood and TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 13 of 31 Snyder Street. Even though he has brought that point to the attention of others, he has not seen any action; and considering the 1995 property tax assessment, he feels the Tax Assessor agrees with him that the area has deteriorated. The subject area has also been attacking elements of crime activity and for the past four years he has tried to counter such activity by providing an on-site management. His property manager is responsible to monitor the tenants, maintain the property, take care of the yards and to protect his investment. After researching the applicant's proposal, he believes it would be more than what is already in the neighborhood and current property owners are enjoying. The project would require some things that the current surrounding property owners do not have to do, who have lots smaller than what is being proposed, such as two on-site parking places per unit. He would hope that property values will increase and he views this as a great opportunity for in-fill. He also felt such a project would help reduce some of the crime that the area is currently experiencing. In Bremerton's Housing Plan and the Kitsap County- Wide Planning Policy, adopted in 1992, some of the benefits recognized in attracting house of all density types to urban areas is that higher density residential development within walking distance of jobs, transportation, schools, and parking, limits the urban expansion to rural forest areas. He emphasized these are all policies of Element A to implement RCW 36.78.110 relating to the establishment of growth urban areas within City jurisdictions under the Growth Management Act. The City of Bremerton has more than its fair share of below market rate housing and when the Kitsap-wide Planning Policies were being established in 1992, this was recognized and Bremerton was allocated approximately 20,000 new residents out of the 90,000 coming into the County in year 2010. All jurisdictions are charged with providing affordable housing for residents.' The definitions for affordable housing are: (1) low market rate; (2) low-income; (3) moderate income; (4) market rate housing. Under "Market Rate Housing" it states: "shall mean housing intended for households with incomes that are greater than 110% of the county-wide medium. Even though people might not think of this as affordable housing, under the County's and City's planning policy it is. He supports the proposal as presented and believes Bremerton has more than its fair share of low income bottom end housing and this action is a step in the right direction to get more higher end housing in the City and helping the neighborhood. Phll Olwell, Chairman of the Wycoff Neighborhood Watch, stated he, on behalf of his neighbors, urged Council to seriously consider all opinions and deny the rezone request as presented. They believe the Planning Department findings to be inconclusive and not in the neighborhood's best interest. There seems to be an obvious foregone conclusion that this rezone should go forward even though TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 14 of 31 the City's own Zoning Ordinances and one of its senior planners have stated otherwise. What is thepurpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the City's policies if they are not followed? The City's Zoning Ordinance is very detailed about what an applicant must do to get a rezone for a particular piece of property. And, it is the applicant's burden, not the neighborhood's, Council or Planning Department, to provide beyond a reasonable doubt the necessity for such a rezone. He and his neighbors do not believe that the applicant has shown that necessity at this time. In looking at the approval of a rezone, there are certain criteria that must be met, and to date there has been a lot of speculation if the criteria is adhering to the Comprehensive Plan and density factors. If you look at the criteria for approval of a rezone, it states that the City Council can approve a rezone only if it meets all of the following criteria: (1) the rezone is substantially consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (pro and con on both sides and he was not going to argue over that point); (2) the rezone is necessary because either the conditions in the immediate vicinity are so markedly changed that a rezone is required in the public interest. (He questioned how have the conditions in this vicinity changed so markedly to require a rezone? The Planning Department has not stated how they have changed nor has the applicant. Under item "b"of Section 2 it states: The rezone will correct its'own classification or zone boundarv that was inappropriate when established". Mr. Olwell stressed the applicant has not proved that point as well and it was rebutted by Mr. Overson at the prior public hearing on this project. There was no oversight in 1988, when extensive Study Sessions and Council time was spent in adopting the Zoning Ordinance that pertained to the whole city. When the applicant cites the densities surrounding the site he speaks of 8.1 dwelling units per acre that reflects densities that do not front onto the Port Washington Narrows. The zoning along Snyder Avenue borderings the water are all zoned SF-2, which was a major consideration when the comprehensive studies were made in development of the Zoning Ordinance in 1988. What is being proposed is to change SF-2 zoning designation to SF-3. Mr. Olwell's and those he represents hired an engineer to design the exact development under the existing zoning - SF-2. He stressed the conditions within the subject area have not changed and the proposed project would be "turning its back" to the very neighborhood it is coming to help due to proposed interior streets, and fencing on 25th and Wycoff. Another criteria reads: "you must also look at whether or not the rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public interest or welfare because there is a public need for a chanqe of the kind in question; and the public need will be best served by changing the existing zoning". He questioned what is it that will make it an advantage to have two- three more homes on the site? The subject project suggests home TAPE #1222 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 15 of 31 prices of $175 - 250,000 on a parcel of property that was supposedly purchased for $135,000. In his opinion, there is plenty of money to make on this project and saw no justification to change the zoning classifications. TAPE #1223 In regard to City utility services, he questioned are there adequate services available or will the City have to raise rates to provide them? The only utility service that he and his group question relate to City sewer treatment plant capabilities. The sewer outfall at 25th and Snyder happens to be the second highest overflow of the City sewer into the Port Washington Narrows. In regard to how comments have come forward on this item, the Planning Department has received numerous letters and he has addressed the issue numerous times, yet their comments have not been included in some of the Planning Commission packets and Council packets. He pointed out an error on the Agenda Form under "Impact of Non-Passage: the site will retain Single Family Two Zoning, not "Three" zoning. He raised the issue of a 3-page memo from Senior Planner Ron Hough to Jack Allingham, dated November 9, 1993, stating his recommendation was to deny the rezone request, which cited some of the very same things that Mr. Olwell has cited through his investigation. He questioned how could a rezone be justified on this particular piece of property if there wasn't some other motives? The action before Council is only to address a rezone and there is nothing that binds the applicant to the proposal shown on the displayed diagram once the property is rezoned. If the rezone is approved, the applicant could potentially put up 30 dwelling units on the subject site.. If the parcel was developed under the designed provided by Mr. Olwell, not only would it be for 7-8 dwelling units, but would be at a lesser density if the single lot home proposal was abandoned and submitted under a PUD process. Mr. Olwell brought up the point that there is lack of open space and access to open space in the west. Bremerton area and he sees nothing within this proposal that would protect citizens rights to have access to open space. In fact, the applicant could in fact pay the City money in lieu of providing open space and/or access to the public. In the criteria as stated by the applicant - zoning designations of SF-2 and SF-3 are both allowed under the Comprehensive Plan designation as residential, he acknowledges that, but the applicant is hanging his hat on when the current zoning boundaries were established for this site for some unknown reason making it a different zone than the surrounding properties. Mr. Olwell declared that as "not true". The Zoning Ordinance talks about the "taking issue" and that is if someone's property is down zoned or TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 16 of 31 something is taken away from them. He did not support the idea that objecting to this rezone in any way denied the applicant to make money on his property or its development. It is felt that property values would go up as a result of more restrictive zoning that better protects existing investments and uses. He cited the following from the 1988 Zoning Ordinance packet: "A wide open zoning program is not in the best interest of the community and it is highly unlikely that any of the zoning proposals could be found to be a "taking". He questioned who wouldn't want lower priced homes and less of them in order to reduce traffic impacts and impacts on City services. The subject property value will increase regardless of what takes place on it. In this case, it is felt few less will mean a few more in the future. When the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1988, Bill Walton (now deceased), an adjoining property owner of the subject site made the following comments: "expressed concern about the availability of the single family residential areas in the City, retaining single family zoning along the waterfront and to exclude high density housing in a neighborhood that was currently low density. Mr. Walton did not support spot zoning and stressed the importance of consistency. Mr. Olwell noted Mr. Walton's comments were made in 1988, and nothing has changed in the subject area since that time. Mr. Overson raised a point of concern that Council is not allowed, in such a land use hearing, to look at information that was not presented to the Planning Commission. He raised the issue of dates of the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Hough's memo to Mr. Allingham, and Mr. Olwell's "plan" and felt the only recourse would be to remand the item back to the Planning Commission for them to review the new information and made a new decision based on that information. President Huff-Menees pointed out the correction noted by Mr. Allingham earlier in the presentation clarified the fact that the Planning Commission hearing was held July 12, 1994, not 1993. Mr. Overson stated since Mr. Olwell's drawing was not included in Council's Agenda Packet he assumes it is considered "new" information. Mr. Olwell stated the Planning Commission was given the information included in Mr. Hough's memo to Mr. Allingham as testimony given by him and he expressed his concern to them at that point why it was not included in the packet. At that time Mr. Pratt, Director of Community Development, interrupted his testimony to state Mr. Hough's memo to Mr. Allingham was an internal memo. Mr. Olwell emphasized that it was not an internal memo and was part of the public record in the Haselwood file, which he obtained some time ago in pursuit of this project. Mr. Overson pointed'out neither of the plot plans are included in Council's Agenda packet. Mr. Farr stated last week Council received information that it was not a hard and fast rule about new information coming before Council and as such didn't necessarily require that it be remanded back to the Planning Commission. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 17 of 31 referenced Council's recently passed Policies and Procedures relating to land use hearings: Factual Information - displays, drawings or pictures not presented at a hearing before a recommending Board or Commission may be restricted unless good cause for delay of presentation is shown. Council may ask questions of those testifying". Council can restrict consideration of the new information or remand back to the recommending body. If the testimony given before the recommending body was substantive of the information contained in the drawing, then there would not be a substantial change in information. He felt arguments based on drawings/schematics/plans would be more significant. The date of Mr. Olwell's drawing was June 6, 1994, and it could have been presented to the Planning Commission at their hearing. Mr. O1we11 stated it was his feeling that a number of letters were left out of Council's Agenda packet that relate to this item. Mr. 8ievers stated the Agenda Packet is not the test, but rather what is presented at the Planning Commission hearing and what can be presented at this hearing. The content of what can be presented at this hearing isn't limited to the Agenda Packet. Mr. Olwell stated he is not contesting the lack of items in Council's packet, but he did provide in testimony to the Planning Commission what they had in fact envisioned this proposal to look like if it were to stay at the existing zoning. He did not present the drawing itself to the Planning Commission because he did not believe it would have an impact and it wasn't the last step and he still had the appeal before the City Council. He and those he represent felt it was justifiable to "show their final card" in their fight to see this thing through. In reality, this rezone should not be based on any drawings, but should stand solely on whether or not it meets the criteria in the City's own ordinances and regulations pertaining to the.acceptance of a rezone. Mr. Overson acknowledged that none of the information shown on the drawings was binding and questioned what the two different densities technically provide under the two zonings. Mr. A11ingham stated the density consideration is paramount, the SF-2 designation with a Planned United Development (PUD) process allows nine dwelling units per acre and the SF-3, through the PUD process, allows 12 dwelling units per acre. For this site that equates from a maximum of 22 dwelling units under the existing zoning to a maximum of 30 dwellings under the proposed SF-3 zone. When the City Council considers a rezone they must look at the worst case scenario what the zoning actually allows as far as uses and densities. The uses will not change in SF-2 or SF-3. Mr. Overson asked Mr. Allingham if the drawing submitted by the applicant could be accomplished under the present zoning? Mr. Allingham stated yes, if a PUD was proposed. Mr. Overson stated now he was at a loss to understand why this issue was before Council. Mr. Winters raised the issue...does the developer plan to build 30 TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 18 of 31 units on the subject site if approval is given for the rezone? It was his observation that there may have already been "spot zoning" on the site when it was given the SF-2 designation when surrounding properties are designated SF-3. Mr. Sexton stated we all may have different conclusions as to what the law states, but he believes zoning laws of 30-40 years ago were nothing like the zoning laws of today in that there was only a Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning ordinance; and the rules followed by the Planning Commission or City Council did not involve the landowner's use of their property. Today, added regulations in addition to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances are identified under the Shorelines Management Act, requirements for Plats, environmental assessments, etc., which overlay the issue. He emphasized Council must consider the rezone separately and the environmental mitigation separately, however, the reality is that they affect the same site. What was done at the prior hearing declaring the mitigated EIS was applicable was a starting point and an overlay to this issue. He challenged the point that the applicant could walk in tomorrow and say that 30 unites per acre would be built. In reference to Mr. Overson's comment, the drawing provided is for illustration purposes, and was also presented at the previous Council hearing as well as the Planning Commission. The issue of comments by a senior planner, which was also brought up by the opponent at the Planning Commission hearing, was clearly identified by Mr. Pratt, Director of Community Development, that it was one person's opinion and not the opinion of the department. He agreed with Mr. Overson's earlier comment that Mr. Olwell's drawing was not appropriate in that at the Planning Commission hearing Mr. Olwell chose to not use it thereby indicating "we're not going to give you our trump card because we don't think you are as important as the City Council". Mr. Sexton stated that was wrong and such information should have been presented at that time and it was highly inappropriate to bring it before Council saying the Planning Commission wasn't worth anything. He urged Council to not consider the drawing during this discussion. Mr. 01well stated he took exception to some of- Mr. Sexton's remarks. The statement he made earlier was not out of disrespect to the Planning Commission, in fact, being before the City Council is the final stop in the governmental process for this project, with the exception of moving on to Superior Court. The factstill remains that there is no need to rezone the parcel to accommodate the applicant's upscale housing proposal. If the rezone is passed, it could triple the options for the subject site. Mr. Colvinquestioned for clarification Mr. Olwell's statement that the drawing being displayed does not necessarily reflect the number of units that will be built on the subject property? Mr. Olwell stated surrounding density comes out to 8.1 units per acre and the TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 19 of 31 subject site was zoned for a lower density because it fronts open waters of The Port Washington Narrows. The surrounding areas of higher densities are fronting a street and are located away from the waterfront. Mr. Colvin questioned the number of lots proposed by the applicant? Mr. Olwell pointed out the applicant's drawing shows 11 lots for the subject site. Mr. Colvin questioned if the rezone was granted and the site sold to someone else, would the new owner be required to develop the site. specifically as shown on the applicant's drawing? Mr. Olwell stated he believed the owner would only be obligated to the existing zoning. Mr. Law called for a point of order and noted that it was his understanding that Mr. Olwell's drawing was not presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. 01well stated the information on the drawing was presented in oral testimony to the Planning Commission and he believed it was acceptable to use it at this time. The largest lot size on the applicant's drawing is 9,400 sq. ft., and he believed 4,800 sq. ft. would be criteria that must be met to subdivide that lot under the SF-3 zoning designation. There is the "variance" process that can be pursued by the applicant. He emphasized the fear of his neighborhood, regardless of the site proposal, is that at any given time if rezoned to SF-3 the potential density factor could almost triple from what is displayed on the applicant's drawing. The applicant could rescind the proposal shown on the plan, which was necessitated by the Council's and his request to show what was happening upland when a commercial pier was to be built out over the water. He questioned why anyone would build a commercial pier to sit out in front of commercial land covered with trees and vegetation...there had to be another reason. It was his and the Planning Director's opinion, at that time, that it would be easier and allowed to build a commercial pier with nothing above it verses showing a development with the pier. The applicant, when submitting the plat, 'submitted the ll-lot proposal. The only necessity to rezone the subject site is to allow the applicant to make more money off of the acreage. Mr. Colvin asked Mr. Allingham if Mr. Olwell's last statement was a true statement? Mr. Rilingham stated when he made the statement earlier that this could be approved under the current zoning he was talking about the allowable density. The density is there under the PUD process under the SF-2 zoning and would allow 4.4 dwelling units on the site. This exact plat and configuration shown would have to be modified because the PUD process also requires 15% open space minimum, which may be one of the reasons the developer is not choosing to go with a PUD. Mr. Colvin asked if that could be done, why is the rezoning being requested? Mr. Rilingham stated the rezone is being requested because of the desires of the applicant. Council has been presented plans before to subdivide a configuration and to subdivide without a PUD the rezone would be necessary for this development. TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 20 of 31 Mr. Farr stated Mr. Olwell presented his side very eloquently. It was his understanding that one of Mr. Olwell's objections to the proposal is the fact that the proposed houses would range from $175,000-$225,000 and that less expensive housing is need in that particular area. Mr. O1we11 stated his concerns relate strictly to the density and the desire to keep the current zoning of SF-2. He believes the reason the applicant and Planning Director did not present the proposal as a PUD was due to it not garnering the dollars. A duplex used as a rental does not carry the price tag of a single family dwelling. Mayor Horton stated to Mr. Olwell that she would like to see this project done through a PUD process. He also believes the Comprehensive Plan when it speaks about densities, is addressing affordable cost wise to a larger number of people. This proposal for the few extra homes that he could potential get under the SF-3 zoning would be at a much higher cost to any potential buyer. The Comprehensive Plan and prior decisions is for higher density of more affordable housing. Mr. Farr stated if Mr. Olwell's worse fears come about with the placement of 30 homes on the site - they would fit into the more affordable range and more in line with what he desires in that area verses the higher range homes. Mr. Olwell stated that is the pro side of the issue, however, the con side is that once this site is zoned the potential is there to backtrack. The applicant had the opportunity to propose more homes at a fairly high price with developing it under the SF-2 guidelines taking into consideration a PUD. They chose not to do that and he and his neighbors choose to believe it was to make more money at the expense of the City's Zoning Ordinance. If that happens, there is concern of what will happen on other blocks of property in that same area. The Zoning Ordinance states that an applicant must provide beyond a reasonable doubt the criteria that is necessary for this rezone, which in his opinion has not happened. His proposal under SF-2 was developed to show that it could be done without having to rezone the site. Mr. Farr stated both sides are getting mileage out of the same point, which is confusing to him. The issue is to keep the housing affordable with smaller lots, however, Mr. Olwell's proposed larger lot would command a higher price. He could not believe that Mr. Olwell believes that the additional three houses would be a burden on the sewer system. Mr. Olwell stated he did not know that for a fact, however, there is the issue of impact on traffic. He asked to be shown the need for three more $250,000 houses at the end of Snyder Avenue. Mr. Farr stated he believed the need was on a larger basis than concerns of the immediate neighbors. Mr. O1we11 stated he was showing that need could be accomplished without backtracking what was accomplished in 1988 when the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted. He felt if the applicant was proposing a PUD with a SF-3 zoning it would be an easier deal all the way around, but that isn't the case. What he wants for the subject site is to have the highest priced homes that can be established under the TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 21 of 31 existing zoning. President Huff-Menees asked Mr. Olwell where his property was located? Mr. Olwell explained it is located on the southwest corner of the SF-2 parcel,-which is zoned SF-3. President Huff- Menees stated if he or one of his neighbors chose they could develop their property at a greater density. Mr. Olwell stated no, their lots are too small. President Huff-Menees pointed out if he and other property owners determined to buy someone out, currently they have the potential 'to develop at a greater density. Mr. Olwell stated it would be a much harder sell for someone to rezone their parcel along the waterfront to SF-3, however, if this proposal is approved to SF-3, he expected larger parcels in that area will want to rezone from SF-2 to SF-3. Mr. Colvin questioned if he understood correctly that Mr. Olwell opposed the higher density? Mr. Olwell stated he opposes the higher density under the this proposal due to impacts on the water, backtracking from the Zoning Ordinance and maybe setting a precedent that will affect other parcels along the waterfront of the entire city. Mr. Colvin pointed out Mr. Olwell and Mr. Allingham have two different opinions. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, referenced Criteria #2 and stated the disagreement between Mr. Olwell and Planning staff has to do with whether there is a condition change within the immediate vicinity to justify a rezone. Mr. Sexton argued that there is a criteria under #2, subsection (b) that the 'SF-2 was inappropriate when it was zoned and should be more logically and appropriate be zoned SF-3 based on the map showing surrounding zones. If the City Council finds either of the criteria, whether they agree with the Planning Commission or Mr. Sexton, they can approve the rezone. President Huff-Menees asked Mr. Allingham to address the density issue with respect to the current zoning. Mr. Allinghamexplained under a PUD the allowable density for 2.51 acres is 22 dwelling units. If a PUD is not used, then there would have to be some more creative design. What Council is being asked is to change the zoning from SF-2 to SF-3 and when Council looks at zoning they have to look at the worse scenario and that is a difference between 9 dwelling units per acre under SF-2 and 12 dwelling units per acre under SF-3. President Huff-Menees stated for clarification that the type of development being proposed could not be accomplished under the current zoning. Mr. Overson pointed out the answer to that question is yes it could. He questioned since the current zoning allows the type of development proposed by the applicant, what didn't he just develop it? Mr. Sexton stated as he understands the planner, in theory under the current zoning 20-22 dwelling units would be allowed and under the requested rezone 30 dwelling units would be allowed. As he understands the density TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 22 of 31 requirements under the rezone, 30 single family residents could be built on the site, however, they would never be sold because they had not been subdivided. If it is desired to put in 10-11 unites per acre, there must be a plat. Even if the current zoning is retained, the plot must be platted in order to sell the lots. He emphasized there is another mandatory step if the site is to be developed and that required plat approval. As it stands right now, eight units could be built because it requires 9,600 sq. ft. within the individual lots. Because of the mitigated EIS, the price of the lots will have to be raised if it is limited to only 8 lots. Because of the surrounding area, the higher priced lots may not sell and the applicant feels it would be better to reduce the cost of the lots by providing more dwelling units per acre. Mr. Overson stated if Council chose to approve the rezone on the contingency that the proposal shown on the applicant's drawing allowing 4.4 dwelling units per acre, is that agreeable to the applicant? Mr. Sexton states yes, without question and within Council's wisdom they can decide as one of the conditions of the rezone to attach a density requirement. After reviewing the mitigated EIS requirements, he did not see any restriction addressing density. Mr. Law asked if Mr. Sievers concurred with Mr. Sexton's comments? Mr. Sfevers stated he was satisfied and one of the issues he had was to give this many divisions and clearly the change in zoning will allow a few more divisions and given the market the applicant could probably make more money with more sales rather than fewer sales of individual lots. But, neither the SF-2 or SF-3 zoning allows duplexes so we know by the underlying zoning that there will be only single family residents on each of the lots. If the mitigated DNS does not contain a density spread out throughout the subdivision, Council might want to make that a condition. He agreed with Mr. Sexton's comment that keeping the site as one large parcel with 30 dwelling units would not be economical in that they would have to remain as rentals. Mr. Law questioned if Council could grant approval contingent upon retaining the 4.4 density rate or are they only able to approve the zoning and see what happens after that? Mr. Sievers stated given the minimum lot size under SF-3, he doubted there would be a higher density than 4.4 dwellings per acre. Council will have an opportunity to not allow maximum density of the division when the preliminary plat is presented. At that time, if council feels there are too many divisions, the lot size can be increased above the minimum. Mr. Colvin stated the question raised was whether or not Council can place a condition on a fezone. Mr. Slevers stated to affect this on the rezone, it is possible under this minimum lot size to go with more than 11 additions. What Council would end up doing is a contract rezone or an overlay saying it is SF-3 with a larger minimum lot size, roughly the average of 11 instead of the 4,800 sq. ft. Council can make such a stipulation as part of rezoning to guarantee what comes TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 23 of 31 before them later as a plat will look approximately like the drawing displayed during this hearing with no additional divisions. Mr. Law stated he could not support this item unless it included the requirement as outlined by the City Attorney. He is concerned that people were idealistic they'd rather see a $300,000 home build rather than a $200,000 because the likelihood of getting the return on the investment is not as good. Mr. Neville pointed out it is very clear that Council can only approve a rezone if it meets all of the required criteria. In his opinion, Criteria #2 has not been met and all five criteria must be meet to be approved. Mr. Farr noted Mr. Neville stated his opinion, which is subject to interpretation, and he feels all five of the criteria have been met, including at least one under Criteria #2. He believes that the site was zoned inappropriately when established and that conditions had changed markedly in the subject area in the public interest. He believes the rezone is in the publics' interest to try to follow the guidelines of the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan. It also.makes sense to him aesthetically and economically to follow those guidelines. Mr. Colvin asked Mr. Neville to amplify his reasons why he felt Criteria #2 had not been met. Mr. Neville stated the SF-2 zoning designation exists around the shoreline of the peninsula and the applicant can still do the project under SF-2 with the only difference being less houses. He believes the proposed project is a quality project and one he would like to see established in that area, but it does not need to be at a higher density. Mr. Winters stated because of the Planning Commission's conclusions, he also disagreed with Mr. Neville on this issue. One of the main goals within the City is the Comprehensive Plan to improve housing. Developers are needed to provide such projects within the City~ Mr. Law asked what would be needed to lock in no more than 11 units as portrayed on the drawing provided by the applicant? Mr. Sexton suggested the following options: (1) include a condition that says the density for the parcel shall not exceed 4.4 units per acre; (2) this rezone is conditioned upon that it be constructed in accordance with the plat plan that has been presented; or (3) that it be conditioned on plat approval. Mr. Sievers agreed with Mr. Sexton in that option (3) was the simpler method that could be tied directly into the plat decision. Mr. Overson asked Mr. Olwell to respond to that discussion. Mr. Olwell noted a point of order and asked if Council was doing conditional rezones in the City of Bremerton? Mr. Overson pointed out Council has the right to do a TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 24 of 31 rezone with conditions. Mr. Olwell stated if so, he hoped such action would be taken during the platting stage. Discussion on a plat is a side-bar issue to what is now before Council, and he and his neighbors believe there are no ties that would be binding by the rezone. In reference to the applicant's discussion on the cost involved in developing the site, his is knowledgeable that a nearby resident would be willing to purchase the subject property for the same price Mr. Haselwood paid and then turn it over to the City for a park. It disturbed him that the applicant would bring before Council the issue of economic return on investment for the proposed project at the time a rezone is being requested. Mr. Overson noted the original intent in 1988 was to attempt to stay with SF-2 zoning around the waterfront, but again real estate is only worth what it is worth and developers have some strict economies to stay within. It has gotten more challenging to build a home under today's building code requirements and to build amenities. Council is not to make decisions based on purely financial considerations, but rather the five criteria and in a narrow view of the five criteria it leads one to not accept some presentations where a broader view might. He sees the proposed project to be good in many ways, however, he did not want to see an adverse reaction started with the rest of the waterfront property owners. Mr. Law stated there is going to be extensive maintenance fees and upkeep of that area and he assumed the owners would divide that cost. If the developer is restricted to building fewer lots, it is very likely that will drive up the cost of housing on those sites. Mr. Farr pointed out when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1988, there was no consideration for growth management because at that time the GMA did not exist. The Comprehensive Plan, which was in force at that time, addressed trying to utilize areas that are already served by utilities and was a consideration. M/S/C(Farr/Winters) to adopt the Planning Commissions Finding and Conclusions of Law and approve the rezone request subject to plat approval, and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the zoning map. Vote on motion: In Favor: Winters, Overson, Farr, Law, Huff- Menees Opposed: Neville Abstain: Colvin Motion carried. TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 25 of 31 Mr. Winters asked that Mr. Lefcoski be allowed to speak. Jack Lefcoski questioned where will we all be when the plot plan comes in for approval and a 30-unit apartment house is displayed? President Huff-Menees pointed out to Mr. Lefcoski that a condition of plat approval was established as part of Council's approval of the fezone. 9B - 'PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) CLOSURE OF MONTGOMERY STREET AT 11TH STREET, #AB94-165 On March 4, 1994, the Engineering Department received a petition from the residents on the east side of North Montgomery Avenue between 9th Street and llth Street, requesting closure of North Montgomery Avenue at llth Street (copy attached). The Engineering Department has checked the petition and 80% (8 out of 10) of the signatures are the registered owners. The action before the City Council is to close Montgomery Avenue at llth Street as requested by the petition. President Huff-Menees asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all members being seated. Dan Eisses, Senior Engineer, stated this issue is not connected with the Safeway project and occurred as a result of staff being out in the neighborhood talking with the neighbors because of the Safeway project. The existing Safeway site had a driveway that exited out on to Montgomery, however, the new Safeway site does not and that is why he views it as not being connected with the Safeway expansion project. As part of the permit conditions, Safeway did agree to install and maintain landscaping required for the closed off area, if Council approves the proposal as presented. Since the time the public hearing date was set, he did send a letter to Brem- Air Disposal, Inc., notifying them that a public meeting on this issue would be held and/or to give him a call to voice any concerns they may have if this item was approved. No response was received from Brem-Air. This proposal was also taken before the Traffic Safety Committee on August 2. Members of that committee include representation from the Fire Department, Police Department, Planning Department, Attorney's Office and Risk Management. Their recommendation was approval of the proposal and Engineering was asked to look into the feasibility extending the left turn pocket at Callow and 11th Street in order to hold more vehicles. Mr. Farr stated he was remiss on the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question and wanted Council to be aware that approximately two weeks ago he had a conversation with Mr. Howe about his desire to have Montgomery Avenue closed at the llth Street intersection. He assured Council and the public that conversation has not influenced his objectivity on hearing this issue. No one from the audience objected. TAPE #1223 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 26 of 31 Mr. Neville stated he was somewhat apprehensive when he first heard this issue, but after giving it much thought he believes in the project and that it should happen. He travels that street approximately four times per day and in his opinion that intersection is very dangerous. Also, it follows along with long term plans projected for Bremerton and the Campus Evergreen Neighborhood Plan addresses some places along 11th Street, not as far as Montgomery, but it is on the same issue of closing off ends of streets that go into a busy arterial. He hopes that the plans follow true with the plans outlined in the Campus Evergreen Neighborhood Plan for the development of such intersection closures, thereby providing consistency in an aesthetic and workable way throughout the City. Mr. Winters stated he has also traveled down Montgomery Avenue many times and recognizes that many accidents have occurred in that area. If people in that neighborhood believe that this is to their advantage then he, as a Council member, will listen to the people and vote the conscious of the people and do what is right for their neighborhood TAPE #1223 Mr. Farr stated perhaps he could be convinced that this street closure is an exception. However, if a survey was done on almost any street in town, he's sure he could get 80% of the residents to say "yes, we'd like this street closed and lets make this street a private driveway. In effect, alls streets were built with all of the taxpayers and vehicle users in mind. Therefore ,the folks on Montgomery Street aren't the ultimate consideration for a street closure. Most people would like their street closed, because the traffic would go away. Conversely, if a street has some traffic it is doing what it was designed to do... to carry traffic. He is willing to hear more arguments on this, but in general, street closures should be an exception. Mr. Overson stated his Block Watch group also had a discussion on street closures and they thought it was great and wanted to propose stopping traffic in the middle of Highland Avenue. In that way, people from llth could come and turn around, and people from 6th could come and turn around, this would help prevent incidents like the high speed chase some time back where three cars sped through Highland at speeds over 90 m.p.h. Mr. Overson asked the City Attorney if a person comes up to Montgomery and takes a left, and doesn't judge properly the traffic and gets smacked by a car, is the City liable? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he has not studied the intersection in discussion, but a lot depends on the warrants he reviews from the history of accidents in that certain intersection. Mr. Overson asked if the City would be liable in any way if someone rammed through a barrier that was erected as a result of Council approving TAPE #1224 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 27 of 31 this proposal? Mr. Sievers stated that barriers are going to have proper markings and be visible to the reasonable driver (not intoxicated, etc.), so there should be no liability problems. Dan Eisses, City Engineer, addressed Mr. Overson's first concern as to the City's liability and the fact any City action depends on traffic history in a particular intersection. This intersection has been watched since he first came to the City 5-6 years ago, because the sight distance for traffic turning left is minimal. As far as the traffic history, it has been watched because there have been a few accidents at that location, but it has not reached the point of being a hazardous condition. When it does reach that point, with an increase in traffic in the City, the Engineering Department will go out and take some kind of study or action because of the liability issue to the City. There are less drastic measures than street closures. Because traffic control of some sort will be warranted there some day, it made this proposal easier for the Engineering Department to support. Mr. Overson asked what type of barrier is being proposed. Mr. Eisses stated that the design to accomplish this has not yet been worked out pending Council's decision. The ideas for llth Street include extending curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the southern edge of llth Street. This should make it very clear to drivers on llth that it is no longer an access. There will be a contrast surface from the asphalt to the concrete. Also, the double yellow center lines that have a break to show it is an intersection will be painted through and made visible. There are also some "turn-around" possibilities at the end of the street. The one idea currently being discussed would not meet the current standards set by the Fire Department for a dead-end, therefore what is being proposed is keeping the landscaping fairly low, not planting trees, with type-3 barricades which are red and white and would allow a fire truck to get through if necessary. Mr. Colvin agreed with Councilman Farr, and said there would be objections and supportersto barriers on streets anywhere, and each case should be considered separately. He read the comments from the neighbors who live in this area and they would like to see a barrier there,'so he supports the proposal as presented. President Huff-Menees stated she agrees issues such as this should be decided on a case- by-case basis. But, she disagrees with Councilman Farr on the issue of street closures. She believes there are a variety of reasons why street closures can be beneficial. Her concern is for the neighbors of an area who feel that a reasonable benefit could be derived from a street closure, and a variety of issues with respect to street closures deserves further examination. So this, as well as any issue, needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. TAPE #1224 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 28 of 31 Mr. Law questioned if the Safeway site plan approval required them to install and maintain landscaping on the street closure? Mr. Zisses stated that was a condition of their building permit. Mr. Farr referred to the comments made regarding accessibility of emergency vehicles, and asked if the street closure was designed with that in mind. Mr. Eisses said that is a detail they have not yet worked out, but if this street closure was approved, they will discuss any designs with the Fire Department for their approval.. Mr. Farr asked why there was an apparent hesitation from the Engineering Department to prohibit left turns off of west-bound 11th Street onto Montgomery? Mr. Eisses stated this particular intersection would require a mounted sign, not on the side of the road, so it does involve putting in two string poles. Also, since it has not yet been determined to be a "hazardous" intersection, they cannot justify spending money for the existing condition. Mr. Winters stated that as a businessman, he sees this to be a win- win situation. When residents reduce the amount of traffic and at the same time the safety factor of closing the street will send the traffic to Callow to take a left, which will benefit the businesses located along that arterial street. It is conducive to the business district to have people continue to drive up and down Callow as opposed to the back streets. Carlos Montgomery, 605 N. Cambrian, stated that he does not live on Montgomery, but when this subject first came up he spoke in favor of it at a City Council Study Session. There has been one new twist to it, which deserves merit -- extending the left turn lane on west-bound llth Street at Callow. Right now that turn lane is very short and during rush- hour traffic vehicles are backed up way past Montgomery, almost to Rainier, and sometimes further than that. Mr. Eisess stated they would look into it. John Thomas, stated as a Fire Fighter, who provides services to the City of Bremerton, he would rather see that street one-way, south to north, with a right hand turn lane only, onto 11th. Elizabeth Bus11 stated that she drives on Montgomery Street a lot. She just discovered that Safeway had closed off their exit on to Montgomery into their parking lot, they lowered it, and she hopes they mark that well. She also stated that she wouldn't think of turning left off of llth onto Montgomery, and feels that there should be "No Left Turn" signs all along 11th because it is so. dangerous. She does not like the idea that the only exit from Safeway will be on to Callow because she always tries to avoid Callow. She questioned if the delivery trucks will be able to use Montgomery? Mr. Eisses explained a truck loading bay will be located on the corner of 9th and Montgomery. Trucks will need to travel down Callow, turn up 9th, and then exit south on Montgomery, TAPE #1224 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 29 of 31 per Safeway's request. Ms. Buell stated Safeway is just thinking of themselves and not the neighborhood. She also asked if Callow was going to be widened because it is hard to turn on to Callow? Don Mail Superintendent of Safeway project, stated he wished to address some of the site problems with the neighbors around the Safeway store. There will be access, a pedestrian stair system, coming from Montgomery to the main store. There will also be a retaining wall in the loading dock area which will help to muffle some of the noise from the trucks. There are three turning accesses out of the parking lot: a left turn lane, a right turn lane, and a thru lane. There is also an emergency exit. He emphasized that the neighbors around Montgomery have been excellent to work with. Joshua Stewart, Montgomery Avenue, started he started the petition and got the signatures. A major concern of the neighbors in that area had to do with the number of cars parked on the street that have been repeatedly side-swiped, three this year alone have been totaled. He mentioned other incidents and accidents that have also happened at this intersection in just the last several months due to the "blind spot". Making a "No Left Turn" would not be the best way to solve the problem. Also, no one seemed to obey the 25 m.p.h. sign and use the road as a "raceway". Their goal is to force the traffic back out to the business districts and arterial street and away from the school and residential districts. Lauren Johnson, does not think it is right to close Montgomery. He stated he uses that street frequently as an alternative to Callow Avenue. He believes if Montgomery Avenue is closed, the traffic will just move further up the hill, closer to the school. A viable alternative would be to take away the left turn lane off of Montgomery onto 11th. He feels that the City shouldn't restrict. traffic any more than it already is. Jim Brown, Montgomery Avenue, favors closing Montgomery Avenue due to the traffic situation, and safety should be the number one issue. One side of Montgomery is residential, the other side is business. The residents would like to "cushion" the business/residential interface that happens there. He felt that if someone could come up with another alternative, such as a one-way street, the residents of Montgomery would be willing to listen, but the street cannot remain a two-way street. Elizabeth Buell felt that with people not being'able to come out of Safeway onto Montgomery, that would eliminate a lot of the traffic. People could come down Montgomery and make a right, just prevent them from making a left. She felt this option was worth a try first, before blocking the street. Joshua Stewart disputed that as a viable option to solve this problem because right now with TAPE #1224 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 30 of 31 Safeway being closed, people who drive down the street now have a straight shot. They know that no one will be turning into Safeway, so they do not slow down. Also, this option might increase traffic elsewhere, but if a person looks at those other streets, they are all two way streets with parking on both sides. A car driving down has to slow down to maneuver past the cars because the street is not wide enough ~for two way at the same time. Jim Brown stated Safeway has been working on this project for quite a long time, and questioned what the Council had done to research all the problems that are being presented now, and what could Safeway have offered as a solution to some of these problems? Mr. Eisses stated there is just so much you can do when a developer comes into it. How many of these are their problems, how many are the City's problems, and how many are problems in general seen after the fact. He addressed some of the questions raised by Mr. Brown, but stated that it can take a few months to get an issue to Council to see if they are for or against it, and these are all things that the City is looking at, but it is an on-going process. President Huff-Menees pointed out that there was a public hearing on the Safeway Project, and a number of the issues mentioned were discussed at that time, and there was also the opportunity for questions. She also thanked those members of the public who waited to hear this issue. Mr. Overson stated he still had some concerns regarding the impact, and questioned why not just place a sign "Right Turn Only" ? Is it the cost? Also, what liabilities does the City run into if the street is closed and a turn-around is not provided? What is the cost of closing the street? Mr. Eisses stated the estimated cost would put this proposal in the $5,000 - $8,000 range, for just the road closure. Safeway vacated a couple of alleys in that block, and if this would go through, the City would use that money for this proposal. This option was looked at instead of a "Right Turn Only" because this is what the residents asked for, and because of the policy approved by City Council that the City was looking at closing off streets that exit onto arterial streets. When this petition came in, it was decided to carry it forward. Mr. Winters emphasized when it comes to safety and dollars, he believes safety supersedes dollars. He believes this is a safety issue anda concern to the citizens. Mr. Farr felt that this issue was a really tough one to vote on. There are good arguments on both sides, and he can sympathize with the residents who live on Montgomery, but the concern that he has are that the problems that are on Montgomery now will move up the road to another street. If this does not pass tonight, he would like to see Montgomery made into a one-way street, and prohibit TAPE #1224 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 31 of 31 left turns on to it from 11th. Mr. Winters stated even if the traffic moves to another street, there will not be a crest or hill when you back up one or two more blocks. It is a flat area, with no "blind spot". M/S/C(Winters/Colvin) motion to approve the ordinance on first reading, closing Montgomery Avenue at llth Street. Vote on Motion: In Favor: Winters, Neville, Law, Colvin, Huff-Menees No: Overson, Farr, President Huff-Menees regarding the statement made earlier with respect to the new procedures for public service announcements prior to Council session, that will NOT commence next week. A couple of weeks are needed to work out the technical details and staffing requirements. A new announcement will be made in the near future as to when that will begin to take place. Also, a reminder that applications are being accepted through the month of August for the appointment of the District #8 City Council position that was vacated last week by Eileen Fitz. All interested citizens from that District can pick up an application at the City Council office. With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk KLM/SH-M/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault