HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/93CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
#0031
FEBRUARY 17, 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, February 17,
1993, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Eileen Fitz
presiding. Council members present: 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 Deputy City Clerk Gil
Johnson.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
Council President Fitz and Invocation given by Councilman A1
Colvin.
President Fitz announced Council will hold an Executive
Session on "potential litigation" immediately following the
Council meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - February 3, 1993, #AB93-029
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins)
presented.
to approve Consent Agenda as
CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS - NONE
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin thanked Councilman Johnson for inviting the
Bremerton Cable Access crew and Committee members to make a
presentation at the Council Coalition Dinner meeting, which
was held February 16. He noted Carol Dickinson, Development
Manager, gave a very informative report to the Bremerton
Central Lions Club during their luncheon meeting today. He
reminded everyone of Council District #1 Neighborhood
Coalition meeting on February 25.
Mr. Collins extended a "Happy Anniversary" to his wife of 38
years and feels very happy that she has shared those many
years with him.
Mr. Overson thanked Russ Johnson and Gil Johnson for their
part in bringing a very enjoyable program at the Council
Ii
1i
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 2 of 28
Coalition Dinner meeting on Tuesday evening. He hoped the
Council Coalition meetings will continue because they are of
such value.
Mr. Meville thanked Mrs. Joann Benjamine for inviting him to
their Neighborhood Block Watch, as well as her volunteering to
be the Block Watch Chairman for that neighborhood. He
welcomed and introduced Patrick Hirsch, the new Bremerton
Community Access Program Director. Patrick Hirsch stated he
finds Bremerton to be a lovely city and looks forward to his
stay here. He was looking forward to meeting the rest of the
Council members that he did not have the pleasure to meet on
February 16.
President Fitz reported the program presented at the Council
Coalition Dinner meeting was excellent, as was the discussion
of legislative issues with other Council members from other
cities in Kitsap County. She emphasized that Bremerton is the
only City in Kitsap County that televises regular Council
meetings for public viewing, providing a way to involve the
public in governmental issues. She also commended the Olympic
College Food Service Department for the wonderful dinner they
prepared for the Council Coalition group.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Louis Mentor announced on Friday, March 26, a fund
raising event will be held for Pendergast Regional Park. This
event will be held at the Sheridan Park Recreational Center
from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Donations of used items are being
solicited for this event and tables will be made available for
anyone wishing to rent space and sell items at that event.
Additional information may be obtained by calling the Parks
Department 478-5305.
Mayor Mentor reported recent DWI Task Force statistics
reflecting the following: DWI injuries in the City of
Bremerton have been reduced by 30% in 1992. There was an 8.6%
drop overall in DWI collisions in the past year. He believed
that reduction was a culmination of all kinds of
activities...emphasis patrols, DWI Task Force, public
education, D.A.R.E programs, etc.
This past weekend the Mayor attended a fashion show in
downtown Bremerton at Maryann Harris's Yesterdays, which
brought more people downtown. This event was put on by
Cuvertino's Intimate Apparel, which is also a downtown
business.
On February 11, Mayor Mentor testified, before a Senate
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 3 of 28
Committee in Olympia, on proposed legislation relating to
underwater parks in the State of Washington. He participated
in this hearing as a result of numerous reports given to the
City by Don Larson, President of the Washington Scuba
Alliance. It appears that there is no Senate opposition to
the proposed bill, which would provide for underwater parks in
the State of Washington under the Department of Parks and
Recreation. He believed such a park would be an asset for the
City and hoped the proposed legislation carries on through and
is adopted. Many members of the "diving" community testified
in support of this proposal. He also attended the "Chamber
Day" luncheon with State Legislators that same day. He noted
all nine Kitsap County State Legislators attended that
luncheon as well.
Jim 8trait, 6530 Harlow Drive, President of Kitsap Lake
Neighborhood Association, thanked the City Council for the
sympathy card he received in the loss of his wife. He
expressed concern over the lack of enforcement and removal of
signs (real estate, election, etc.) on City right-of-ways. He
cited such violations can be seen on Austin Drive, City
information signs, at the entrance of NAD Park, light
poles/telephone poles, etc. He realizes there are other
issues that need attention, but he questioned why does the
City have to look like a junk yard of signs.
Don Larson, 135 Rainier Avenue, President of the Washington
Scuba Alliance Association, stated as Mayor Mentor mentioned
a hearing was held for Senate Bill 5332 for underwater parks
in Olympia. He was pleased to report that the overall
reaction at the Ecology and Parks Committee was very positive.
Bremerton was very well represented at that hearing, including
several directors from Washington Scuba Alliance Association,
Bill Jones of Puget Sound Dive Enterprises, Gordon Bradley,
owner of Star Fire Charters of San Juan Islands, and Mayor
Mentor of the City of Bremerton. He noted one problem with
Senate Bill 5332 is that the State does not have adequate
funds to fund it. The Washington Scuba Alliance Association
has volunteered to help the State and cities do something in
the way of establishing underwater parks. He cited the City
of Edmonds as an example of such a cooperative effort, which
has turned into a great economic asset. If state funds are
attached to the Senate Bill, he believed it would kill the
bill. Therefore, an amendment to that Bill is to be proposed
so the State Parks Department does not have to do anything
until they choose to do it. Also, attempt will be made to get
another Senate Bill passed that will allow non-profit agencies
to hold fund raising events on State Parks' land in order to
raise funds for Parks projects. Mr. Larson announced on
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 4 of 28
February 25 the Boeing Scuba Diving Club/Kent will be hosting
J. Streigth, president of the Artificial Reef Society of
Canada at their club's meeting. The public is invited to this
meeting, which will be held at the Boeing/Kent Activity Center
(Bld. 7226 off of South 228th Street in Kent). He reminded
everyone that the Department of Ecology will be having a
"Countdown To Earth Day" for the month of April. The
Washington Scuba Alliance Association and Kitsap Diving
Association will hold a clean up drive at the First Street
Dock in downtown Bremerton on April 24. Advance information
on the "Countdown To Earth Day" may be obtained by calling 1-
800-RECYCLE or Northwest Regional Offices of the Department of
Ecology (Sheila Hosner) 649-7250. Lastly, Mr. Larson handed
out a list of people/businesses who assisted in sinking the
H.M.C.S. Chaudiere at Sechelt, B.C.
Harry Godwin, 1216 NE Vena, stated he realizes he lives
outside the City of Bremerton, but he wished to address
Council in regards to a Resolution that will be coming to
Council from the City's Planning Commission in the future.
President Fitz requested the City Attorney asses whether or
not Mr. Godwin could speak to the City Council on a Resolution
that will be brought before the City Council at a later date.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated if that item is going to be
before Council it would be better to not address it a part
from the public hearing. If that item does not require that
it be heard by Council, then he could do so at this time. Mr.
Godwin stated it was his belief that the Resolution would be
brought before Council in the future. Basically, he wished to
complain about how the Planning Commission does business. Mr.
Johnson stated if Mr. Godwin did not get into specifics of a
particular case then Council could hear it. Mr. Colvin stated
he wanted Mr. Godwin to speak to the Council because it was
getting into the issue of "free speech". Mr. Sievers stated
if Mr. Godwin could isolate the merits of a particular action
from procedures then he could address Council.
Mr. Godwin stated he attended the Planning Commission Study
Session held February 16, in the City Council Chambers. At
about 9:15 PM, that Study Session was closed and the Planning
Commission moved onto "Old Business", and the public was
dismissed from the Council Chambers. He happened to stay,
following a five minute recess taken by the Commission, who
then returned and took a vote on the subject that was
discussed during their Study Session and passed it 7-0 in
favor under "Old Business" and after the public had left the
City Council Chambers. Shortly before speaking at this City
Council meeting, he received a note (signed by a Planning
Commission member) stating that the Planning Commission has
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 5 of 28
reconsidered and will hear that same issue again at their
March 16 Planning Commission meeting. Also, this particular
item, as required, was not advertised in The Sun under
"Notices". The only public notice given on that issue was by
a news article, written by Travis Baker, published in the
Monday, February 15, issue of The Sun, which was a holiday and
one day before the Planning Commission meeting. He found this
situation to be very incorrect. He noted there seemed to be
a lack of pamphlets to hand out when there were as many as 50
people in the audience for that February 16 meeting. At the
beginning of that meeting only four packets were available for
public viewing, however, later in the evening 20 additional
copies were passed out. He is still deeply concerned that the
vote was taken so far out of order. His point in bringing
this issue before the City Council is to review the Planning
Commission's procedures in dealing with the public. Mrs.
Horton requested that if this issue does come before Council,
the City Attorney is to make sure that procedurally everything
that the Planning Commission has done is such that it would
not negate Council action at that future time.
Mayor Mentor stated in answering Mr. Straits questions he
agreed there are lots of signs on City right-of-way. Signs
are a particular problem during elections and other kinds of
illegal use, such as parking, goes on. The City can't police
all of these things but they do try to respond to specific
complaints. He noted written complaints would be nice.
6A - TRAFFIC 8IGNAL CONTRACT WITH KITSAP COUNTY, #AB93-030
The existing contract is now expired, and a new signed
contract with Kitsap County for Traffic Signal work needs to
be obtained.
Bob Tulp, Electronics Foreman, explained the City has provided
the County maintenance for traffic signals since the
conception of their system. Currently, the County has 22
intersections and the contract is based on "perintersection".
He noted the contract could grow as well as decrease...in 1992
the County lost three intersections to the State DOT road
changes and it is his understanding that two new intersections
will be added in 1993. The contract amounts to approximately
$35,000 per year. Kitsap County has entertained the thought
many times of doing their own maintenance, however, they have
not taken necessary steps to take on that work. The contract
would not increase Electronic's work load and does not mandate
that they anything else but provide the labor.
Mrs. Horton pointed out this contract does include an
automatic CPI increase, which the previous agreement did not
#0932
#1007
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 6 of 28
have. Mr. Tulp stated that was correct and they will adjust
the contract on a yearly basis.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins) motion to approve and pass new
contract.
6B - PROBATION BUDGET ADJUSTMENT, #AB93-031
Due to the possibility of contracting out probation services,
the *function was funded only through 3/31/93. After a
thorough review by the court of alternative methods of service
delivery, it is recommended that the function be continued in-
house. This budget adjustment is for the remaining months of
the year in the amount of $57,765. Revenue from probation
fees has been raised a like amount.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Waibel stated this issue was studied and resulted in what
he felt, at the time of the budget process, would best serve
the City by retaining those services in-house.
Mr. Johnson questioned the funding allocation for Probation
personnel? Mr. Neville pointed out the adjusted funding
covered 3/4 of a year. Mr. johnson questioned if the numbers
in the budget adjustment reflected the increased bodies? Mr.
Waibel stated it came out to less than what was budgeted in
1992, but matched the number of employees during that period.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) motion to approve budget adjustment.
6C - FISHPRO SECOND AMENDED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT --
OVERWATER PARK HABITAT MITIGATION, #AB93-032
The original contract for evaluating a mitigation project for
the overwater park was executed with Fishpro on May 27, 1992
for $68,863.00 and included site surveys, agency meetings, and
permit submittal. The contract was amended by an increase of
$10,000.00 in January to allow a redesign of the mitigation
project to allow on-site mitigation adjacent to the north arm
of the boardwalk. The proposed second amendment for $4,250.00
allows: (1) sampling of a control beach and writing grain
size specifications for construction of the mitigation beach;
and (2) construction observation and consultation during
installation of the mitigation beach materials (assuming the
project is approved).
A final amendment will be submitted at a later date to cover
fees for biological monitoring once the mitigation project and
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 7 of 28
monitoring plans are approved by the agencies.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the City has been
considering any amendments or change orders to the mitigation
project as requiring Council approval even though they are
small since it is considered as part of the boardwalk project,
which is over Council authorized change order limits that can
be made administratively. This change has two parts: (1)
change order is required because of negotiations with
Fisheries. FishPro did develop a redesign of the project on
site for the first change order of $10,000, but Fisheries
rather than accept a designed grain size for the mitigation
beach required a duplication of the composite of a control
beach, so sampling had to be made on that beach and
specifications written for the Quigg Brothers contract. Point
(2) is for services during construction and, similar to the
Quigg change order that was approved a couple weeks ago, will
not be used if the City does not get Corps and Fisheries OK.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that the money had already been spent
without authorization. Secondly, he believed the City was
going down the path of spending money to prepare for a project
that we have no assurance whatsoever the Corps of Engineers
will approve. He stressed that the City had gone forward with
reasonable projects before and for no apparent reason the
Corps rejected them. He will not vote for any more funding
until something is received that is signed off by the Corps of
Engineers, Department of Fisheries and all other affected
agencies. He will support additional funding requests at the
point when this type of documentation is provided the City.
He emphasized the City does not have money to waste and the
little money we have should be put into doing proper
mitigation and taking care of the environment and not spending
it all on construction planning and studies.
Mr. Colvin questioned what would be the impact if Council did
not approve this item? Mr. Sievers stated in reference to the
$1,250 amount, it was his understanding that FishPro did do
the sampling and then wrote up the specs. The Administration
has been moving so quickly with Fisheries' amendment to the
City's design that they we try to get to Council as soon as
possible. He assumed the City would not have an obligation to
pay FishPro for that effort because they are also aware that
they are beyond their second change order, but they apparently
performed the work. Mayor Mentor explained last week, as they
were putting this final thing together for the Corps of
Engineers, the Corps told FishPro they needed samples.
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 8 of 28
Originally, the intent was to do a beach of a certain grain,
however, comments came back from other involved governmental
agencies that they wanted the same grain on the new beach as
was on the original beach, which necessitated taking samples.
FishPro indicated the only time within the next 2-3 months to
obtain samples was 10:00 P.M. that Friday night - at a cost of
$1,250.00. The City didn't have a lot of choices - if the
samples had not been taken that night, then this whole project
would go past the March 15 and June 15 deadlines. The other
designated funds would be for future work that FishPro would
provide that will not be done unless the approval is given by
the Corps of Army Engineers. That condition is the same as
that stipulated in the Quigg Brothers contract for
construction. Mr. Colvin questioned if the City had delayed
the project further, would it be more costly to the City?
Mayor Mentor stated that was conceivable. The City is under
a timeline and he is hopeful that everyone will agree to the
proposal. If negotiations go on for 3-4 more months, there is
no telling what new things could come up. Mr. Johnson
questioned what was so special about the samples that were
taken and why couldn't someone who is a diver, such as Mr.
Larson, do it at anytime? Mayor Mentor stated it was his
understanding that a specific grain size was required and
specific areas designated for the sampling. Then, in the
future, when the actual mitigation is done more samples will
be taken. Every time sampling is taken from a "controlled"
area all future samples must be obtained within that same
area. It was his understanding that a scientist was needed to
determine the content of the sampling.
Mr. Collins stated we got ourselves into a difficult position
because we originally did not take seriously the people that
have the actual control over our destiny...the control we
don't have. He believed the City needed to continue in a
proactive role. He also believed there was justification for
the Mayor spending the $1,250.00 prior to Council approval and
no additional funds will be expended unless the mitigation is
constructed. At this point, the City does not know if the
Corps will even allow the City to construct the proposed
mitigation project to the scope it has been designed. He felt
the Corps was doing a lot of "pulling our chain" even though
it was the City's fault in being put in that position in the
first place. He urged Council to approve the funding so those
funds could be set aside.
Mr. Waibel stated he believed if the sampling had been done by
an oceanographer, it could have cost 4-5 times more. He felt
it was better to spend a little money now rather than spend a
lot later, if in fact this is the project to be construction.
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 9 of 28
He questioned if the Mayor had any idea when the City will
receive a final sign off by the authorities. Mayor Mentor
explained the final time for comment is passed and currently
he is waiting on Fisheries to respond to the proposal that was
sent in and a respond from the Corps of Engineers stating the
proposal is acceptable. He noted a question was brought up by
National Fisheries, which was answered by FishPro. He is
expecting some word from the Corps by the end of this week.
The Corps is aware of the March 15 deadline for being able to
work in the water and the Department of Fisheries indicated
that date might be extended by a little bit. He believes that
everyone involved in this issue is anxious to get the project
underway. Mr. Waibel noted if the City receives that
approval, there will be only 30 days to do the majority of
work, so that is the reason for having the proposed contract
in place. Mayor Mentor stated if the City does not receive
the Permit from the Corps, the contract with Quigg Brothers
and FishPro will be null and void. Mr. Waibel questioned if
Council approved this agreement could the $1,250.00 also be
contingent upon that approval...thereby letting FishPro be the
ones who gambled on that particular item? Ian Sievers stated
such action could be taken if Council so desired. Mr. Waibel
pointed out if the project gets the go ahead then FishPro will
receive their funds, but if it does not, then they took a
gamble. Mr. Sievers stressed the administration has been
stringent in negotiating with FishPro. If the City feels
FishPro's fees are unreasonable, there is time to go out and
solicit other offers.
Mrs. Hotton questioned when the City receives the final go
ahead from the Corps will that include what they expect the
City to do as far as monitoring? Mr. 81evers stated yes, and
he would ask Council's indulgence in bringing the consultant
contract directly to Council thereby avoiding Council
Committees. He believes he could distribute what the
monitoring plan is so that Council could become familiar with
what the City is proposing so that they will know what the
total price for the mitigation project is...construction,
consultants and monitoring phase. Mrs. Hotton questioned if
FishPro iS fairly certain they will get the results that we
are looking for with this mitigation? Mr. Sievers stated yes,
they have expressed a high degree of confidence in success of
the project.
#1880
M/S/C(Horton/Waibel) to approve the second amended
Professional Services Agreement predicted upon approval of the
Army Corps of Engineers and that all design work, permit fees,
construction costs and future monitoring costs are to be no
greater than the budget allotment of $480,000 that was
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 10 of 28
previously budgeted. And, that the City Council receives a
copy of the Army Corps approval; and no part of this agreement
will be implemented unless that approval is given.
Mr. Overson stated for clarification that once the City
receives an agreement from the Corps of Engineers everything
takes off irrespective of what that agreement is. Mrs. Hotton
stated no, the agreement has to say that the dollar cost of
construction and future monitoring will not exceed the funds
budgeted. Mr. Overson stated that made him nervous because
that was essentially what got the City into trouble in the
beginning. Mr. Johnson stated at some point the project
should come back to Council for approval. Mr. Overson
stressed there is no language that states that requirement.
Mrs. Hotton stated the Army Corps of Engineers will be
monitoring the end product so they would essentially be
Council's check and balance for the project. Mr. Waibel
pointed out Council was not approving a construction contract,
but only the engineering contract that can go forward. He
agreed that Council should see the construction plan for the
construction project. Mrs. Hotton questioned is the Army
Corps approval what she is asking for ... the construction
project they are approving so that the Council can see that
document? Mr. Slevers stated he did not know if they will
want more detail other than what Council has seen. If the
Corps wants more detail, then of course Council would be
provided that information. The one thing Council has not seen
and which he will distribute on February 18, is the monitoring
program that the City is proposing. Again, all the different
pieces of construction and monitoring have to be within
budget, per the motion. Mr. Overson pointed out the second
paragraph under #1,..."consultant will provide biological
consulting to the City's project engineer during construction
of the mitigation beach". Mr. Overson did not know, at this
time, who has been named as the project engineer for this
project. He questioned why are we setting this up for
construction when we don't know what is to be constructed and
everyone is assuming it will come back before Council? He did
not understand why this was being presented piecemeal rather
than being presented a final package to forward and get the
job done. Mayor Mentor stated he thought everyone was trying
to get the mitigation completed and in the best way possible.
The problem is that the City is up against deadlines. Mr.
Overson stated it was his understanding that the City had met
its deadlines. Mayor Mentor explained the City did make a
deadline by making a submission of the proposal. The next
deadline is to have the work done by March 15. Mr. Overson
questioned is someone else missing a deadline right now?
Mayor Mentor stated the Corps is going to have to either
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 11 of 28
reject or agree to the City's proposal. He emphasized the
Corps will extend a few days for their missing the deadline on
the other end for the City. He emphasized the need to not
take two weeks for everything that happens to process through
Council and that was why the construction contract was
processed ahead of time. No funds will be spent if the Corps
does not issue the permit. Mr. Sievers stated for
clarification that the City does have a contract for
construction with Quigg Brothers, which included a site
diagram, elevations and cross sections. If the Corps does not
approve that project, then Council will be presented something
else. Mr. Overson questioned when the samples were taken?
Mayor Mentor stated samples were taken at 10:00 P.M. on
February 12. Mr. Overson stated then it only took from Friday
to this date to get the information before Council. He felt
that was a quick turnaround. He stated he would be willing to
wait until something is received from the Corps of Engineers
stating "this is the project" and have that brought to Council
for approval all at once. Ian Sievers explained this Agenda
Bill was submitted to Council on Thursday, February 11, but
the figures were excluded until today. Mr. Overson emphasized
he preferred to see the final project before giving approval.
Mayor Mentor stated he also would rather see the final
project.
Vote on motion:
In Favor: Waibel, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin,
Neville, Horton, Fitz,
Motion carried.
Opposed:
Russ Johnson, Overson
#2229
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Overson) that at the first City Council
meeting following any approval by the Corps Of Engineers the
Mayor and his staff be directed to provide a total
presentation of the project, including the construction phase,
monitoring phase and everything else that goes with it, so
that it is on the record.
Mr. Collins questioned if the intent of Mr. Johnson's motion
was to have that item on the Agenda as an Information Item and
not one requiring action? Mr. Gil Johnson stated that was his
understanding of the motion.
6D - LABOR AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTONAND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 437 CHIEF
OFFICERS 1993, #AB93-033
The attached Labor Agreement between the City and the
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 437 Chief
Officers has been negotiated in conformance with Council
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 12 of 28
direction and covers a one-year period beginning January 1,
1993 and ending December 31, 1993. Changes to the existing
agreement are as follows:
PREAMBLE
ARTICLE 1.
ARTICLE 2.
ARTICLE 3.
ARTICLE 4.
ARTICLE 5.
ARTICLE 6.
ARTICLE 7.
ARTICLE 8.
ARTICLE 9.
ARTICLE 10.
ARTICLE 11.
ARTICLE 12.
ARTICLE 13.
ARTICLE 14.
ARTICLE 15.
ARTICLE 16.
ARTICLE 17.
ARTICLE 18.
ARTICLE 19.
APPENDIX A.
NON-DISCRIMINATION
RECOGNITION
UNION DUES
UNION ACCESS
WAGES
HOURS OF WORK
VACATION LEAVE
HOLIDAYS
SICK LEAVE &
INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY
OTHER LEAVE
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
INSURANCE BENEFITS
CLOTHING & UNIFORM
CLEANING ALLOWANCE
PERSONNEL PRACTICES
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
SEVERABILITY
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
3.65% January 1, 1993
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Same Plans andPremium
Payments as in 1992
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
TERM January 1, 1993 - December 31, 1993
WAGE RATES (See ARTICLE 5)
Caroline Marshall, Personnel Director, stated the changes made
to the existing Labor Agreement apply to a very small unit -
covering two positions. Changes are as follows: (1) date of
the agreement which will provide for a one year agreement
during calendar year 1993; (2) salary adjustment of 3.5%,
effective January 1, 1993. Some figures, like health
insurance were updated from 1992 to 1993 figures, but that
stayed at the same arrangement as that in 1992.
Mr. Colvin questioned how much did the change represent over
what is currently being paid out in this unit? Ms. Marshall
stated that would amount to approximately $2,000 annually for
each of the two positions.
Public comment - none.
#2444
M/S/C(Collins/Colvin) to approve the Labor Agreement by and
between the City of Bremerton and the International
Association of Fire Fighters Local 437 Chief Officers for the
period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993.
i
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 13 of 28
Vote on motion: In Favor:
Motion carried.
Abstain:
Overson, Neville, Horton, Fitz,
Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson
Waibel
6E - CONFIRMATION APPOINTMENT OFRANDY WITT TO THE POSITION OF
CITY ENGINEER, #AB93-034
Recruitment of candidates for the position of City Engineer
was conducted in December and January. Thirty three
applications were received and six of those were invited for
personal interview on February 5. Candidates were evaluated
by a panel consisting of: Jack Pittis, Public Works Director
for Port Angeles, Jack Randall, Cascade Natural Gas, Captain
David Walsh, PSNS Public Works, Donald Pratt, Director Of
Community Development, Bremerton, Gene Sampley, Consultant
with R.W. Beck and Associates. The panel felt that Mr. Witt
would make an excellent selection to fill the vacant position.
Mr. Witt is a graduate of Oregon State University with two
degrees: one in Civil Engineering and one in Forest
Engineering. He has worked as a professional Civil Engineer
for ten years - with the State of California Department Of
Transportation for two years and with the City of Sacramento
for eight years. He comes to Bremerton from a Senior Civil
Engineering position with Sacramento, which has provided him
with supervisory, engineering project management and project
budgeting experience.
Mayor Louis Mentor briefly reviewed the application and
interview process used for filling this position. He noted
Mr. Witt is from the northwest and currently working for the
City of Sacramento, California, and comes with lots of
experience in transportation, water and wastewater
engineering. Mr. Witt also has managerial experience. He
urged Council to confirm the appoint of Randy Witt as City
Engineer for the City of Bremerton.
Mr. Overson pointed out there was only one individual from the
City of Bremerton and no Council member on the interview
panel. Mayor Mentor stated it was not normal practice to
include a City Council member in the interview process because
Council must confirmthe appointment. Mr. Overson stated from
past experience that was not always the case. Mayor Mentor
emphasized that a Council member had never served on interview
panels for any positions that he has filled during his term of
office. He purposely selected people for the interview panel
for their expertise and familiarity with qualities required
for a City Engineer.
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 14 of 28
Mr. Collins stated he found nothing in the position
description that stated this person would be exempt from Civil
Service or the Fair Labor Standards Act. Caroline Marshall,
Personnel Director, stated when the recruitment brochure is
developed she includes that information so that the
affirmative action information goes out to all applicants.
Also, those conditions are reflected in the Professional
Services Agreement or Employment Contract. Mr. Collins
questioned if what he was referencing was not a position
description? Ms. Marshall explained it was the position
description, however, that information is included on the back
of the recruitment brochure. Mr. Collins stressed his belief
that information should be included in the position
description because the position description is what the
performance evaluation is based on. Ms. Marshall stated that
information is available and she could publish it as "Page 3"
of the position description. She assured Mr. Collins that all
applicants did receive that information prior to their
submitting their application.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson stated he found Mr. Witt's job experience with the
Department Of Transportation and Dr. Reynolds to be rather
limited in scope. And, that past experience did not include
him being in charge of the "whole show". He did note that Mr.
Witt had been out of college for 10 years and his forestry
background would be helpful to the City. Mr. Collins did
bring up an excellent point and be believed that Council had
not approved the job description provided. Council has been
anticipating the Personnel Director bringing forward a small
number of job descriptions for Council approval.
Mr. Colvin questioned what is Mr. Witt's proposed annual
salary? Mayor Mentor stated the salary would amount to
approximately $54,000 per year.
#2947
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horton) to confirm the appointment of Randy
witt to the position of City Engineer and authorize the Mayor
to execute the Employment contract.
7A - ORDINANCE NO. 40405 (SECOND READING) REGULATING FARMERS
MARKET VENDORS ON THE CITY BOARDWALK AND APPROVING THE FARMS
MARKET AGREEMENT, #AB93-027
Paula Johnston, License Inspector, stated the ordinance has
been amended to reflect Council's action on February 10:
Section 5.30.080 now reads: "The sale and consumption of
alcoholic beverages is prohibited on the boardwalk".
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 15 of 28
Mr. Colvin noted the ordinance stipulates that 75% of the
total vendors must sell home-grown or home produced fruits,
vegetables, berries, butter, eggs, milk, poultry or any farm
produce or edibles, or any meats or fish. He questioned what
would the remaining 25% of vendors sell? Ms. Johnston
explained the other 25% membership is at the discretion of the
Farmers Market Association and the products do not have to be
home made products.
Public comment - none.
Mrs. Hotton stated last week in her motion it was modified to
prohibit sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, however,
in Section 5.30.045(c) she inadvertently failed to remove the
liquor liability portion. At that time she thought the
statement was in the contract and not in the ordinance.
#3104
M/S/C(Horton/Johnson) moved to pass Ordinance #4405, on second
reading, amending the ordinance under Section 5.30.045(c) to
read: "The certificate shall evidence coverage of at least
$1,000,000 per occurrence and shall include products liability
(deleting and/or liquor liability coverage) of sale or
distribution of edible projects (deleting or alcoholic
beverages is involved) .... ".
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor:
Opposed:
Johnson, Overson, Horton, Dawkins,
Colvin, Fitz
Neville, Waibel, Collins
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSIDER
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING
REOUEST8 FOR REZONEANDSTREET VACATION AT 1701 SHERIDANROAD,
APPLICANT: RAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT; AND APPROVING ORDINANCE
(FIRST READING), #AB93-035
The subject property is one lot at 1701 Sheridan Road (south
side of Sheridan between Walnut and Shley). The applicant
requests a Rezone of the lot from "Duplex Residential (DR)" to
"Mixed Residential (MR)". The lot is located immediately
adjacent to the "MR" zone.
The applicant also requests a Street Vacation of 2,811 square
feet (a 20' x 140.5' portion) of the Sheridan Road right-of-
way immediately north of the subject property.
The proposals were presented and discussed at the Planning
Commission public hearing on January 19, 1993. The City
Council is required to make determinations on each of these
requests, and if approved, pass an ordinance for each action.
TAPE #1089
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 16 of 28
TAPE #1090
Shane Jensen, Planner, provided slides showing the location of
the subject property and surrounding uses. He pointed out
that a house and detached garage are on the site. He also
pointed out elevations of the residential neighborhood below
the property and the Kona VillageApartments located above the
site. Existing improvements in the area include only a
sidewalk running from Walnut Street to in front of the subject
property. There are no curbs or gutters and the right-of-way
is unimproved from the edge of the sidewalk to the street.
The subject site is approximately 0.41 acres. From two
conflicting sources he has the following dimensions: (1) plat
map- 17,371 sq. ft.; (2) Assessors Record - 17,860 sq. ft,
which would make the difference of about one dwelling unit if
the rezone is approved.
A general land use inventory was conducted of the area
surrounding the subject property including both sides of
Sheridan Road and along Walnut Street to Schley Boulevard.
The surrounding area consists of a mixture of residential
types and densities from older single family homes and
duplexes, medium density multi-family apartments and a large
apartment complex (high density and zoned MR) immediately
adjacent to the east of the subject property.
The subject property is within 1/3 mile of the Perry Avenue
Mall and 1/2 mile to the Wheaton Way business district. Both
areas provide many commercial and personal services as well as
places of possible employment.
One of the reasons for this rezone, is in consideration of the
current Comprehensive Plan Designation - Residential 15-30
dwelling units per acre. Current zoning of the site is Duplex
Residential (DR), which allow approximately 9 units per acre.
Part of the application's intent is to bring the subject
property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Jensen pointed out the area east of Cherry Avenue down past
Schley Boulevard is included in this designations. The sites
north of Sheridan Road area are in lower density residential
designations. He emphasized zoning follows the Comprehensive
Plan and the zoning of this site is DR and the proposal is to
rezone the property to the Mixed Residential (MR) high density
development, which would be an expansion of the MR zone that
abuts to the east. Current zoning allows single family duplex
structures only regardless of the lot size, and no structures
more dense than 2 units would be allowed on the subject
property.
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 17 of 28
The applicant is requesting a high density designation which
would allow multi-family units in structures of three units or
more on a minimum lot size of 9,600 sq. ft. This zoning
designation would be in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan. With the MR's density allowance, which is one unit per
every 1,000 sq. ft., it is possible to put 17-18 units on the
subject site, if rezoned. Adding in property proposed to be
vacated from the right-of-way would up the allowable units to
perhaps 20-21. The City's current Zoning Ordinance requires
off-street parking, setbacks, landscaping, and other
development features that would tend to limit multi-family
developments to somewhat fewer than the maximum number of
dwellings, especially on a smaller property such as this. The
Zoning Ordinance is also sensitive to off-street parking,
setbacks,landscaping and other features that are used to
screen more intense and high dense residential units from less
dense residential areas. These types of development features
would be worked out through a site plan review, which would
take place following public notification. A written comment
period exists after a notice of application and then when a
decision is made there is also an appeal period. This process
would be taken care of prior to any issuance of a Building
Permit.
The proposed rezone application does meet rezone criteria as
follows: Criteria #1 the rezone is substantively consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. To rezone the site to MRwould
bring the property in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan's
high density residential designation. And, the objective of
the proposal is to provide more high density residential units
as called for in the plan. Criteria #2 - the rezone is
necessary because of (a) markedly changed conditions in the
immediate vicinity that require a rezone in the public
interest. Criteria (a) best fits this case because the
current zoning is low density residential and does not support
the Comprehensive Plan. And, there is a demonstrated need for
higher density residential that is affordable, close to work
centers, and areas that need redevelopment are shown to
justify change to come into compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan. Criteria #4 - the rezone bears a substantial relation
to the public interest or welfare because there is a public
need for a change of this kind and the public need will be
best served by this rezone. This is probably the greatest
reason for approving this rezone. Currently, Bremerton has a
very low vacancy rate, especially in the more affordable
ranges. The City's recently completed "Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) recommends increasing the supply
of housing available to families at all income levels. This
site can provide needed housing at virtually any cost level
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 18 of 28
and in a location that is also in the public interest - - near
jobs, shopping, public transit, and located within the City
limits, which helps discourage sprawl in other areas.
The Planning Commission's recommendation was that the City
Council approve the Rezone request, by ordinance, because it
satisfied all applicable rezone criteria and because it is
particularly suitable to higher density housing.
President Fits asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Mr. Oversonquestioned if was best to hear the presentation on
both the rezone and street vacation request prior to taking
public input? Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development,
explained the two issues are integrated in such a manner that
it would be difficult to take them separately, however, it
will require two separate actions following the discussion.
What was presented covered the staff's presentation for the
Street Vacation except for a few additional comments.
Mr. Jensen explained the area requested for vacation would be
20 ft. x 120.57 ft. portion of Sheridan Road directly abutting
the property to the north. He referenced information in the
staff report addressing existing conditions. The Engineering
Department did comment that they did not have any future plans
for expansion of Sheridan Road beyond the needs of a 60 foot
right-of-way. And, comments from Long Range Planning asked
that the City not give away options for widening walkways and
landscaping on this important street.
The Planning Commission concluded that because of possible
future needs that the request for Street Vacation be denied.
David Smith, Applicant - President of RAS Property Management
Company, stated he is a resident of the State of California
and has been commuting between California and Bremerton for
the last 5-6 months and plans to move his family to this area
this summer. He is moving permanently to this area in order
to find some in-fill projects that make economic sense since
the San Diego area is in a serious decline. In an effort to
find a project, he approached the Bremerton Planning
Department and came up with some concepts, with their input,
that sent him on a search for properties and the proposed site
is the one he found that seemed to be a possibility to create
affordable housing and an appropriate in-fill project.
He stressed there are some negative aspects about his proposed
project and there is no question, in his mind, that multiple
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 19 of 28
family dwelling projects in single family neighborhoods are
going to cause deterioration of that neighborhood. There are
other issues that are germane to the reason behind the project
and that is simply whether it is better for the overall
community to allow more people to live near a medical
center/work center and be able to have those economic
advantages that can be obtained by living closer. He is
uncomfortable building a project within a neighborhood,
however, it is next to the Kona Village, which he believes is
a mitigating factor. He does not see the proposed project to
be a win-win situation with the residential neighborhood. He
pointed out members of the group most opposed to his proposal
were present in the audience at this meeting. He did approach
the leader of that group and suggested they might take his
place on the property purchase contract. The owner of the
property was amicable to such a situation, however,' the
neighborhood people were not interested in that suggestion.
In conclusion, as far as the rezone is concerned it gets down
to the basic dilemma that is laid out in CHAS and Housing
Bremerton, which are the objectives of any community when you
have a community that is aging up and wanting to retire there
due to an economic necessity in that location. Such a
situation is not compatible with the new generation of workers
and those individuals who need to live near the medical center
or having the opportunity to also live close to their work.
Because there is not that much space available, it would
appear the only alternative would be to have multiple units.
If the benefit of that out weighs the negative aspects of
having the potential deterioration of that neighborhood due to
having multiple units, he could not argue that the
neighborhood would be greatly impacted.
In reference to the Street Vacation request, Mr. Smith
explained recent development has allowed the 60-foot wide
right-of-way, which he believes sets a precedent. He saw no
logical path since recent development (a few years ago) has
all involved the shrinkage of the 80 foot right-of-way to 60
feet. If the 60 ft. street width in front of the Kona Village
and Olympic View School can't be realistically widened to 80
feet, he believed there is a strong argument that keeping his
proposed site at 80 feet and diminishing the ability to create
appropriate parking for the units on the site is not there to
support the Planning Commissions position.
Another issue, which was brought forth by the City Utility
Department, specifies the need to reroute the water pipes as
they head east along Sheridan Road. The Water Utility wants
Mr. Smith to put an elbow in at the western edge of the
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 20 of 28
property and reroute the water lines so that it goes northerly
and then heads east again along Sheridan Road in the right-of-
way and not on the site itself. He questioned the Utility why
they wanted that change and they indicated that they did not
want the pipe under the parking lot, if the proposal is
approved. It is his opinion that putting the pipe in the
street or in the parking area with an easement would be nearly
the same, however, it be a much greater cost to reroute the
water line. He did not see much of an advantage over leaving
the pipes where they currently are located.
Ida Mae Cooper, 1042 Walnut Avenue, presented a slide
presentation that showed the existing residential
neighborhood, elevations of properties to the east, west and
north sides of the subject site. She emphasized this is not
a deteriorating neighborhood as Mr. Smith would lead one to
believe. In the past three years 10 of the 20 homes on Walnut
Street between Schly Boulevard and Sheridan have put on new
roofs, seven have been repainted, four have put on new siding,
three have been landscaped, two are planting new landscaping,
one more new roof is to be installed within the month and four
of the homes have either vinyl or aluminum siding. The only
sign of deterioration is the street itself, which has not been
paved for 50 years and is not on the current long range plan
for paving. The majority of the people living in the affected
area have lived in their homes a minimum of 31 years and some
go back to the 1957 when the government sold these homes to
private residents. She described the impact of the Kona
Village on her residential property as well as the general
neighborhood. She pointed out that required
landscaping/buffer between Kona Village and the residents does
not exist, but rather a chain link fence and parking lot for
vehicles had extended out into the right-of-way and abutted
their back yard fences. She emphasized the negative intrusion
by the multi-family use at Kona Village onto their
neighborhood and urged Council to not allow any further
intrusion as proposed by Mr. Smith through his project.
Varying elevations to the west of Kona Village would dictate
the need for retention walls so that the residential
neighborhood would be protected from further deterioration of
their property as well as more intrusion into their
liveability on their own property sites.
In response to the statement that the commercial area was
expanding into the residential area, she named several
businesses that are no longer located or open for business in
the Perry Avenue Mall. She stressed that several new business
had moved into the mall, that fall into second hand/used goods
category, which does not fit into aggressive types of
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 21 of 28
businesses that would promote growth and expansion. She also
pointed out that the commercial areas near the corner of Perry
Avenue and Sheridan Road had a commercial designation for many
years and no new commercial area had expanded westward toward
the Kona Village.
Mrs. Cooper provided slides showing the difficulty of entering
onto Sheridan Road from the subject site at a point that would
be just below the crest of the hill. This situation, in her
opinion, is very dangerous. She emphasized there are
accidents currently happening at the intersections of Schley
Boulevard and Sheridan Road, and she is waiting to see what
happens if high density is exited out onto Sheridan Road. She
pointed out a traffic count had not been taken since 1980 with
only 6,177 daily trips in both directions. She could not help
but wonder what that count would be today. The Kona Village
has "entrancing" only from Sheridan Road and "exiting" only
onto Schly Boulevard.
Mrs. Cooper emphasized she originally did not intend on
rehashing past history related to the Kona Village project nor
repeat what was discussed at the Planning Commission of
January 19, 1993. However, after reading the minutes of that
meeting and seeing that her 30 minute discussion was reduced
to two sentences verses several paragraphs from Mr. Jensen and
Mr. Smith's presentation, she decided that repetition is in
the best interest of the residents and the City. This is not
a changing area and Kona Village is the only area currently
zoned MR. ~
Mrs. Cooper stress that the neighborhood residents have been
assured that a site plan for the proposed project would
include sidewalks, buffering, parking requirements and
children play areas. However, those same residents were
informed that variances to all of the above could be granted.
She emphasized a case in point - Kona Village - theywere told
a 25 ft. greenbelt would be left around the perimeter of the
property but what actually developed was the parking lot for
that facility. The only area where parking is not permitted
for the Kona Village is along her cement bulkhead due to
parked vehicles having poked holes through her fence and hung
over an 8 ft. drop off. When the residents questioned City
Planning Department personnel about the buffering at that
time, they indicated they could not enforce that requirement.
Now, they question will they hear those same words again if
this rezone is approved?
In conclusion, Mrs. Cooper noted Mr. Jensen states this
property consists of an area .41 of an acre or 17,860 sq. ft.
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 22 of 28
If approved to a MR zone, the lot could possibly yield a
maximum density of 18 dwelling units at a density of one unit
per 1,000 sq. ft. of land. However, this property is located
within the Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation of 15-30
units per acre, which according to her calculations would
equal only one unit per 1,452 sq. ft., which would only permit
12 units on this land based in the criteria mentioned above.
But, Mr. Smith states he plans to build a 4-story 20/21 unit
building on this property. When reviewing the proposed
Ordinance, she finds no mention of why this rezone is
requested or what will be built on the property. The
residents were shown a preliminary site plan for a 16 unit
apartment building prior to what was going to be a "City"
December meeting. The City Planning Commission's information
on this proposal stated 18 units could be built on the site
and Mr. Smith continues to state his intent is to build 20/21
units, however, this rezone would automatically permit any of
the following: residential over commercial, convalescent
center/rest home, beauty salon/barber shop, gymnasium and
athletic club and professional offices, which cannot currently
reside in the DR zone. When such terms as "likely", "could"
and "intend to" and "possible variances can be allowed" are
used, they become very cautious and wonder if they are facing
another Kona Village situation presented to them.
Kona Village and one 12-unit apartment complex just below St.
Lukes Methodist Church are the only multifamily units in the
area between Schly and Wheaton Way. The neighborhood
considers this proposal as a prime case of spot zoning to
accommodate an individual party and not in the best interest
of the parties identified on the petition that was submitted
to the Planning Commission on January 19, 1993.
Mrs. Cooper referenced a phone call to Mr. Smith's residence
in Chula Vista, California where he indicated he had talked
with the subject property owner who indicated she would be
willing to sell the site to the residents if they would match
Mr. Smith's offer. At that time, she stated to Mr. Smith that
she felt that was a form of "blackmail" and Mr. Smith stated
he believed Mrs. Froehlich should get the maximum dollar for
her property. She emphasized this action is definitely a spot
zone to benefit the owner, not the City of Bremerton. Again,
Council is requested to deny the rezone and that the area
continue as currently zoned. However, if Council insists on
approving the rezone request, they insist it be for an
apartment complex only with no variances with regard to buffer
areas and that the Ordinance so states. In reference to the
vacation of Sheridan Road, they are concerned of the present
traffic volume and did not want the City to lose access to
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 23 of 28
that portion of the roadway in the event Sheridan Road is ever
increased to four-lanes.
Gil Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, read into the record a letter
from Robert Forst, 1022 Walnut Street, expressing his concern
that Donald Pratt, Director Of Community Development, has a
biased opinion on the subject rezone request. He became upset
over Mr. Pratt's comment to him that "if he didn't like his
approving the subject project why didn't Mr. Forst move". Mr.
Forst found it hard to believe that someone in a supervisory
position would make such a remark and feels that Mr. Pratt is
biased in his decision pertaining to this rezone.
Mr. Smith stated he agreed with most of the comments made by
Mrs. Cooper, however, he did have several exceptions. In
reference to her comment about "blackmailing" - he felt this
was unfair due to the fact he was willing to take himself out
of the contract at a cost of $1,000 so that the group would
have the opportunity to meet that price. He felt it was a
fair offer to remove himself from the process. In regard to
comments relating to increased traffic on Sheridan Road, he
felt it makes an obvious question of doubt as to whether
single family residential is appropriate on such a street and
possibly having a multiple family project with traffic
controls would provide a more safe situation. With the amount
of square footage on the subject site, arguably you could ask
for a minor PUD and put four individual homes on that site.
At one point such a proposal was considered with the Planning
Department and the same arguments came up that it was not an
attractive place to put additional single family dwellings.
Mr. Jensen stated the following points for clarification: (1)
the density calculation for the project mentioned at 20/21
units does include the right-of-way vacation. (2) Some of
the uses mentioned by Mrs. Cooper that are allowed in the MR
zone are not allowed in the DR zone are allowed only by
Special Use Permit. A Special Use Permit requires notices,
due process, evaluation by staff and/or Planning Commission.
No variances are allowed without public notice and process and
appeal possibility. As far as some of the details of a site
plan, which we are undertaking at this time, that is also a
process that is reviewed administratively and, if approved,
there is public notification and appeal process. A site plan
would deal with ingress and egress, parking, landscaping, open
space play areas and also a review for all of the development
criteria necessary for that zone and Zoning Ordinance in
general. The property and any structures on the property are
not allowed to be occupied unless the site plan is
construction as approved through the site plan process.
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 24 of 28
Mr. Colvin questioned if he was correct in understanding Mr.
Smith stating that he did not blame the neighborhood for
objecting to the proposal and that an apartment of this nature
would cause some deterioration to the neighborhood? Mr. Smith
stated Mr. Colvin was correct and he agreed with many of the
arguments Mrs. Cooper brought out. He stressed the proposal
did not present a win-win situation.
Mrs. Cooper referenced a statement in Mr. Forst's letter...yes
there are a lot of retired people living on the block, but
there are also at least six young families in the
neighborhood, all property owners and all with small children.
Mrs. Hotton questioned the lack of data relating to
availability of mass transit accessibility as part of this
proposal. One of the things she has requested repeatedly in
Council's Agenda packets when dealing with rezone issues is
some sort of Transit input - criteria identifying transit
service to the area now and what kind of service they are
anticipating. Mr. Jensen stated he was knowledgeable that
mass transit does service the subject area, but he did not
have any additional information to offer. Mrs. Horton
emphasized she would like that information included as an
element in proposals. Council will have to look at high
densities and that type of information is important for
decision making on future projects.
Mr. Oversonquestioned how did Kona Village get to where it is
today? Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated
Kona Village was built 20-25 years ago and is a product of the
Zoning Ordinance that was revised five years ago. Mr. Overson
questioned if the City granted a vacation of the property
directly in front of that facility to be used as parking for
the complex? Mr. Pratt stated everything he has seen on that
project indicates that "we don't know".. Mr. Overson pointed
out the subject area had already been severely impacted with
multi-family units in the surrounding area. He questioned
when did the City last look at the Comprehensive Plan and was
15-30 units per acre a rightful designation for the subject
area now? Mr. Jensen explained the current Comprehensive Plan
was adopted in 1986. Mr. Overson questioned if the City is
currently working to revise that Plan? Mr. Jensen stated yes.
Mr. Overson stated he envisioned that area to be a prime area
for single family dwellings because it represents a quality
living area. He would consider the possibility that if this
proposal would be proposed after the new Comprehensive Plan,
it would not have a chance based on his view of what that area
would be. He is concerned about the adverse impact of this
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 25 of 28
much growth in this much area.
President Fits questioned if Council had to go with what the
Comprehensive Plan designates today? Mr. Sievers stated the
Comprehensive Plan is not a mandatory document, obviously
there is non-compliance now, it is simply a blueprint of what
should be followed in a rough sense. Mr. Waibel stated and
there is a more limiting factor than a requirement to upgrade
to that level. Mrs. Horton pointed out the Comprehensive Plan
is used as a guide so that as that neighborhood changes over
then it can be used as a guide showing it is changing and is
moving more toward the Plan, and therefore a rezone is more
pertinent. She questioned how many of the duplexes are new
within the past 5-10 years? Mr. Dawkins stated none of the
duplexes are new. Mrs. Hotton stressed one of the criteria of
a rezone is that the area surrounding the rezone site has to
have changed significantly and yet in the past 5-10 years not
there has not been one new duplex constructed. So, that area
is not moving to be further aligned with the Comprehensive
Plan, but staying virtually where it has been for years in a
single family residential neighborhood. Based on that, she
could not support a rezone for the subject site.
Mr. Collins stated the Comprehensive Plan can be used for many
things, including a "hammer" to make something fit into an
area, which he felt was the case in this instance. He
questioned if the City desired to make Sheridan Road a more
major thoroughfare (4-lane) would the City only have to
obtain the right-of-way in front of the Kona Village and the
school? He felt it would be a disadvantage to the City to
vacate the right-of-way in front of the subject site. There
are 10 out of 11 houses that are single family dwellings in
the immediate area that were originally duplexes. He views
this area as a very stable community except for the Kona
Village complex. Based on the existing circumstances, he
would not support the rezone request or giving up of the
right-of-way.
Mr. Dawkinsquestioned if Kona Village would be legal now with
their parking configuration for the number of units? Mr.
Pratt stated Kona Village is what he calls a "legal non-
conforming structure and use". He has not seen a parking
analysis on that site to determine if it is over or under
parked. That particular building could not be built under
today's Zoning Code. Mr. Dawkins questioned if the vacation,
that the Planning Commission denied, affected the number of
units that could be built? Mr. Pratt stated yes, the proposed
20/21 units is based on the parcel size plus the right-of-way
vacation. Mr. Dawkins stated he did not support adding more
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 26 of 28
density to the subject area.
Mr. Collins questioned how much of the right-of-way has been
incorporated in the Kona Village on Schly Boulevard? Mr.
Pratt explained plat maps show Kona Village intruding where
the normal line of right-of-way would be. What he doesn't
know and can't answer for Council at this time is whether that
intrusion was a legal right-of-way vacation or simply a use of
right-of-way.
Mr. Johnson questioned if a new site plan review process been
put into place? Mr. Jensen explained Planning uses the site
plan review process in the Zoning Ordinance that requires the
review be done for residential structures of over three units
and all commercial structures. Mr. Johnson questioned who
does the site plan review? Mr. Jensen stated his department
puts out Notice Of Application to surrounding property owners
that includes a comment period as cited in the Ordinance. Mr.
Pratt stated the Zoning Ordinance requires for all commercial
structures and for residential structures with three or more
units that notice be given to the neighborhood through a
public posting on the property and for mailing to affected
property owners of the application for approval of a site plan
review. The site plan review includes parking,. landscaping,
ingress, egress, lighting, overall siting as it affects
neighbors. They then make an administrative decision that can
be accompanied by a public workshop (neighborhood
comment/visit) prior to the decision, then the decision is
made. The decision is then mailed to the affected property
owners and posted on the site and there is a 10-day period
when an appeal can be made. During that period when an appeal
is made it is heard by the Planning Commission. The same
process takes place once again with the property being posted
and notice is given to affected property owners before the
hearing. .After the hearing the property is posted with the
Planning Commission decision and notification is sent out to
the affected surrounding property owners. Following that
there is opportunity for an appeal to be filed that would be
heard before the City Council. Mr. Johnson stated some
apartments were built off of Kitsap Way and supposedly
received a Special Use Permit and he didn't learn about the
project until actual construction began. Mr. Pratt emphasized
the site plan review is in the Zoning Ordinance that was
adopted in 1988, which was somewhat confusing and obscure
until about 11/2 years ago when they failed to do a site plan
review for a major project. Now, they follow the letter of the
law on all projects with three or more dwelling units or
commercial structures. Mr. Johnson cautioned the residents
that even with a site plan review they are not always
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 27 of 28
enforced. He finds no major change in the subject area and
there is no way to prevent loss of privacy for the residents
of that area. He was not sure, assuming the Comprehensive
Plan was appropriate at the time, that the needs and CHAS are
valid today, therefore, he supports keeping the zoning at the
lower density.
Mr. Colvin questioned if it was a common practice to send
Council members notice of construction projects in their
districts? Mr. Pratt stated he was not sure which apartment
building Mr. Johnson was referring to. If it was built within
the last two years, the site plan review was in effect. Mr.
Johnson pointed out the building he mentioned was the site
next to the Bayview Inn, and the neighboring properties are a
cemetery, park and a couple of houses. Mr. Pratt stated Mr.
Johnson is correct in naming the affected property owners and
they did receive notice. Mr. Colvinquestioned if it would be
possible for Council members to also receive notice for such
projects? Mr. Pratt stated it is possible. Mr. Colvin stated
he also supports the position of not increasing the density in
the subject area.
Mr. Overson stated he was trying to sense the spirit of the
Planning Commission and was sensitive that they made their
decision probably based on predominant views toward growth
management and respecting the Comprehensive Plan. He also
noted that only six of the nine members were present at that
meeting. He was in a quandary whether or not to push this
project forward until the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed.
Mr. Jensen stated Mr. Overson was correct in that growth
management and CHAS were considerations in that decision. The
findings in the staff report and minutes of the meetings
relate the intent of the Planning Commission's decision.
Mr. Waibel stated he believed Mr. Smith had insight into the
task before Council, which is not an easy task. There is an
overall driving force, through the CHAS and other documents,
to try to increase the housing stock in Bremerton. He is very
much in support of that and what it comes down to is Council's
decision as to where the appropriate places are to do that.
Mr Smith stated earlier that he is looking for a place and he
believed Council was stating, at this time, that the subject
site is not the appropriate place. He did hope that the City
does the planning and analysis that are necessary to help
developers, who want to help the City with this task, to
identify the appropriate areas. He believes Kona Village is
a spot zone and should not have been placed there. He did not
want to expand that mistake or pass looseness in the present
zoning. He is in support of the motion but he also wants
#2663
#2905
TAPE #1090
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 17, 1993
Page 28 of 28
Council to recognize the need to work towards helping
developers, such as Mr. Smith, locate the kinds of areas that
are appropriate for this density and make sure those are
recognizable so that this kind of hassle does not have to be
experienced.
M/S/C/U(Horton/Colvin) that the rezone request be denied of
said property.
M/S/C/U(Horton/Johnson) to uphold the Planning Commission
denial of the street vacation.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:38 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. ~c~USKEY, City Clerk
KLM/EF/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault