Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/93TAPE #1092 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES HAR 1 #0025 MARCH 3, 1993 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, March 3, 1993, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Eileen Fitz presiding. Council members present were Lon Overson, Richard Neville, Lynn Horton, Hank Waibel, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Fitz and Invocation given by Reverend Rodney Smith of First Christian Church. President Fitz announced Council would hold a Study Session on "Downtown Parking" immediately following the City Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA None 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(Waibel/Colvin) March 3, 1993, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 164339 through 164341 and 164369 through 164505 in the total amount of $469,356.91. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Colvin reported he met with State Representative Paul Zellinsky, Representative Karen Schmidt, Senator Betti Sheldon and Senator Bob Oke during the AWC Legislative Conference last week. He found that conference to be very fruitful. One issue before the Legislature is allowing guns on school property, which is a concern to him. He urged everyone to review this proposal and act accordingly. He thanked Council for their "get well card" to his wife Hazel. Following Hazel's knee surgery, he has found out what it is to be "chief cook and bottle washer", which has been an opportunity for him to appreciate what his spouse does day-to-day. He thanked TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 2 of 30 Council members Richard Neville, Lynn Horton, Eileen Fitz and Bremerton Port Commissioner Mary Ann Huntington for visiting District #1's Neighborhood meeting. He was pleased with the good turn out and participation of the residents of District #1 at that meeting as well. Mr. Overson reported Council had a very interesting Study Session on Monday evening. Mr. Neville thanked Mr. Colvin for inviting the populace of Bremerton to his District's meeting. He also found the Monday Study Session very interesting, particularly the report given on the Drug/Gang Task Force. He stressed the drug/gang problem is not just the Police Department's problem. He emphasized the importance of parents becoming more involved with children and one way to do that is getting them involved in youth sports. He reported Pee Wee sign ups are currently underway. He noted this is the first season that the City is without the use of Roosevelt Field, and the Parks Department is working diligently to fit all the teams into available field locations. He reported the Parks Department conveyed to him that all teams who played last year will once again have first option if playing this year. He announced a "flea market" will be held Friday, March 26, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M, at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center. Funds raised from this event will go into the Pendergast Regional Park fund. Mrs. Hotton, expanding on the flea market event, stated the Parks Department is seeking donations so that they have some reusable items to sell. She thanked Councilman Colvin for inviting her to his District #1 meeting. Today she, Mayor Mentor, and Council President Fitz attended the Kitsap Regional Council meeting. At that meeting, they received a report from the Health District on the e-coli incident and that the total number of confirmed cases of e-coli in Kitsap County was 10 with another 10 unconfirmed cases. It was learned that about a year ago, the Health District sent notices to all of the eating establishments regarding the changes in Washington State law relating and promoting the new cooking temperature. They attribute one of the reasons why Kitsap County was relatively unscathed was because they pushed those new rules. It was noted on national news that Kitsap County Health District was a forerunner in helping Kitsap County prevent a greater outbreak of e-coli in this County. She extended a "Get Well Soon" greeting to anyone who is still recovering from the e-coli caused illness. Mr. Waibel reported after proper notification, the problem of a recreational vehicle parking in City right-of-way has been TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 3 of 30 resolved, which he reported on the previous week under his "Council Member Report". He is still of the opinion the City's ordinance address parking in right-of-way needs to be worked on. Mrs, Fits thanked Councilman Colvin for his invitation to District #1's Neighborhood meeting. Approximately 50-60 people attended that meeting and many different issues were discussed. She was impressed with the interest of individuals, at the meeting, in "youth programs" and keeping kids out of gangs and away from drugs. She emphasized these individuals are from the "grass roots" of the community who recognize the need to have kids involved in activities. It is hoped that opportunities for sports type activities can be made available during later evening hours that would have adult supervision. She also felt the Gang/Drug Task Force report at the Study Session on Monday was very informative. She hoped in the not to distant future that a report can be made by that group to the citizens via a televised program, either as part of a Council meeting or Study Session. She emphasized the need for assistance from the citizens in helping the Police Department meet the needs of our community. She attended the Kitsap Regional Council meeting this date and as part of that meeting learned that one of the laws being considered in the State Legislature is that the County would become the coordinator for the Health District, and the City will have to give up some tax revenue through the Real Estate Tax to the County. She will have further information on that item and others that affect the City at next week's Council meeting. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Louis Mentor reported a program has already been aired on the Drug/Gang Task Force approximately one week ago and will be rebroadcast in the future. He referenced a news article in The Sun reporting on the Monday Study Session and believes that minority citizens are just as concerned about gang violence, drugs, fear, intimidation, and crime as anyone else. He also referenced a recent news article about the City hiring the ex-Utility Director as an expert witness in a lawsuit and pointed out such practice is done quite often. He felt it was agreed upon by the City Council, City Attorney and himself that it was an important thing to do. Mayor Mentor reported a special day for special people was held in the State Legislature on February 15, and at that event Chuck Morris was recognized as the creator of the "Wheelchair Library For You". Mr. Morris requires the use of a wheelchair and started this program for the community based TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 4 of 30 on his first hand knowledge of outstanding needs within the community for medical equipment. This program allows the "check out" of equipment as needs arise. On Sunday evening he attended a great program at the Kitsap Mall, sponsored by Pastor Danny Allen and James & Pat Boyd, owners of It's Time Clothing, and Kitsap County Human Rights Commission. This program was a fund raiser that featured local talent. As a result of this event, he talked with Pastor Allen about the possibility of having them perform in conjunction with the Concert On The Dock event. On Friday, February 26, he attended an Awards Banquet sponsored by the State of Washington Excellence In Traffic Safety Commission. Kitsap County Commissioner John Horsley received an award for his work in helping traffic safety. The Bremerton/Kitsap County DWI Task Force Law Enforcement Committee received an award for their enhancement patrols that are under taken once each month. Also, Patrolman Alan Hornburg received a special award for what he has done to get drunk drivers off the streets -- in 1992 he had 300 DWI arrests. That number is 60% of the arrests in the City of Bremerton. He noted a Deputy Sheriff from Lewis County received an award for having 104 arrests. He was very proud that Kitsap County would get that recognition for the whole state. On February 24/25 he attended the AWC Legislative Conference. He agreed with Council President Fitz and Councilmen Horton and Colvin, there are a number of proposed legislative bills that need to be fought because of their adverse affect upon cities. He emphasized the biggest concern is funding and the State Legislature should take into consideration when proposing bills "what does it do to save money, how that affects the economy, and what is it doing towards cutting down the budget". Possibly, bills that require funding should be scrutinized and delayed if a funding mechanism is not included. Two weeks ago he attended the Home Builders Convention in Los Vegas, at his own expense, which was held in a facility approximately twice the size of the Kingdome. He found lots of good information relating to ways to make buildings handicap accessible. On March 4 he will participate in "Kitsap Day" at the State Legislature where Kitsap County residents will meet with their Legislative representatives as well as Secretary Of State, Ralph Munro. TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 5 of 30 Mayor Mentor announced the Kitsap County Economic Development Summit on Diversification will be held March 9. He felt such an event is very timely because people are very concerned about what will happen to the military installations in this area. Mayor Mentor announced today at 1:30 P.M., the City received the Permit for the mitigation beach, and construction on that project started at 1:45 P.M. He hoped to see the project completed within the next month. The City will be required to do on-going monitoring for several years. He sees this project as an enhancement of the beach area, which will add to the attractiveness of Bremerton's waterfront. Betsy Harris, Bremerton Animal Control, presented the "Pet-Of- The-Week", a color point Himalayan cat (female) about one year old. Ms. Harris reported the cat's front paws had been declawed, thereby making her anideal house cat. When the cat was picked up, it had South Carolina Rabies tags, however, there was no way to trace the owner. If someone would like to adopt this cat, or if the owner is viewing this program, they can call the Bremerton Animal Control Department at 478-5366. Gordy Byrd, P.O. Box 930, reported a group called "Helping Hands", from Bremerton High School, sponsored a dance on Friday, February 26, and raised over $1,000. This group elected to donate those funds to his "Byrd's Nest" shelter for the homeless. He read a note he received from this group thanking him for working with them to help make a difference together. Sally, a member of the "Helping Hands" group, read a letter that was written to Gordy on behalf of the Leadership Group - Helping Hands, outlining fund raising efforts as part of the Community Excellence competition and recognizing Gordy as an inspiring individual in the City of Bremerton who is willing and determined to help others. Patricia Marshall 4856 Naomie Street, stated on February 18, at Sheridan Park Recreation Center, an ASA Softball Association meeting was held. In a memo from that meeting it states the Athletic programs directly affected by the loss of Roosevelt Field include Women's Slow Pitch, Men's Fast Pitch, Fall Co-Ed Slow Pitch, and Women's Soccer. She pointed out what that memo did not include, and should have, were Girls' Fast Pitch (from 18 years and younger) and that the Men's Soft Ball teams are exempt. It was understood that when the City lost Roosevelt Field that hundreds of soft ball players would be affected. She questioned why are Men's Slow Pitch teams exempt from this group and why are the rest of the teams being put into the lottery or given less desirable play times since TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 6 of 30 women's teams pay the exact same fees as the men's teams. Because of the loss of Roosevelt Field, the suffering should be equal and the Men's Slow Pitch should bear the same burdens that the rest of the teams have to. She requested the Parks Department clarify the intent and to not discriminate against the rest of the teams. She believes the City of Bremerton is blatantly discriminating against women's athletic programs. Ms. Marshall requested a response to her question in writing. Ms. Marshall also gave some team statistics, then stated the reason she came before the City Council, and not the Parks & Recreation Commission, is because the next meeting for the teams is the 16th or 17th of March and the Commission does not meet until after that date. Mr. Meville stated the following memo was received from Pat Westoff, Recreation Program Director, following his inquiry on this issue: "As a result of the loss of Roosevelt Field, field availability is at a premium. Fields being used to offset this loss are Lions #3, Fairgrounds #5, and PSNS Fields #1 and #2. Inc-mhent teams from 1992 were given first chance to sign up for the 1993 season. During 1992 there was a total of 181 teams playing City league softball. Additionally, virtually all teams requesting to play in 1992 were allowed to do so. To date, 157 total teams returning from last year have signed up. They are assured a spot in the league. They are still missing information on potential lost days at the Fairgrounds for youth games and concert dates. We are estimating, however, 10 fewer teams will be able to play this year compared to last year. There are currently 38 teams on the waiting list and broken down as follows: 24 men's teams, 8 women's teams, 1 church team and 5 co-recreational teams. As soon as all schedules and other information needed from the youth teams, schools and fairgrounds is received, we will start adding from the waiting list to fill the leagues with as many teams as possible." President Fitz questioned if that information helped answer some of Ms. Marshall's questions? Ms. Marshall stated that information was different from what was stated at the meeting held February 17. At that time, Mr. Westoff stated he would place the women's teams into a lottery and draw names out. Mr. Westoff did state that field #3 at Lions Field and Field #5 at the fairgrounds would be where they would be playing. In the past, the women's teams and co-ed teams have played on all Lions and fairgrounds fields. She pointed out none of those fields have lights. Phil Drouin, City resident, stated he represents St. Vincent DePaul Society on the Kitsap Community Action Program Board (KCAP) and is KCAP's board representative on the Kitsap Community Clinic Board. His purpose before the City Council TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 7 of 30 is to seek financial help for the Community Clinic in order to meet the escalating numbers of patients that are needing their services. This organization started out as a part-time effort in 1987 and now is expected to serve 8,000 clients in i993. Mr. Drouin gave an overview of services provided and the clientele eligible for their program. He emphasized the Clinic's expenses would amount to $59,000 more than their incoming revenues. The Clinic does have $65,000 cash as a reserve so that they do have a balanced budget, however, it is difficult to operate such an organization without a cash flow. Part of the reason for the increased clientele at the clinic is the number of patients unable to be serviced by Kitsap Mental Health and who do need health care. He offered the opportunity for everyone in the community to become part of this worthwhile service through financial donations to meet the 1993 expenses of the Bremerton Community Clinic. Donations may be mailed to Bremerton Community Clinic, 423 Pacific Avenue, Bremerton, WA 98310. Don Larson, President Of Kitsap Diving Association and Washington Scuba Alliance, announced the Department Of Ecology is sponsoring "Countdown To Earth Day '93" for the month of April. Additional information relating to scheduled events during April can be obtained by calling 1-800-RECYCLE. He announced clean-up events have been organized for Dyes Inlet on April 23 and the First Street Dock/Sinclair Inlet on April 24. He noted in the past, volunteers have tried to clean up areas along Pacific Avenue and Sheldon Boulevard (along the water), however, most of that area is private property and the Department Of Health indicated the volunteers should not be cleaning those areas because it is private property. He asked if it would be possible, between the City and Department Of Health, to undertake the responsibility for cleaning up those areas. He would have volunteers available to provide assistance and it was something they would like to see accomplished. Another area that volunteers have cleaned up in the past has been Montgomery Street, which typically gets littered between the Shipyard fence on Farrigut all the way up to Burwell. At the present time, he has counted six wrecked vehicles along that street and four couches sitting out in the open and unprotected. Since those are things that volunteers cannot pick up, he requested that the City do something to clean up those conditions. He reported at 100 Montgomery there is a vacant house with windows smashed out and four vehicles with no tires and windows smashed out. Also, at that same piece of property, there are three couches sitting out unprotected. He noted in the past the City and Diamond Parking have been very supportive during clean-up events and the City has already responded indicating their support for TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 8 of 30 this year's event. In the past, Medic 1 has been available for emergency needs and Mr. Larson hoped that an aid unit could again be situated at the First Street Dock (when not out on emergency calls) during the April 24 clean-up of Sinclair Inlet. Mr. Larson announced Washington Coastweeks will be held September 5 through October 5. The brochure announcing Coastweeks events is available and includes Bremerton's Blackberry Festival event. He hoped to see many more Bremerton events included in the Coastweeks Journal. If anyone desires more information regarding Coastweeks they can write to: 1325 Westbay Drive NW, Olympia, WA 98502. 6A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LITIGATION SUPPORT, #AB93-040 This contract retains the continued services of William Duffy for preparation of discovery, consultation on settlement and testimony at trial in two lawsuits, R.V. Associates v. Silverdale Mobile Estates, st. al. and West Hills Association, st. al. v. City of Bremerton v. CH2M Hill Northwest, Inc. st. al. The contract maximum amount was derived after consultation with Steve DiJulio, of Foster, Pepper & Shefelman, retained counsel for the West Hills Association lawsuit and includes work performed to date under a $5,000.00 administrative Purchase Order. Councilman Morris Dawkins stepped down from hearing this issue due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Overson questioned the source of funding for this Agreement? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained work on the West Hills Association lawsuit is budgeted under professional services in the Utility fund and the R.V. Associates lawsuit charges would be paid under current appropriations for litigation expenses in the Risk Management fund. Mr. Overson stated for clarification that these costs were essentially known and within the budget passed for 1993. Mr. Sievers stated there is budgeted money in those line items that have not been expended and are available for expenditure. Mr. Overson raised the issue that there is a $5,000 limit within the Budget Control Ordinance and anything above that amount would require a budget adjustment, which is not part of this proposal. Mr. Sievers stated the amount he is talking about has to do with Council authorization for expenditure. Actually, the Mayor can sign a contract up to $10,000,' but this was an ultimate forecast and requires Council approval. It does not have to do with moving appropriate funds within #1595 TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 9 of 30 the budget and there are line items that exceed both these amounts. Public comment - None. M/S/C(Overson/Colvin) motion to approve the Professional Services Agreement. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Neville, Horton, Fitz, Collins, Colvin, Johnson Opposed: Waibel Motion carried. Councilman Dawkins returned to the Council meeting. 6B - 10% PETITION FOR ANNEXATION -- TO CONSIDER A LETTER OF INTENT FORANNEXATION OF THE PORT OF BREMERTONANNEXATIONAREA INTO THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, #AB93-038 This is the initial step using the Petition process to annex the area designated as the Port of Bremerton Annexation Area into the City of Bremerton. According to the state statutes (RCW 35.13,125) the Council is to determine: 1) 2) 3) Whether the City will accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation; Whether it will require the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan and land use designations for the area; and Whether it will require the assumption of all or any portion of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Terrie O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, stated the City has received a letter of intent from the Port Of Bremerton to annex. The City intends to process this annexation through the 75% method of annexation in conformance with RCW 35.13.125. The site is bordered on three sides by the City of Bremerton and adjacent to the City's biosolids application site. The site is located in the south central area of Kitsap County off State Hwy. 3 and provides a direct access via Barney White Road to the site. The presence of SR-3, the primary highway through the Kitsap Peninsula, provides convenience access for points north and south. This is the region's largest industrial facility and there are no residential areas adjacent to or on the territory to be annexed. Public comment - none. #1709 #1754 #1774 TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 10 of 30 Mrs. Hotton stated Council had discussed this proposed annexation for several months and views this proposal as positive impact for the City. Mr. Waibel stated there is another way to carry out annexations through the election process. He questioned if there is a good reason to not using the election method and to go with the petition process in this instance? Ms. O'Neill explained the election method requires residents in the area to vote on the annexation and since this is an undeveloped parcel, there are no residents, so the petition method is the appropriate process. 'M/S/C/U(Horton/Dawkins) that the City Council approve the 10% Notice Of Intent To Annex. M/S/C/U(Horton/Waibel) to require simultaneous adoption of land use designations for the area. M/S/C/U(Horton/Waibel) to require the area to assume a proportional amount of existing City indebtedness. 7A - PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY RESIDENTIAL PUD FOR "ARVON VILLAGE"; APPELLANT: RA8 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT; LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF ARVON AVENUE, NORTH OF 16TH STREET, #AB93-041 On January 19, 1993, the Planning Commission denied an application for a Residential Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) to create 8 lots with 8 single-family residences. The Planning Commission decision is being appealed on the grounds that the Six Criteria for PUD Review have been met, shown in the application, and documented in the staff report. The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: 1) Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. President Fitz asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Mr. Johnson stated today City Council members received a letter from a Planning Commission member stating his "minority" position on the subject issue. He questioned what part does that information play in this hearing? In his opinion, he did not feel such information was appropriate and TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 11 of 30 if a Minority Report is issued by the Planning Commission, it should be included in the Staff Report. Ian 8levers, City Attorney, stated if a Minority Report is to be submitted to Council it should be done in a timely manner for consideration along with the Majority Report. He noted the Planning Commissioner's letter expresses his reasoning for dissenting on an issue. Both decisions were drawn from the same information. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated his understanding is that this is not a formal Minority Report from the Planning Commission. What is represented is correspondence from a citizen. There was no notice of a Minority Report given at the Planning Commission meeting and his intent was to read it into the record as they would read any correspondence. Unfortunately, the document was distributed to Council members outside of the process. His understanding that by reading it into the record it would make it eligible for reconsideration. Mr. Johnson pointed out the letter was signed as "Planning Commissioner". Shane Jensen, Planning Department, stated the subject site is .9 acres and the applicant's intent is to create 8 lots and construct 8 single-family residences with attached one-car garages. The location of the site is the east side of Arvon Avenue north of 16th Street in West Bremerton. The scope of the preliminary PUD and the reviewing bodies responsibility is a two part process. The part we are in now is the Preliminary PUD where the design layout and improvement of the site are considered along with the PUD's applicable criteria for approval. This is what will be covered during this hearing and is the subject of the appeal. If a Preliminary PUD is approved, then the next step is consideration of a Final PUD and that is a process in which there is an application, City review, and Administration decision subject to an appeal and then recorded at the County Auditor, if approved. The PUD process followed under the Preliminary part is to create 8 lots, within a Single Family Residential (SF-3) zone, that are 25 feet, with an approximate average lot size of 4,777 square feet, which is slightly smaller than the normally allowed lot size creating lots in that zone. Small lot widths and sizes are allowable through the flexible parameters and standards of a PUD. This application has been through preliminary conceptual designs, drawings and talks with the Planning Department and numerous others as well as a neighborhood meeting. There has been City Departmental review and a formal public review by the Planning Commission. TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 12 of 30 Mr. Jensen provided a series of slides showing location of the site, surrounding residential areas, topography of site, and access off of 16th Street onto Arvon Avenue (a 15 foot undeveloped right-of-way). He pointed out the topography of the site is generally flat and the properties that abut Naval Avenue are 20+ feet above the subject site. In reference to the access, the developer has proposed a dedication of five feet on the western portion of the property, which would bring the total right-of-way width to 20 feet. Mr. Jensen pointed out some of the surrounding area is single family residential, but mostly duplexes. The subject site is in the SF-3 zone abutting a Duplex Residential (DR) area on two sides. The preliminary site plan is included in the Agenda documentation. The SF-3 zone allows single family residential units at approximately a density of 9 units per acre. This site is just under an acre and proposes to put 8 single family units on it. Four of the new proposed lots would be somewhat smaller than 4,800 sq. ft., and when they are all averaged together, they come out at about 4,777 sq. ft. Following the Planning Commission's review of the six criteria required for approving a PUD, they concluded the.preliminary plan did not meet the minimum criteria for approval, and, that there were conflicts with Criteria #1, #5 and #6. The Planning Commission voted to deny the application based on non-compliance with those three criteria. David Smith, RAS Property Management Company, stated the last time he appeared before Council he was urged to continue his quest to develop a project in Bremerton. As one Council member noted at that previous meeting, he honestly admitted he had serious reservations about the rezone application, which was subsequently voted down. The neighborhood group, ably represented by Mrs. Cooper, showed the conflict of multi- family with a single family character of that neighborhood, except Kona Village, which had been built on the basis of a questionable rezone effort thus casting doubts on the justification of using it as a precedent for additional multi- family development in that area. At this time, he is presenting a project that has occupied the vast majority of his time and is his #1 priority... the eight single family homes he proposes to build on Arvon Avenue. He believes that this project can be shown to not be in conflict with the surrounding neighborhood, but rather an asset that compliments the neighborhood and the type of structures that are already there. In addition to the Arvon project, he is preparing to under take a larger project of single family homes in TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 13 of 30 Bremerton through the PUD process, the Haddon School site. He has contracted to purchase that site from the Bremerton School District. The Arvon project has already been processed through a Short Plat and there is a preliminary approval of that Short Plat for four lots. It was essentially a backup plan to insure that they would have a project should they run into problems in their attempt to do a Planned Unit Development for single family homes. Development on the short platted property would be two houses on each lot. Such a development would provide affordable housing whereby someone could purchase their own home, live in it and then utilize the income from a second home to give them a net extremely low payment. After working with Carol Dickinson, Development Manager for the City, they realized that a vast majority of home buyers would be eliminated by utilizing this concept. Almost all first time buyer programs insist that the buyer buy only one individual unit. But, throughout the entire process, it has been their intent to design this project to accommodate single family homes. Mr. Smith emphasized that he believed his proposed project does meet the six criteria for the development standards for a PUD. Dorothy Vinson, Associate Broker, Larkin Realty, 4110 Kitsap Way, stated she has been a realtor in the Bremerton area for over 17 years. The work most rewarding to her has been helping the first time home buyer. She believes Bremerton is "moving forward" in its redevelopment through strong leadership by Mayor Mentor. Another significant asset to this community is the Bremerton School District, who, through the leadership of Dr. Dewayne Boyd, now has an excellent reputation and can be used as a selling point for people locating to Bremerton. She views Mr. Smith as a man of vision who wants to make a difference in the City of Bremerton. She has been a part of the development team for this proposed PUD and she is proud of the work that they have done and hopes to see the project become a reality. President Fitz questioned for clarification if Mr. Gordon would be giving Council the same speech he made before the Planning Commission or would it contain new information? Jim Gordon, Larkin Realty, handed out a proposed statement to Council, stated he was not present at the Planning Commission's meeting and the information he would present was more of a guideline of what they had to work with and how they developed the project. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated he understood the project has not changed so there is no substantive new content that Council will hear, TAPE #1092 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 14 of 30 but there may be testimony given in a "restyled" presentation from what the Planning Commission received. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated if the project has not changed then the facts of the development have not changed and descriptions or arguments can be given in different ways. He was not sure what is considered "new information". Mrs. Fitz referenced the printed speech Mr. Gordon handed out to Council prior to his speaking. Mr. Sievers stated that would not be a problem nor would the fact that he did not speak before the Planning Commission at the prior hearing. He stressed there did not have to be a duplication of speakers from one hearing to the next. But, more important is the fact that the project has not changed. Jim Gordon, Realtor with Larkin Realty, gave some background information on how he became involved with Mr. Smith on this project. Through a concerted effort by the realtors, the subject property was located and appeared to fulfill the need for first time home buyers -- to be close to schools, close to bus lines, close to arterial roads so a commute to and from work would be made easy. In their research, they also found that first time buyers are limited in their ability to qualify for a new home above $80,000. Armed with this information, Mr. Smith then talked with local architects, the City's Planning Department, Fire Department, and any other City departments that would have an impact on a project of this nature. Following this information gathering process, the project unfolded to include: stick built 3-bedroom homes, two full baths, a single car garage, double insulated windows, gas heat and range/oven, a dishwasher, garbage disposal, laundry hook-ups all for the price of $77,500. Such a home would meet Cascade Gas requirements for an Ultra Best Home, the highest ranking Cascade Gas gives. Urgency of this project is built on the fact that their are buyers, who have children, that need to be moved into their new homes prior to the beginning of the school year. The delay of this project, because of the Planning Commission's decision against it, seriously threatens their ability to reach that goal. TAPE #1093 In conclusion, Mr. Gordon stressed that any project less than what is proposed would absolutely warrant the developer to reconsider doing any project at this tim~ or any other time in the City of Bremerton. He urged Councilto give a "positive" vote for this proposal. Mark Kulman, Packtec Engineering, 3721 Kitsap Way, stated one of the satisfying things in his career is to help provide home TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 15 of 30 ownership for that "american dream", and it gives him great satisfaction being involved in projects that do that for the first time buyers, particularly those in that "affordability" bracket. Most entry level housing in Kitsap County and Bremerton start somewhere in the $100 - $110,000 range for a detached single family residence. The only way that they have successfully dropped that dollar figure below those parameters is to provide attached housing, town houses, duplexes, etc. There is a great wealth of buyers who want that single family detached home and the availability of such homes is seriously lacking. Mr. Kulman handed out a document titled: "Housing Afford- ability??? The Vanishin~ American Dream"; and touched on highlights of that document. He emphasized home ownership in the State of Washington from 1980 to 1989 dropped by 3%, and Bremerton experienced an even higher percentage than the State level. He believes it reflects on the community when there is a higher and higher percentage of rental type properties and rental type owners, and it is to our benefit, and Society's benefit, to do something to turn that around. The rate for first time buyers in Washington State between the ages of 25 and 34 dropped eight percentage points since 1980. If those numbers continue, home ownership will decline even more rapidly in the next 10-20 years. The average age of the first time home buyer is now 31. What this City and County need are more affordable housing for home ownership. Government is rapidly becoming the greatest impediment to affordable housing. Some of the things we see around us are impact fees, reduced land base due to down zoning, sensitive area ordinances, and increased buffer requirements. Governments have established costly and unnecessary development standards and regulations which add costs, but not value. Governments have developed complex, expensive, and time consuming land use approval/permitting processes. He complimented the City of Bremerton because they do not assess impact fees, and staff in both the Planning Department and Engineering Department are cooperative in assessing and advising prospective land developers and home builders in the City. Problems faced by the home building industry are problems that are facing our society and he hoped the community, industry, and government can work together to solve this problem. The realities of the market place in terms of how lending institutions must look at that first time buyer, and how they look at comparable sales in the neighborhood, make reality in the housing market, which cannot be ignored. We are faced TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 16 of 30 with the grim reality as to what can we do to provide housing and how can we make it affordable at all income levels within our society. Mr. Smith presented a challenge to Mr. Kulman to provide homes in the price range from $69,000 - $75,000, and with the square footage and projected cost of construction of those homes, leaving him with a price range to provide utilities, access, transportation and to come up with a plan that was supportable through existing Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances. It may be suggested to change the configuration of lot sizes and numbers of houses, however, such a recommendation would not allow taking advantage of the maximum efficiency of the existing utilities. The water system does need to be enlarged and looped through to provide the fire flow, but it minimizes the amount of utility construction, if Arvon is kept as it is today, a deadend street in a relative isolated area. Density has been the most effective response to the affordability issue. They recognize the property is relatively flat with a gentle slope and storm drain considerations were paramount. They have obtained and received easements for utility and storm drain connections into the City's system on Alexander and Olympic without impacting the down stream property owners. Other aspects of the site that are important are: the site is 20-30 feet below the elevation of homes on Naval Avenue with a heavily wooded slope covered with deciduous trees and blackberry bushes; and the site is a transition area between an existing duplex area into a neighborhood of slightly larger single family lots on Naval. And, providing a transition through comparable densities but of a single family detached nature and the type of personality such a home provides. Bremerton's Zoning Ordinance is relatively new and it recognized at the time it was developed that Bremerton's growth challenge comes from providing for infill within existing land within the City. It recognized that as an important element in growth, and in order to accomplish that, it included a PUD process which provides flexibility to help overcome the problems faced by infill projects. In the land use process, they looked at the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan for this section of the City states that density of 15-30 units to the acre is acceptable density. Mr. Kulman pointed out the proposed project is proposing less than 9 units per acre. That plan has policies that encourages construction in residential areas where public services are available and adequate. He emphasized this has been demonstrated in the Engineering Report that there are public utilities available and adequate. The plan also provides for TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 17 of 30 various ranges and types of densities of housing throughout Bremerton to accommodate the lifestyles and income levels of present and future residents. At this time, Mr. Kulman could not identify a single project in Bremerton that provides housing for income levels that can afford the $69,000 - $75,000 home. Zoning Ordinance provisions in the SF-3 Zone are as follows: Maximum Height Maximum Lot Coverage Front Setbacks Rear Setbacks Side Setbacks Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Reauired Proposed 30 feet 12 feet 40% 24% max. 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet 75 feet min. 5 feet 5 feet 4,800 sq. ft. 4,590 sq. ft. 40 feet 25 feet Mr. Kulman emphasized PUD's become a contract between the City and the developer and he believed the Zoning Ordinance Provisions in an SF-3 zone will be important when later comparing what is actually constructed. He pointed out the SF-3 zone requires a maximum height of 30 feet...the project proposes a maximum height of 12 feet. He noted there is an alternate floor plan that could provide a second level, which would change the height to 25 feet as a maximum. The variations in the minimum lot size and width are acceptable under the PUD, which has been pointed out in several places in Council's Agenda packet. The PUD allows the developer to change that criteria as long as "the use and density restrictions of the underlying zoning are applicable to the PUD" (as written in the Zoning Ordinance). This means that the developer cannot exceed the Table on Page 6/7 - 9 units per acre maximum in a SF-3 zone. Mr. Kulman quoted from the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "The PUD shall allow exceptions to the lot requirements of the underlying zoning district, including modifications to lot size, setback, height and other similar requirements". He believes that 25 feet versus 40 feet is a similar requirement that can be addressed in the PUD process. In reference to the six criteria and the Planning Commission's findings, he believes this project does meet Criteria #1 as he previously addressed when speaking about the Comprehensive Plan. Another important element is that the project also meets the CHAS. The Community Development Department stated that the proposal is consistent with the spirit and intent of Housing Bremerton and CHAS. He hopes that this document is not just verbiage and that our goals and intents are to TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 18 of 30 provide housing for all income levels within our community. The Commission found that the planned lots did not meet the minimum lot width of 40 feet and that some of the lots do not meet the minim lot size of the SF-3 zoning. He stressed that he believes the PUD process does allow change in lot sizes. Referencing Criteria #2, the information given showing the surrounding uses and densities provides the data needed to show that the single family detached residents would provide a harmony and transition to surrounding areas. Referencing Criteria #3, he pointed out the Engineering Department found no significant traffic impacts are anticipated by eight additional dwellings. He noted the Arvon Street that was shown off of 15th Street is a very narrow street, but the slide showing 16th Street coming up off of Olympic is the true marketing access and through access for people who would live in that project. Referencing Criteria #4, it has been found that existing public services and facilities are adequate and available to serve this project. Referencing Criteria #6 - the issue of environmentally sensitive is shown in the Cascade Natural Gas Company's rating, their highest, for the proposed project. He believes that Criteria #5 is the most critical to this issue as it deals with the word "attractive" that has a connotation for each one individually. He believes the proposed homes would be attractive to at least eight people in the community ... they would be attractive to the people in the market who could afford them. He hoped their needs for housing is being heard at this time. Mr. Collins stated the motion made by the Planning Commission was based on the oral testimony and staff report. Council is now getting a significant amount of oral testimony that the Planning Commission did not hear. He did not think that was appropriate. Mr. Sievers stated again, that criteria is difficult to establish and Council's policy is not in the ordinance. He believes that the basis is that Council did not want new information about the project, but it is difficult to say that since only four speakers were heard at the Planning Commission hearing only four would be allowed at Council's hearing. This is really more than an appeal as Council is required to act when a PUD contains a rezone or subdivision as is the case in this instance. It is difficult to control the quantity of testimony. Mr. Collins stated it appears the developer does a perfunctory job going to the Planning Commission and then brings the "big guns" in to sway the City Council - he did not think such action is appropriate. Mr. Sievers stated work needs to be done on Council's policy. Mr. Collins pointed out Council's policy has been to ask the question "was this information given to the Planning Commission" and if the answer is no, then Council has rejected TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 19 of 30 hearing such testimony. Mr. Waibel referenced the Planning Commission minutes, which reflected no oral testimony from ahyone. The Planning staff, in helping a new developer in this City understand our process, did not convey to them the importance of providing the Planning Commission with appropriate and sufficient information about this topic. Mr. Pratt stated the crux of the issue before Council is that it came to the Planning Commission with a positive staff report and there was a presentation by the proponent. He assumed the proponent felt that a positive response was likely from the Planning Commission since the staff report was positive and adequately explained. He did not anticipate receiving a negative response from the Planning Commission, and when planning for the appeal hearing before Council, most likely determined a better job needed to be done in explaining his proposal. His understanding is that none of the substance has changed, in fact, the testimony Council is hearing is not particularly germane to the issue. The issue is ... is this land use plan is approved, and none of the specific issue substance has changed from what the Planning Commission heard. Mr. Walbel stated it changed from only the proponent speaking before the Planning Commission to now where a number of outside individuals are providing input. He understands the proponent may have understood the issue to be an open and shut situation, however, there were negative comments made by BACON, and when looking at the drawings, the design does not appear to be real attractive, which can affect some people's perceptions. This could have been combatted before coming to Council. He hoped everyone in this hearing understands that the Council is not speaking in terms of the decision yet to be made on this project, but are talking about the process. He did not want to get stuck with something that would have to be overturned because of not having any information presented initially. Mr. Slevers stated again this is not something that is presentably valid, it is more in the form of a recommendation rather than appeal. Council does have to take the recommendation and make its own decision based on information given at that hearing. Mr. Pratt pointed out that during the Planning Commission's meeting, there was a motion to table this action requesting the developer come back to the Commission after having addressed more specific concerns regarding three specific items, but that was defeated. He stressed the Planning Commission did not give the proponent the opportunity to provide them additional information, and it appears, given that vote, the proponent's option was to appeal to the City Council. Mr. Waibel stressed the place where the proposal should have been "sold" was at the Planning #0749 TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 20 of 30 Commission hearing. All of the information being given at this time about a plan for affordable housing should have been given at the Planning Commission level. He did not see that as a part of the original presentation. Mr. Sievers stated the Planning Commission may not have wanted the issue tabled because they felt that was the proponent's opportunity and it should have been done right the first time. He emphasized he understands Council's point of view of having full presentations, and best efforts made before the Planning Commission so that they would not be wasting the effort of the Planning Commission. He did feel Council's policy needs to be refined and identified in more detail. Council does have the option to exercise discretion and remand the issue back to the Planning Commission based on what Council thinks is greater information and input, and wants the Commission to make the decision based on that same information. He stressed Council could legally go forward hearing this issue at this time. M/S/F(Collins/Johnson) to remand the decision back to the Planning Commission because additional information is being presented to the City Council. Mr. Colvin questioned a point of parliamentary procedure - will Mr. Collin's motion stop further hearing on this issue if it is approved? Mr. Sievers stated yes - he referenced a previous hearing that such action was taken at the time of initial presentation of an issue where substantive data was being presented. If Council is satisfied the Planning Commission did not receive the same quantity and availability of information and want to give a deference to their recommendation on being fully informed, the issue can be remanded back to them for further consideration. Mrs. Hotton stated she wanted to address the item, and if the motion is approved to remand back to the Planning Commission, she personally would like some things discussed or brought back to the Planning Commission for their discussion. She did not think it was fair to the Planning Commission that Council just remand it back without areas of concern that brought about that remand. She also felt such action would not be fair to the developer where he may end up having to appeal to the City Council and then face issues Council want addressed in their development. Mr. Waibel questioned if Mrs. Horton wanted the developer to modify their proposal when they go back before the Planning Commission or specific information about this particular proposal? Mrs. Hotton stated she would like to modify the proposal and felt there are some things of value but also things that could be altered. Mrs. Horton stated if the issue goes back to the Planning Commission and TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 21 of 30 they approve it, then it does not come back to Council. Mr. Waibel emphasized the issue would come back before Council because it was being remanded back and because it is a PUD proposal. Mr. Smith stated Mr. Waibel's comment was not correct. The project is two short plats and the only reason it would come back to Council is if it was a long plat. If there is an affirmative vote by the Planning Commission, under the normal process, that is the end of the program for a short plat. Mr. Waibel stated Council must approve preliminary and final PUD's. Mr. Smith pointed out his escrow on the property runs out in two weeks and at this time he did not know if it would be extended. If Council sends the issue back to the Planning Commission, you are deciding you don't want the project. The process that occurred at the Planning Commission consisted of a presentation made by him that covered much of the same material and most of the additional information presented at this hearing is contained in the Agenda packet and Zoning Ordinance. All of the remaining presenters would be addressing the character of the subdivision. He asked the Planning Commission to deny his proposal because they were in a psychological deadlock. They denied the project because they did not believe that the developer was adhering to the spirit of the PUD. And, that is the argument he is presenting at this time that they are in fact adhering to the spirit of the PUD. The opportunity to act is now or it will be lost. He wished to continue this hearing and looked to Council for a decision. The Planning Commission heard the essentials of the entire proposal and his understanding of why they denied his requested was based on Criteria #1, #5 and #6. He and the Planning Commission were deadlocked over the word "aesthetic", and it was the only issue they could not agree on. He did not know how that issue could be resolved by just sending him back to the Commission. Mr. Overson recommended that Council vote "No" on Mr. Collin's motion and move on with the appeal hearing. Mrs. Hotton stated she concurred with Mr. Overson. Vote on motion: Motion failed. In Favor: Opposed: Colvin, Johnson, Collins Dawkins, Overson, Neville, Horton, Waibel, Fitz, Mr. Smith stated an important aspect of his presentation is to show that the proposed development is attractive to those people who are interested in purchasing. He announced the next presenter would be Berry Keenan, of Keenan Design, who would be showing some slides showing creative ways to construct homes on 25 foot lots. Mrs. Herton requested a TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 22 of 30 point of order and questioned if the slides to be shown by Mr. Keenan were shown to the Planning Commission? Mr. Smith stated no. Mrs. Hotton stated in that case she did not think it was appropriate for Council to view those slides because it would be additional information being given to this body. Mr. Smith announced his next presenter would be from the financial institution that is supplying the majority of funding for the project - Keith Baggerly of the National Bank of Bremerton. Mr. Collins requested a point of order and questioned if he was correct in that land use decisions cannot be based on financial consideration? Mr. Sievers stated the community and public economic welfare can be considered, but not the particular financial status of an applicant/owner. Mr. Collins questioned if the financial information.was given to the Planning Commission? Mr. Smith stated no. Keith Baggerly, Bremerton National Bank Of Bremerton, stated the National Bank has been involved with this project since its inception and, if approved, they are ready to fund construction money within the next 6-7 days. After getting involved with this project, they saw an opportunity to implement the Community Reinvestment Act and become more involved with the community. Currently, he is personally working with the Seattle Regional HUD Office, Community Resources Center (CRC) organization of the Apostolic Church, and Carol Dickinson of the City in the development of a pilot affirmation and affordable housing program to go hand-in-hand with take out financing for this program. This would impact citizens of the City and first time home buyers. Mildred Davis, representing CRC for Pastor Larry Robertson, 1303 Lafayette, stated CRC have the following areas they deal with: SWET Equity Program, existing homes, or rehabilitation homes to allow people to purchase homes at a low price. CRC advised and held a meeting of individuals who would be interested in the homes proposed by Mr. Smith. As a result of that advertisement, ten families attended that meeting. This group of people reviewed the design of the plat and proposed homes and responded very favorably to the proposed project. Leroy Williams, 3729 "E" Street, stated he has been a resident of Bremerton for over 30 years and has served on the Bremerton School Board for 20 of those years. During that time, he has seen many changes happen in the City of Bremerton. He is very interested in the proposed PUD as well as the potential development at the Haddon School site. Currently, he is working with the Bremerton School Board on a Facility Plan and recently the City's Planning Department staff made a TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 23 of 30 presentation on growth development in the City as it relates to the Growth Management Act and how we then can reasonably make a determination with some current information as to growth in Bremerton and student projects. He emphasized the School District is aware that there is almost zero land in Bremerton proper for school purposes. They do not know yet what the long term recommendations will be as far as school facility needs. The School District felt very positive about surplusing the Haddon School site and hopes to see it developed into new housing that would bring in new students to the school district. There has been a decline in students in the Bremerton School District and that trend may continue unless density type projects, such as is being proposed, are allowed. He emphasized the target group would be the first time home buyers and they would be drawn from single parent families and low income facilities. He believes we now have the best of all worlds in this particular project - interest rates and markets at about 7.5%, the lowest rate in the past 20-30. years, and first time home buyers stand to gain in qualifying for these kinds of projects and developments. He emphasized there must be sensitivity for those individuals who want to become home owners even though they are at a lower income than those who can afford a higher priced home. Mr. Smith reviewed his extensive discussions with City departments in order to make sure that the project had the necessary infrastructure. In order to gain a better understanding of this community, he attended the Campus Evergreen Neighborhood meetings as well as Bremerton School Board meetings. He has also worked with Carol Dickinson, City's Development Manager, who made every effort to help him understand and comprehend housing objectives for Bremerton and to understand the many groups of people who need housing in Bremerton. He believes that the collective purpose at this hearing is to determine if this project represents a step toward meeting the housing needs of this community as presented in CHAS and Housing Bremerton. He did not see the purpose being the fact that he may have made a mistake in not making a complete presentation to the Planning Commission and dissection that to determine if the proposal should be brought forward or go backwards. The Planning Commission denied his request based on Criteria #1, #5 and #6, which he believes were clearly addressed both at the Planning Commission and at this hearing as to their being met within the scope of his proposed project. In conclusion, he sees this as a window of opportunity for first time buyers that may be short lived as the economy continues to expand. Betty Bue11, High Avenue, stated she had a great deal of difficulty believing that people would want to live in a house TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 24 of 30 15 feet wide and in such a dense configuration. She was not in support of this project unless it provided fewer houses and in a different configuration. Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, stated over the years, since he has been attending Council meetings, he has seen a lot of good things pass Bremerton up simply because the Council refused to act. He pointed out this matter has been brought before Council for a decision and he believed Council should go forward and make a decision at this time. It appeared to him that Council was trying to "duck out" of their duty. As far as this project is concerned, if Council turns it down it would be another good thing that Bremerton has passed up. Floyd Houston, member of the CRC Board, stated the proposed project is viewed with enthusiasm by the young people who would be eligible to become homeowners. If the project is denied, he believed that decision would be doing the City and Community a disservice. Mr. Smith stated there are many 25 foot wide lots in Seattle. One of the three choices of houses they offer is a 2-story home, which has been built many times in Suquamish and it was based on some 2,000 homes built in Ballard of similar style. The homes in Ballard range between $150-180,000 and in Suquamish it is probably the most active product developed there and best received. Those homes are being targeted by commuters to Seattle and in pricing started at $72,000 in 1989 and today they are asking and getting $89,000. He is proposing to build essentially the same house, slightly smaller, but a more attractive price needs to be offered in order to keep families in Bremerton. Mr. Overson stated based on what he has heard that if this proposal did go back to the Planning Commission and a full presentation was given including examples of where similar projects have been built, he feels they might give their approval. His concern with the presentation is that it projects that there is only one way to develop the site in order to provide affordable housing. He could see at least three possibilities that would be as affordable or even more affordable. He noted the home presented averaged around 210 linear feet of wall. During his early years he lived in a mobile home that was 14 feet wide and 60 feet long - he would not pay to return to that kind of environment. He had concern that what was presented during this hearing is Mr. Smith's opinion of what is affordable and he believes there were other opportunities for the site. TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 25 of 30 Mr. Waibel stated 30 years ago he purchased his first home at a cost of $6,790, but to put that into perspective, his income for that year was $7,240. Most first time home buyers in this City will not be making $70,000 as their income, but this is as close as we can get to allowing the young people in the community to become home buyers. He has owned six homes since then and has about fives times the square footage in his present house than what was in his first home, but he was able to get into that house and start the process upgrading his life style because there was affordable housing. He served as Council's representative on the Bremerton Housing Committee and he stressed we need to provide some way to allow the young people in this town to be first time home buyers and start the diversity that is necessary to make this town continue as things happen to our "one only" industry. If we don't approve this kind of development, we'll probably not get a lot of chances to see whether or not it would work. If these homes are not attractive to first time home buyers, they won't sell, and there won't be other developers trying that same method. If those homes are attractive and do bring people into the community, they then become part of the "pride of Bremerton", thereby setting a precedent for future developments for first time home buyers at affordable rates. This does, through the PUD process, meet the ordinance size by the trade offs that are provided. It is compatible with the neighborhood and is a way to make the transition from duplexes and single family residents in the area, as well as being energy efficient. Further efficiency might be brought about by reducing the amount of wall space. He emphasized Council needs to allow the market to drive some of the affordability in the City. He urged Council to approve the PUD proposal as presented. Mrs. Horton stated she agreed with some of Mr. Waibel's comments. She does believe we need to promote affordability and to encourage home ownership, and she liked those aspects of the proposed project. However, she had an opposition to the fact that people on low income and people just starting out have to be stuck with little unimaginative boxes. What she really disagrees with in Mr. Smith's presentation is that if the market doesn't like these, then no one will buy them. She hoped Council would take a more proactive stance as far as any kind of housing and try to make it as attractive and forward thinking in the community as possible. She and several members of the Council attended a seminar called "Kitsap Vision" and if the proposed project had been part of that presentation she believed it would have ranked as a 1 out of 10. She sees an opportunity to create attractive and affordable housing that utilizes the property better through land aggregation, housing aggregation and coming up with a TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 26 of 30 community playground area. She was sorry to hear Mr. Smith state that philosophically because the Planning Commission didn't like this arrangement you couldn't alter it. One of the major things she sees wrong with this proposal is that only a single car garage is proposed. Arvon Street is very narrow and will not allow additional parking spaces so either people will be parking all over the rest of the neighborhood or end up being parked in the yards. Currently, she is experiencing situations where people are parking in their yards and did not want to see it happen in a newly developed area. While she sees there is an opportunity to do something really good, in her opinion this proposal falls short and was not sure how to rectify it. Mr. Smith stated the issue of attractiveness has been raised, but Council did rule that the slides showing existing projects could not be shown for them to demonstrate the attractiveness of the issue. Mrs. Hotton emphasized that Council must base its decision on the same information presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith pointed out there are two parking spaces for vehicles on each lot (one in the garage). President Fits stated government regulations are so contradictory. On the one hand, we are suppose to be telling people they need fewer vehicles and we are shown a single car garage and one additional parking space. Then, we are saying everyone will have two vehicles, which will create problems in the neighborhood. She may not want to live in one of the proposed houses today, but when she was 20 years old with two children such housing would have been very attractive. She is not excited about having this kind of home in the City because it is probably not the ideal, but no one started out with the ideal home. This proposal does not follow "Kitsap Vision", but there are so few building lots in the City that we are going to be hard pressed to do all the things "Kitsap Vision" thought should be done. She was encouraged that a local bank is willing to do what the City has wanted from the local banking community for a long time. She thinks the people who want to own such a house deserve an opportunity, and supports moving forward with this project. Mr. Collins stated his quarrel was not with Mr. Smith's project and he was not putting any valuation on the project... his quarrel was with procedure. In the past, there have been a significant number of people who would go to the Planning Commission and then bring an enhanced presentation to the Council. He stressed that is not the way the City operates. I The reason he raised all the objections is because if the Planning Commission is not provided all the information then they cannot make a decision. On the project itself, he TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 27 of 30 understands why there is a thought process that says this will be affordable housing. He has a hard time equating the proposal with the first house that he and his wife were able to afford, which was $7,500 and 20 X 24 feet outside dimension. He has to look at the project not to what it is going to do, but what how does it conform to the City's land use rules. There are four pieces that tell us how we are to use land in the City...the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Map, Zoning Plan, and Zoning Map. He agrees with two comments made by the Planning Commission in that the project does not meet the criteria, therefore he will not support the PUD as presented, but it is because of land use and not because of cheap, thrifty, affordable housing. Mr. Smith reminded Council that the project is preliminarily approved at this stage for two houses on each lot subject to putting in the fire hydrant and other things. Mr. Johnson called for a point of order. He stated Council has heard a lot of testimony about the need for affordable housing in Bremerton and he was sure that need would exist forever. The fact is, the Planning Department, including Ms. Dickinson, know that Bremerton has a disproportionate amount of affordable housing in the lower income bracket. The strategy, which is in Housing Bremerton, is the need to upgrade or replace the existing stock of housing in the subject area and in new development areas increase the amount of affordable but more expensive homes. If we keep going at this rate we will have nothing but this type of low income housing and there won't be a tax base to take care of the people who will live there. He questioned the percentage of housing in the project's bracket already existing in the City of Bremerton and how that relates to a normal well balanced City with housing stock? Mr. Pratt stated he did not have that information with him and he believed it is his professional duty to tell him that he did not think that would be an allowable finding to use in reaching a conclusion on this issue at this time. Mr. Johnson stated the issue has been put to Council that it should be passed based on the fact that is what the City's housing strategy says. What we currently have is a lot of dumpy entry level housing that needs to be upgraded. Bremerton does not have a lot of good middle and upper class homes in the City. If it doesn't count for that reason then all that previous testimony was irrelevant. Mr. Pratt stated earlier he did state that some of the previous testimony was irrelevant, the difference being that it was testimony given by an audience to the City Council. Mr. Johnson stated the fact that this would support what the City of Bremerton would like to see. A community #2828 TAPE #1094 TAPE #1093 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 28 of 30 needs assessment that would comply with CRA wouldn't apply. We want to provide a reasonable and fair quantity of entry level housing in the City, which he fully supports. He did not see the proposed project doing that. M/S/C(Overson/Collins) to uphold the Planning Commission's decision of Denial. Mr. Dawkins stated this project is needed to fill housing needs in the City. He urged Council to approve the proposal as presented. Mr. Colvin questioned if Council approves this project will other developers be allowed to build on 25 ft. lots in other areas within the City? Mr. Pratt stated this particular application is a PUD and the standard lot size for this zone is 40 ft. wide. A PUD can vary lot width and can vary several other characteristics within the proposal provided the PUD meets the other criteria. If Council finds that all of the criteria can be positively met, then this project can be built with different lot widths than a typical plat would require. A plat is not held to this high a test, and therefore must meet 40 ft. wide lots. If a project meets this higher test then varying lot widths are allowed. But, no other project in the City will receive these narrower lot widths unless they go through that same test. Mr. Colvln questioned how wide will the street be? Mr. Jensen state the right-of-way is currently 15 ft. wide and the developer proposes the dedication of five additional feet for a total right-of-way width of 20 ft. Mr. Colvin questioned if sidewalks would be included? Mr. Jensen stated the Engineering Department, in the Short Plat Application along with some review comments on the PUD proposal, requested that sidewalks be put in. The proposal went to the Planning Commission with the condition that sidewalks be part of the development. Mr. Colvin stated he can appreciate the fact that people need to get a start, but he was concerned over the density in such a confined location. Mr. Pratt stated we bring you a positive recommendation from the Fire Department that the project can be safely constructed and they agree with the 25 ft. lot width. Mr. Colvln stated he admired the concept, but placing all the houses in close proximity is being done to maximize the income for the investment, which he can understand. Mr. Overson raised the question...assuming the motion to deny passes, does Mr. Smith have the right to turn around and submit a new PUD for this same lot? #0265 TAPE #1094 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 29 of 30 Mrs. Hotton stated before she votes on this motion she wants to know the determination on Mr. Overson's question. Mr. Pratt requested a short break so he could research that question. Mrs. Hotton stated she has a fairly extensive design background, not in architecture, but if there is one thing she has learned over these many years is probably the very best designs come on an absolute shoestring budget because you have to use creativity. Had the Planning Commission had the opportunity to see all of the presentation, it may have exhibited that. She challenged, regardless of Council action, Mr. Smith and any developer to start using creativity to redevelop Bremerton. If this project is approved, she hoped Mr. Smith would use that creativity in lieu of dollars because dollars don't always make or break a project. Mr. Dawkins pointed out Mr. Smith could have a project with 50 ft. lots with town houses built on them. Mr. Pratt stated according to Chapter 10 Section 8 of the Zoning Code, an application cannot be resubmitted to the City within one year of the date of denial. Our common reading is that includes PUD applications. Mr. Sievers stated it doesn't specify, but it does refer to PUD in that general section so that limitation does apply to PUD's. Mrs. Hotton questioned if the motion is defeated, is there some sort of motion that could be made to expand that window of opportunity to have the developer come back to Council through a one week table? Mr. Sievers stated a "table" of the motion would be fine, or a remand back to the Planning Commission would eventually bring the issue back to Council. Mr. Overson stated his motion was made on the bases that as a PUD process, the developer could return to the Planning Commission with a different project for the subject site. He stated he would like to withdraw his motion because he was not sure he could support it considering this new data. His second option would now be to send the proposal back to the Planning Commission and tell them to resubmit it, based on the education given to Council at this hearing. Mr. Collins stated if Mr. Overson makes such a motion he will withdraw his second to that motion. M/S/(Overson/Collins) I request to withdraw my motion. Motion Withdrawn. #0269 M/S/C(Overson/Collins) to remand this proposal back to the TAPE #1094 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 30 of 30 Planning Commission for their reconsideration based on the new information that the proponent has to present. Vote on motion: In Favor: Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Collins Neville, Horton Opposed: Waibel, Dawkins, Fitz With no further business meeting adjourned at 9.08 P.M. ~.N L.KAT McCLUSKEY, C'_ty Clerk City of Bremerton KLM/EF/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault