HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/92TAPE #1041
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
#0015
#0032
JULY 22, 1992
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, July 22,
1992, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton
presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Richard
Neville, Eileen Fitz, 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 Horton and Invocation given by Chaplain Ben
Belcher of Harrison Memorial Hospital.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - July 1, 1992
#AB92-179
B. Minutes of Meeting - July 8, 1992
#AB92-180
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins)
presented.
to approve Consent Agenda as
CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as
required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement
claims certified as required by RCW 42.24,090, have been
recorded on a listing that had been made available to the
council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Fitz) on July 22, 1992, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: 153219, 15220, 153224, 153225, 153243,
153646 through 153667 in the total amount of $60,084.48; and
Regular Payroll for the period ending July 15, 1992, in the
amount of $510,531.82.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT8
Mr. Overson stated he was glad to be back in town.
Mr. Neville announced on Thursday, the Bremerton Middle School
Summer School students will present a play they created
produced and directed themselves. The play will be held at
Bremerton High School, 7:00 PM. He expressed concern that a
crosswalk was no longer visible at 15th and Park Avenue,
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 2 of 29
accessing into Evergreen Park, and he would like the Street
Department to re-strip the lines, making it easier for people
to access the park from that location.
Mrs. Fits reported she attended the Sunday Farmer's Market on
the boardwalk this past weekend and found it a wonderful sight
to behold.
Mr. Waibel reported he spent last weekend in Coeur d'Alene and
found it had changed significantly since he visited 25 years
ago. He noted "towns can come back" and Coeur d'Alene
reflected that in their downtown with lots of shops and
businesses open for business.
Mr. Johnson noted Council received an update on the Budget
Report and things have gone from miserable to worse. For the
first time, the City is projecting to be $18,000 "in the hole"
by the end of the year. He stressed there are no funds to
"beef" that up. Council has yet to receive any budget
recommendations from the Mayor and there is a July 29th
deadline for the Administration to provide recommendations on
actions to take. Council has requested that information since
January/February of this year. He would appreciate a good,
quick response from the Administration because if Council
takes action as the legislative body, it can only take a
"broad brush" approach, which may not be the best way. He
displayed a pink colored flyer which stated "The cities of
Bremerton, Port Orchard, and Poulsbo have a schedule of
proposed annexations,..your property could be next. Protect
your citizens rights by attending a Kitsap County Commissioner
open forum meeting on Monday, July 27. Regardless of your
opinion on annexation, your presence is necessary and
needed...be there". Mr. Johnson stated he did not know who
initiated the flyer, i.e., the County, County staff, citizens
group, etc., but it was something that should be avoided. If
growth management planning is to be done in Kitsap County,
cooperation is needed, not scare tactics. He emphasized
Bremerton does not have a schedule of proposed annexations,
but it does have a policy that says when an area adjoining
Bremerton is using Bremerton services,is an urbanized area,
and City sewer and water services are used, they would
sometime come into the City. And, there should be an area
beyond heavily developed areas that acts as a buffer between
rural areas in the County and the City. He did have some good
news, as a result of a recent annexation on the west side of
Kitsap Lake, the Bremerton Utilities Department has finished
a preliminary engineering evaluation for installing sewers
where there are a number of failing septic systems and a lot
of pollution going into the lake. He will pass this
t
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 3 of 29
information onto the neighbors in that area so they can
consider some possible L.I.D.'s.
Mr. Colvin stated in reference to the flyer Mr. Johnson talked
about, if someone is lying about something he would like to
attend that meeting to hear what is being said. He thanked
the following City employees for responding to citizens in his
District: Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, Chief Del McNeal,
Mayor Mentor. He also apologized to the Cable Access crew for
not being able available to attend their picnic. Today he
observed some people walking on Lions Field and picking up
trash.
Mr. Dawklns related on his way back from Bellingham this past
weekend he stopped off at a golf course at Lake Patten. That
golf course is located on city watershed property, similar to
Bremerton's and its layout was much like Gold Mountain Golf
Course. He noted they were experiencing the same problem of
too many golfers for the golf course. He did manage to play
nine holes of golf before returning home.
Mr. Co111ns announced on August 11 the U.S. Navy has agreed to
meet with citizens who are being affected by the procurement
of land in the Montgomery/Callow area. Tentatively, this
meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers and he will
provide additional information on time and place at a later
date. Flyers announcing this meeting will be delivered to
every person living in the affected area.
Mrs. Horton reported she attended the Regional Planning
Council's Study Session to talk about growth policies in the
County. There was some give-and-take on those policies and
she suspected the County will adopt what was discussed at that
meeting. Basically, the document was .kept the same as
presented at the County Commissioners' meeting several weeks
ago with the inclusion of verbiage that says "if an area is
not annexed due to the lack of required percentage of votes or
assessed valuation to come into the City, that we will look at
some capacity of revenue sharing in those areas". She
emphasized that may not be ideal from the City's prospective,
but she believed it was better to have won some compromise
than to have gotten nothing. She was disappointed that
annexations will continue to be contentious. She felt an
opportunity was missed through the growth management policies
to put that issue at rest. Mr. Johnson questioned wasn't
there still some hope for the opportunity to get some regional
cooperation by appealing that to the regional board? Mrs.
Horton stated we can appeal that document, however, she was
not sure of the positions of the other cities in the County.
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 4 of 29
In reference to the flyer relating to annexation, she believed
there is perceived misinformation on both sides because the
people in annexation areas feel they are given misinformation
and are lied to. She shared Mr. Johnson's opinion that type of
meeting should be avoided.
Mayor Louis Mentor stated since the first of the year the City
has been squeezing, cutting back and tightening our belts
trying to come up with ideas to save money as is every other
city and County in the State is doing at this time. About six
weeks ago, several ideas were presented to Fiscal and Budget
Committee, chaired by Mr. Johnson, and one of those ideas was
passed by Council last week. More cost savings ideas will be
presented and he could not understand the continual "city
bashing" when in the next breath there is talk about the
cooperation needed between the County and the City and
wonderful cooperation between the people and government. He
emphasized we all have to cooperate and work together and it
doesn't accomplish anything to run down the City.
The Mayor pointed out a recent news article in the Seattle
Daily Journal Of Commerce headlined "BREMERTON BRINGS BACK THE
BRIGHT LIGHTS". This was almost a full page article that
talked about downtown Bremerton, the Admiral Theater and
various things happening in the City.
Reminder - Concert On The Dock will be held Thursday, July 23,
along with the Farmer's Market.
Mayor Mentor reported the Peninsula Regional Transportation
Planning Organization (PRTPO) is made up of Kitsap, Mason,
Jefferson and Clallam County, with Kitsap being the only
County in the State that belongs to two Planning
Organizations. Last year he served as Vice Chairman of that
organization and was just named as its Chairman and a City
Council member from Port Townsend was elected Vice Chairman.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Don Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, gave an
update report on the Concerts On The Dock and encouraged
everyone to join in this fun weekly event. Mr. Colvin noted
citizens are very enthused about the Centennial granite blocks
and bricks. He questioned if theblocks and bricks were still
available. Mr. Atkinson stated he anticipated, by the end of
August, the granite blocks will be sold out and they still had
approximately 2,000 bricks available for purchase. President
Hotton noted she has had several people ask or tell her that
they have not been able to locate their brick. Mr. Atkinson
stated he now has a grid system available that assists in
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 5 of 29
locating specific bricks, which will be posted in the area of
the plaza. There is also a grid available at the Naval
Museum. President Horton requested a grid key be provided the
City Council and Mayor's office in order to respond to citizen
inquiries.
Richard Chrisinger report the HMS Warspike organization has a
granite block on the boardwalk. During recent ground breaking
ceremonies for the new Navy Commissary, he provided the
shovels for that project and one of those shovels was from the
Vietnam War Memorial project dedicated in November 1986. He
expressed concern over the obnoxious odor being emitted from
the City's wastewater treatment plant.
Bill Enger, Puget Power, announced Puget Power is sponsoring
a Challenge Series for handicapped children on August 1. The
City has granted them a permit to run this event between
Pacific and Warren Avenue on Fourth Street from 10:00 AM to
12:30 PM. Standard soap box derby type vehicle are manned by
two young people, one being handicapped. Free hot dogs and
beverages will be proved. So far 30 individuals have
registered to participate in this event.
Chad Thomas emphasized the need for the City to provide some
type of help for the homeless in Bremerton. He was of the
opinion the average citizen doesn't care about the
refurbishment of the Admiral Theater, but there is great
concern for people who are without homes. Currently, there is
only one shelter for homeless men in east Bremerton that
houses only 11 people. He stressed there are many people in
Bremerton who work for minimum wage, who find "affordable"
housing out of their reach.
eordy Byrd, 3739 "G" Street Apt. B, Bremerton, WA 98312,
related he recently was evicted from his apartment and
expressed a special "thank you" to the individuals who helped
and encouraged him through this experience. He reported so
far he has collected $15,721.31 for'his shelter for the
homeless and emphasized no matter how small the donation it
keeps his dream moving forward. He also thanked the
individual who gave him a ride recently at a time when he was
feeling very "low".
6A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BREMERTON AND METCALF & EDDY SERVICES, INC./BREMERTON
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN, #AB92-181
The contract between the City of Bremerton and Metcalf & Eddy
Services, Inc. for professional services associated with the
operation and maintenance of the Utility's Wastewater
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 6 of 29
Treatment Plant and related facilities expires on July 31,
1992.
Attached for City Council's consideration and approval is
Amendment No. i to the existing contract. The Amendment
provides for the following:
extension of the existing
additional five (5) years;
agreement for an
reduction of the profit margin associated with the
contract from 11.6% to 9.6%;
revision of the cost-of-living calculation (C.P.I.)
from 100% of the C.P.I. to 80% of the C.P.I.;
correction of the contract language as necessaryto
meet existing regulatory and operating condition;
and
transport of wastewater solids to the Utility's
wastewater solids disposal facilities.
The proposed amendment is anticipated to reduce the annual
base cost for operation, maintenance and repair of the
Utility's Wastewater Treatment Plant, Pump Stations and
related facilities by approximately $125,000 per year.
The cost for the operation, maintenance, and repair for the
contract period August 1, 1992 to July 31, 1993 is estimated
and detailed below:
Base Cost "A" - Operations
Base Cost "B" - Repairs
Base Cost "C" - Power
Base Cost "D" - Solids Disposal
$780,000
$150,000
$142,000
$107.668
Sub-Total Annual Base Budget
Add: Taxes (1.2% of Sub-Total)
Total Fees (9.6% of Sub-Total)
$1,179,668
14,156
113.248
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL BUDGET (Less Rebates) $1,307,072
ESTIMATED MONTHLY FEE (Less Rebates)
$ 108.923
Bill Dully, Utilities Director, explained approximately five
years ago the City entered into a contract with Metcalf and
Eddy Services for operation of the wastewater treatment plant.
That contract contained provisions for a renewal option for an
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 7 of 29
additional five year period. He noted the plant has been run
in a proficient manner, meeting all Department Of Ecology
(DOE) regulations. The plant also received two awards from the
DOE as well as certification with regard to the water quality
lab, which was not in existence at the start of this contract.
He introduced Metcalf And Eddy's Western Manager Chibby
Alloway and their Northwest Regional Manager Bob Bruett, and
Plant Manger Pat Coxen.
Public comment - none.
Mrs. Fits stated this item was discussed at the Fiscal and
Budget Committee and at that time they suggested several
changes in wording, which were included in the document
presented. The Committee felt the contract as proposed is a
good document.
Mr. Overson noted Operations Committee also reviewed this item
and it was his opinion that it was a good contract and would
result in saving the City money. Mr. Duffv stated Metcalf and
Eddy, after five years of experience running the plant, were
willing to discuss some cost savings measures for the City.
Knowing the product they have to deal with, they thought the
percentage of profits could be reduced as well as the C.P.I.
He stressed for the past five years Metcalf and Eddy has done
a very good job for the City in managing and maintaining the
treatment plant.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if it was normal for cities, with
treatment plants as large as the City's, to have a
professional service group operate that service or do you, in
time, get your own staff to handle it? Mr. Duffy stated that
practice was not real prevalent on the west coast and the only
other plant he is aware of is in the city of Vancouver,
Washington. However, on the east coast it is a more prevalent
practice. He suspects it is a result of moving into the
secondary treatment arena. In past years, the City operated
a primary treatment plant, similar to most cities in the Puget
Sound area. Secondarytreatment plants have been in existence
on the east coast for many years. He believes it is a growing
industry in the northwest.
Mr. Johnson questioned what were the awards from DOE? Mr.
Bureft explained the DOE awards were for operations and
maintenance excellence of a large 1A secondarytreatment plant
(1988, 1990). Also, the plant was submitted against Oregon,
Idaho, Washington and Alaska for the EPA Region 10 award and
missed that award by one point.
#1190
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 8 of 29
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approveAmendment No. 1 to Contract
No. 2901, Professional Services Agreement between the City of
Bremerton and Metcalf & Eddy Service, Inc. for the operation,
maintenance, and repair of the Utility's Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Pump Stations and related facilities and authorize the
Mayor to execute said Amendment, subject to City
Administrative Policies and Procedures.
7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST REI~DING) I~ENDING CITY H~LL OFFICE
HOURS, #AB92-173
The current ordinance states that all offices of the City will
be open for business nine hours daily. While that is true of
most offices, some of the smaller two person departments
(Civil Service, Personnel, and Mayor) may close for lunch
leaving the office open eight hours.
Mayor Mentor stated this has been a practice that has gone on
for a long time for smaller offices in the City. The intent
of this proposal is to bring the ordinance in line with
current practice. He proposed a slight change in wording and
assured Council he was not closing any offices and was not an
effort to save money. If the City was forced to keep those
smaller offices open, then it would necessitate hiring someone
to cover those times. However, if those offices were closed
one of the nine hours, it would not require staffing thereby
saving the City money. He urged Council to pass the proposed
ordinance so that the City can be in compliance with the
ordinance.
Mr. Johnson stated the change in wording was better but not
good enough. What it says is that even though Council says we
are going to set when City Hall will be open,someone may find
an office closed that they wish to do business with. We don't
want to start scheduling offices open only on "Tuesdays
afternoon", etc., Over time, some Mayor will use that
flexibility to his advantage and will end up with some
citizens who do not receive services they desire. He agreed
with what the Mayor wants to do, however, he did not agree
with the words as presented.
Mr. Waibel pointed out there is a statement in the Ordinance
that stipulates office must be open less than nine hours. He
suggested adding the wording "for lunch".
President Horton stated perhaps between now and the time the
ordinance comes back for second reading Mr. Johnson could come
up with some acceptable wording. Mr. Johnson stated if he had
a choice he would leave it like it was.
i
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 9 of 29
Public comment - none.
Mr. Waibel suggested changing the last segment of the
paragraph to read" ..... and except on those occasions when the
Mayor determines that insufficient staff is available and the
office will be open no less than eight hours".
Mr. Johnson stated he still had a problem and what he sees
happening is if City Hall is open after the Shipyard starts
work and closes down about the time the first shift gets off,
the only time those workers can do City business is on their
lunch hour. If offices are closed during the lunch break,
people may be prevented from concluding necessary business,
similar to what is experienced with the Postal Service. He
stressed that the City needed to be open so that a person
working a normal shift could make contact with City Hall to
transact business. Mr. Dawkins stated if Council approved
this ordinance and later decided they didn't like it, they
could change it.
Mr. Colvin stated we have to service the citizens and so why
not make it convenient for them. President Hotton pointed out
the dilemma lies in the fact that everyone has a different
opinion on how we best serve our citizens. Mayor Mentor has
asked for the latitude that in certain instances offices be
open less than nine hours to allow for lunch breaks.
Mrs. Fits questioned what brought this issue up, did someone
complain about City Hall hours? Mayor Mentor explained this
was just a "house keeping" type action. Considering the amount
of discussion and dissent over this issue, he wished he had
not attempted to bring the ordinance in line with current
practices.
Mr. Waibel pointed out due to his working outside of
Bremerton, the City could not be open long enough for him, as
a citizen, to do business on a normal work day. What brought
this issue up was the fact the City has not followed the
ordinance for some time. He questioned if Council needed a
committee to rewrite or modify the ordinance?
#1654
M/S/C(Waibel/Fitz) to approve Ordinance on first reading
amending BMC 2.02, with the following revision: last line in
Section 2.02,010 will read "...and office hours will be no
less than eiaht hours to allow for lunch".
Mr. Overson questioned if that was a better statement than
allowing one hour for lunch?
t
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 10 of 29
Mr. Collins stated he had a problem that insufficient staff
might be available or that we hang a "out-to-lunch" sign on
City Hall. He was concerned that the wording in the ordinance
did not state what the City was going to do. It states
"staff" and staff is all inclusive including the Mayor's
Secretary and everyone in Ms. McCluskey's office. Mr. Waibel
pointed out it states "and an office", not "City Hall" will
be open less than nine hours.
Mr. Dawkins pointed out when he served as Mayor he and his
secretary varied their lunch hours so that someone would be in
the office most of the time.
Mr. Colvin questioned Mayor Mentor's opinion of the motion as
amended by Mr. Waibel? Mayor Mentor stated the motion was
fine.
Vote on motion:
In Favor: Waibel, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin,
Overson, Neville, Fitz, Horton
Opposed: Johnson
8A - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING), RIGHT-OF-
WAY VACATION -- YKNTIC AVENUE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF
PATTENAND HARTFORD; APPLICANT: THELMAWADE 8ERRY, #AB92-183
The City Commissioners, during the regular meeting of March
27, 1968, approved a request to vacate a portion of
undeveloped Yantic Avenue right-of-way requested by the Serrys
who are the adjoining property owners. The vacate was never
completed.
Because over twenty-four years has elapsed, a new public
hearing is being conducted to review the previous record, and
adopt an ordinance.
President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with Councilman C. R. "Tiny" Collins
stepping down and all remaining Council members being seated.
Jack A11inuham, Current Planning Division, stated the
recommendation made by the City Commissioners on March 27,
1968, was for approval of the requested vacation, however, an
ordinance that would finally implement this vacation was never
passed. Because over 20 years has elapsed, staff recommended
that another public hearing be held at this time to re-review
this issue. Essentially, nothing has changed in the right-of-
way vacation request. Current Planning staff recommends
approval of the right-of-way vacation and the Engineering
Department did not identify it as needed for any future right-
t
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 11 of 29
of-way needs in that area. Therefore, the recommendation is
to approve the right-of-way vacation subject to the conditions
listed in the proposed ordinance.
Thelma Berry briefly reviewed historical background on
allowing the easement for residents living above Mrs. Serry's
property. At the time that easement was granted Mr. Fred
Schoneman was in charge of the Street Department and assured
Serrys at that time that the City would never be able to put
Yantic all the way through and saw no objection to the City
granting her street vacation request. Don 8erry, 4124 20th
Street, son of Thelma Serry, related it has become necessary
for his mother to dispose of some of her property in order for
her to maintain herself in her residence. She had always
believed, since 1968, that a portion of Yantic Street had been
vacated and belonged to her. When they started to make
arrangements to dispose of a portion of her property, it
became obvious that the final legal action of 1968 had not
been done and that she was not paying taxes on that piece of
property. When this was learned, he talked with the City
Engineering Department personnel and Councilman Tiny Collins
and questioned what happened? After further investigation, it
was determined that the final action by ordinance had not
taken place. In order for his mother to sell property at the
top of the hill, it will be necessary for her to have that
right-of-way vacated.
Public comment - none.
#2140
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, on first
reading, vacating a portion of Yantic Avenue, subject to the
following conditions:
(1) The applicant shall quick claim to the City that parcel as
compensation (deleting the wording: The applicant shall pay
compensation as established by the City Attorney's Office
prior to second reading thereof).
(2) Necessary easements for existing and future public
utilities are hereby reserved.
(3) An easement will be granted across the private drive to
the exchange property site.
Mr. Waibel questioned if there were legal requirements
dictating the amount of remuneration for abutting owners of
City rights-of-ways? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the
City is entitled, by State law, to charge one half of the
value of dedicated right-of-ways. During Council's Study
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 12 of 29
session prior to this meeting, Councilman Collins suggested
the #1 condition be amended...that Council follow the initial
decision of the City Commissioners, which was to accept that
portion of the applicant's property to the west of the private
drive in lieu of payment. He stated he felt he could support
that recommendation. That piece of property is probably not
of much value to the City except as open space, however, it
could be sold to Parcel B for use in its development. He felt
it was worth the risk to try and market it to Parcel B because
it appeared to equal the area of the portion of Yantic Avenue
being vacated; and only one half of that area would have to be
vacated in an equal exchange, according to State law and City
policy. That would compensate the City for some risk and
remarksting it to Parcel B. He suggested changing the
"compensation condition", under Section 2 to say: "that the
applicant quick claim to the City that parcel for
compensation". Mr. Waibel requested that amended wording to
Condition #1 be included in the motion. Councilman Dawkins
and Colvin concurred in changing the motion to reflect that
wording. Mr. Colvinquestioned if the City had originally paid
for a portion of that property? Mr. Dawkins noted that area
had already been platted but never used. Mr. Sievers stated
that was the nature of dedicated right-of-ways...the City
never owned it but was dedicated as easement right-of-way to
the City when the City approved or granted the opportunity to
subdivide the lots and put in roadways. The property owner
still has some interest, equal to one half of the value when
it is eventually vacated.
Mr. Overson questioned if the property being exchanged was
large enough for a single family dwelling? Mr. Allingham
stated that area exceeds the minimum density of 4,800 sq. ft.,
however, the topography of that property would severely limit
development of a residence. Mr. Overson pointed out it could
also be a challenge to an architect to create something
challenging. He wondered if the property should be accepted
as proposed and then sell it to whomever is willing to pay the
price. Mr. Sievers stated the City could follow the standard
surplusing procedure if it has the market value on the open
market instead of a negotiated sale to Parcel B. The only
impediment he sees would be access to that property because
the right of access off the private drive was not reserved.
The applicant could be asked to allow a common easement for
that parcel for a private drive as an additional condition.
Mr. Overson stated he felt that would be appropriate and
supported adding it to the motion as an additional condition.
Mr. SerzTpointed out lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 are serviced
by the supposedly private road as the only access. In talking
i
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 13 of 29
with the City Engineer, it was indicated the City was not
particularly interested in taking over that road because it
was not the standard width. He emphasized the City did build
and pave the existing road, however, at this time the City
does not want to accept it. He believed at some time the City
would have to accept some responsibility for the road. It was
always his mother's .contention that she gave the City that
road in place of Yantic, which could not be built due to the
severe grade. President Hotton stated for clarification that
the question was would Mrs. Serry agree to provide an easement
to the property being exchanged in case the City was able to
sell that lot for development of a residence. Mr. Serr~
stated that lot fronts on Arsenal Way and there would not be
any problem for an easement to that particular pierce of
property, although it is very steep. Mr. Waibel pointed out
as it stands right now Mrs. Serry is the owner of that
easement and until the vacation is completed she would have
the right to grant or deny any easement. What is being asked
at this time is would she be willing to expand the easement
for that private road allowing access to the site being
exchanged for the vacation of Yantic? Mr. Serz7 stated he
would say "yes" for his mother. Mr. Overson questioned if
clarification needed to be made on what in fact is being
conferred by Mrs. Serry in replacement for the vacated Yantic
Avenue. He stressed Council did not have any legal
description of what was proposed to be conferred in 1968 for
Yahtic Avenue? President Hotton stated since this item
involves an ordinance and requires two readings, staff can
provide a legal description at the time of second reading of
the ordinance. Mr. Overson questioned if that legal
description would be on the east side of the private drive or
west side. Mr. Waibel stated we are talking about up to the
west side of the private drive. Mr. Sievers stated the City
does not own the private road and does not want to accept it
at this time. President Hotton questioned if Mr. Dawkins and
Mr. Colvin would include in the motion a condition requiring
an easement off the private roadway to the exchange property
being offered in lieu of payment? Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Colvin
concurred in that request.
Mr. Johnson stated he was not satisfied over the fact the City
does not want to accept the private drive. He believes Mr.
Serryhas a point that at some time the City needs to make it
a decent road. Mr. Dawkins stated if the City blacktopped the
roadway then it should take on the responsibility to maintain
it. Mrs. SerrV explained Mr. Schoneman was the City's Street
Superintendent at the time of that agreement. Mr. Serf7
emphasized the reason the private roadway was paved could have
had to so with the fact Mr. Schoneman had a home on the top of
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 14 of 29
the hill serviced by that roadway. Mrs. Fits stated she felt
the Street Department would say that street was not wide
enough nor improved enough to make it a City street at this
point. Mr. Johnson stated if the exchange property was
utilized, then it could be done properly.
Mr. Colvin questioned if Mr. Serry and his mother understood
what Council was proposing? Mr. SerrV stated yes, and after
checking records at the County Court House it does not appear
his mother had paid taxes on the private drive. In reference
to the exchange property, at the time he discussed this issue
with the Engineering Department they told him his mother would
have to "buy" the vacated street. His mother does not feel
she should have to buy that vacated street because it was
given to her in exchange for the access 25 years ago. So, in
negotiating discussions they offered to trade the exchange
property in lieu of payment.
Vote on motion - unanimous.
Councilman Collins returned to the Council Chambers.
8B - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT -
TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM
LOW-TO-HIGH DENSITY ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF RIDDELL ROAD WEST
OF THE PRESENT CITY LIMITS; APPLICANT: IRVIN PARKHURST, #AB92-
178
This proposed Amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan Map
was initiated by Irvin Parkhurst, the owner of property on the
south side of Riddell Road, west of the City limits. The
Study Area included both sides of the Riddell corridor and
extended beyond Pine Road. Mr. Parkhurst would like to
construct a 70-unit apartment complex on his property. The
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan allows up to 30 DU/Ac, but
the City's Plan allows 0-7 DU/Ac. Although Mr. Parkhust has
already received a rezone and PUD approval from the County, he
can't build because Bremerton provides water service to this
area and, since the proposal is not consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, this project cannot receive City utility
services. Mr. Parkhurst has asked for a Plan Amendment to
bring the City's Plan into alignment with the County's Plan
for this area. The Planning Commission agrees and is
recommending APPROVAL of this Plan Amendment.
Councilman Waibel stepped down from this issue due to his
being absent at the July 15 meeting.
Mr. Overson reported he was absent from the July 15 meeting,
but did review the official tape of that meeting and would
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 15 of 29
stay seated on this issue.
President Hotton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all remaining Council members being
seated.
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated since Council's last
public hearing, he looked into several questions Council
raised as to what is going on in the Riddell corridor.
Basically, the subject area affected by the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is on the south side of Riddell
Road from the City Limits westward to Pine Road and southward
to the north limits of the David Drive subdivision area. The
Planning Commission did recommend amending the Comprehensive
Plan from low density residential to high density residential
in that area.
Mr. Hough reviewed some of the details of the Parkhurst PUD
approval, what was required and how it passed through the
County's process. Several pages of conditions of approval
were prepared by the County Hearings Examiner, which was then
passed onto to the County Commissioners. Following is a
summary of those conditions:
(1) Covenant For Sidewalk Improvements - requiring Mr.
Parkhurst, as owner of the property, to participate in the
cost of future sidewalks when the County Engineer determines
that sidewalks are necessary. That determination has not been
made at this time.
(2) ThePublic Works Department required the applicant to deed
the north ten feet of the property for additional right-of-way
on Riddell Road for future widening.
(3) The applicant is required to construct left-turn
channelization for inbound movements from Riddell Road.
(4) The applicant is responsible to design (with Bremerton's
approval) an appropriately sized closed drainage system to
discharge stormwater into the Wheaton Way storm system or
other means. The system may require curbs, gutters and other
should improvements as deemed necessary by the County Public
Works Engineering Department.
(5) Among the other numerous conditions of approval were (1)
requirement for a wetland study and possible mitigation plan;
(2) fence the property along the south property line; (3)
provide a berm and "intense screening" around perimeter of
TAPE #1041
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 16 of 29
property, in addition to a 30 ft. building setback; (4) to
provide water quality mitigation ponds or bio-filtration
swales; (5) to provide an active recreation facility, and
others.
In regard to the issue of Impact Fees, the County does have a
system of Impact Fees and Mr. Parkhurst will be required to
pay fees for parks, roads and eventually schools. According
to Mr. Hough's calculations Mr. Parkhurst would have to pay
approximately $79,000 in Impact Fees, with $23,000 of that
amount going toward roads. Previously, City Council raised
the question if any of those funds would be earmarked for
Riddell Road improvements? Mr. Hough could not answer that
question due to the fact the system has not been in place for
one year yet and according to Growth Management requirements
impact fees can be spent within a six year period and must be
spent on a system that is impacted by this development. The
system could be beyond Riddell Road and the County would make
that determination.
Water Service Commitments - the City Attorney and Utilities
Director looked into this matter and determined the City had
made a water commitment to Mr. Parkhurst for this project.
It is up to the City Council to determine whether or not this
area is good for high density residential development, which
was recommended by the Planning Commission. All criteria for
the Comprehensive Plan have been met by this proposal.
President Horton announced since public input was received at
the previous Council meeting on this issue, discussion would
be closed to Council.
TAPE #1042
Mr. Johnson stated Council was being put into the position of
doing planning without any Interlocal Agreement to implement
growth management. He did not like doing that type of
planning piecemeal without any over all planning of what the
periphery of Bremerton will look like, how will it be buffered
and blended into the County atmosphere. He raised the issue
of possibly doing a moratorium on plan amendments outside City
limits until those Interlocal Agreements are in place. The
City can assume impact fees will be identified to fix Riddell
Road, but there is no guarantee and that was something that
could be covered in an Interlocal Agreement. He requested a
status report on a professional office project in that same
area and questioned what would happen to that development if
Council does not pass the Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Mr.
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 17 of 29
Hough stated the only reason Mr. Parkhurst's proposal is
before Council is that the City has something he needs -
water. The professional office project referred to had
already received approval from the City for water service
years ago and because it is in the County's jurisdiction, it
can be developed according to County Code. If the City ever
annexes or pre-zones that area, that development could
possibly be a non-conforming use.
Mr. Overson noted growth management is involved with this and
one of the primary aspects of growth management is facilities
planning and/or utilities support for these kinds of
developments. By allowing a larger density for that area, the
City is committing to the significant support of water which
may eliminate development in other parts of the City if the
City's supply of water services is limited in any way. We
also would be concentrating a lot of population in an area
that has already become very populated as well as needing
improvement to roads. Mr. Hough stated on the north side of
Riddell this project could be built without coming to the
City. Projects such as this are popping up all over and the
main reason is that the County's Comprehensive Plan is
basically high density, urban or semi-urban all around the
City allowing up to 30 units per acre. The City is
automatically in conflict between City and Comprehensive Plans
on anything outside City limits. Mr. Overson stated there is
some value to that area being single dwelling units to
compensate for the County's high density on the other side.
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Oversonquestioned "where is the buffer"?
Mr. Hough stated he was not sure the buffer would be located
in that area and had yet to be determined. The only issue is
whether or not this small corridor is suitable for higher
residential density and if not, then it would remain as is and
would be dealt with later in the year at the time a
Comprehensive Plan proposal is presented. Mr. Overson
questioned if Mr. Hough had a feel for what the ultimate
impact of that upgrade would be? And, he questioned the total
acreage of the subject area being discussed? Mr. Hough stated
the Parkhurst property is approximately four acres and the
remainder amounts to approximately 12 acres. Mr. Overson
stressed once a Comprehensive Plan is changed, the zoning
follows and density follows. Mr. Hough discussed proposed
single family residential and higher density projects that are
planned for the subject area. The total impact of this area,
on the Bremerton area of Kitsap County, is relatively minor.
When looking at the "big" picture, there is a lot of
development and the City is committing itself to its share of
the next 20 years growth by saying "we'll take thousands of
people". The subject area does seem like a good place to
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 18 of 29
develop and address high density needs. Criteria for location
of higher density residential is met by this location. Mr.
Parkhurst's project is expected to accommodate about 175
people, density of 2.5 people per unit, with the remaining
11.5 acres, if developed to maximum capacity and occupied at
the same rate, having a total population of 858. In
combination with Parkhurst, there would be a potential maximum
population of a little over 1,000 and a reasonable population
would be 1/2 of that number.
Mr. Dawklns stated based on the recommendation from the
Planning Commission and the additional information provided by
Mr. Hough, he urged Council to move ahead on approving this
proposal.
Mr. Collins stated he believed there was a bigger problem than
just the proposal being presented, however, he did not want to
put Mr. Parkhurst's project in jeopardy.
Mr. Colvin questioned if Mr. Parkhurst had been approached
about signing an Annexation Agreement? Mr. Sievers stated Mr.
Parkhust has to sign an Annexation Agreement because it is one
of the things required to be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. He also pointed out Mr. Parkhurst was not
being required to make any road improvements and the City
would have no control over the plan review process and actual
development of that site. Mr. Hough stated the County does
not like individual property owners to build their own curbs,
gutters, sidewalks and would rather do it as one complete
system, which is included in the covenants attached to the
project. Mr. Colvin questioned if that had been agreed to?
Mr. Hough stated yes, it is a condition of approval.
President Hotton pointed out it also states: "if deemed by the
County Public Works Engineering Department, applicant must
provide curb, gutters and other shoulder improvements as part
of an appropriate sized closed drainage system to discharge
stormwater into the Wheaton Way storm system or other means".
Mrs. Fits stated she felt all conditions Council felt were
problems at the previous meeting had been addressed. She
supported approving this proposal, however, she thinks the
City Council and Planning Department need to sit down with the
County and work out how these types of project will be
handled.
#1062
M/S/C(Fitz/Dawkins) to uphold the Planning Commission's
recommendation to approve the Plan Map Amendment.
Mr. Overson questioned if that motion would have to include
other statements relative to some of the agreements or are
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 19 of 29
they included? Mr. Hough explained the conditions previously
discussed are under the County's approval process. Mrs...
Overson stated he agreed with Mrs. Fitz that there needed to
be better cooperation between the County and City, however,
the County has chosen to develop urban, densely populated
areas right on the City's borders without giving the City the
opportunity to say how they should be built or how they should
be coordinated with the rest of the activity going on in that
area.
President Hotton stated she would support the motion based on
the document containing additional information presented by
Mr. Hough. She hoped the City would put future developers on
notice that the City may, at some point, not approve
Comprehensive Plan Amendments. This type of action is
piecemeal and is unfair to everyone.
Mr. Colvin questioned if Mr. Parkhurst's project was low
income housing? Mr. Parkburst responded no. Mr. Colvin
stated he would vote in favor of this proposal but believed
the County needed to share in providing low income housing as
well.
Mr. Johnson stated if the City keeps approving the
peacemealing around the City there will never be any incentive
for the County to sit down and do reasonable negotiations on
Interlocal Agreements for how to handle these areas. He will
abstain from voting thereby not voting against the proposal.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor: Fitz, Dawkins, Horton
Opposed: Neville
Abstain: Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Collins
8C - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION -
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER PROHIBITING DUPLEX; APPELLANT:
CUCHULLAINEOwREILLY; LOCATION: 821 BROADWAY AVENUE, #AB92-184
On June 16, 1992, the Planning Commission upheld a Cease and
Desist Order issued by the Director of Community Development
prohibiting the use of a duplex at 821 Broadway Avenue.
The Planning Commission's decision is being appealed on the
grounds that the property has always been used as a duplex and
is a legal non-conforming use.
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 approving
t
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 20 of 29
authority for further consideration.
Such action shall be decided by a. majority vote of the members
present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent
meeting.
Jack Allincham, Current Planning Division, provided a view
graph showing the site location as on the west side of
Broadway Avenue, just north of Eight Street. The zoning
designation of this site is Central Bremerton Residential
(CBR), which has an allowable density of 3,000 sq. ft. per
dwelling unit. The site itself is approximately 30 feet wide
by 129 feet deep and has a site area of 3,689 sq. ft., which
in order to meet the density for a duplex would need to be
6,000 sq. ft. minimum. The previous zoning to the site, prior
to the 1988 Zoning Ordinance, which designated this site CBR,
was Residential-1 (R-l). The R-1 district allowed a use for
duplex provided there was a minimum lot area of 3,800 sq. ft.,
and that Zoning Ordinance became affective in 1948.
Essentially, there is not enough lot area too meet the
previous R-1 zoning designation and the duplex use is non-
conforming.
The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Cease
And Desist Order on June 16, 1992, where they upheld the
Director Of Community Development's decision to issue a Desist
And Desist Order. The Planning Department recommends that the
City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
Roger Dunaway, Attorney representing Cuchullaine O'Reilly and
Allen E. Lathrop, stated he had prepared a document for this
hearing, which had been forwarded to Council prior to this
meeting. The purpose of this hearing is a ZoningAppeal under
the current Bremerton Zoning Ordinance to consider whether
this property is a legal duplex. He understands there will be
people speaking on such things as tenant problems and
management issues, which he believes is outside the scope of
the hearing.
The property at 821 Broadway is a legal, non-conforming use
under the City's current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Allingham
provided a good review of the facts that a Cease And Desist
Order was issued April 30, 1992, which was appealed before the
Planning Commission, which upheld the Director Of Community
Development's decision. He noted in the documentation
provided reference is often made to the R-1 Zoning Ordinance
and that was Ordinance #1792. President Hotton stated City
Council policy is that they do not accept any information that
was not presented to the Planning Commission. If Mr. Dunaway
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 21 of 29
feels that the information he is about to provide Council was
not presented to the Planning Commission, it is inadmissible
at this point to Council. If that is the case, Council does
have the option to remand he issue back to the Planning
Commission so that any new information can be presented; or he
may make a presentation to Council at this time of only that
information given to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dunaway
stated he believed his presentation would include information
that was not presented to the Planning Commission,
specifically the Affidavit of Mr. Eastmen, who is the son of
the gentlemen who purchased the property in 1944, who
indicated how the property was used in 1944 - predating the R-
1 (1948) ordinance. So, in light of that he would rely upon
that material and felt the appropriate action would be to
remand the issue back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration.
Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development and Opponent to
the appeal, stressed President Horton's comments on admitting
new information was correct. There is a minor dilemma to face
and that is that the situation the City tried to Cease And
Desist is on going and it does not serve the community well
and something they consider to be a continuing violation while
awaiting bureaucratic and legislative action. It was felt the
current use violates the Zoning Code and violates certain
tenants that the neighborhood felt they deserved because of
the Zoning Code.
President Hotton questioned based on what Mr. Dunaway has to
present would the City Attorney recommend Council continue
with the hearing and disallow that portion of testimony or
should it be remanded back to thePlanning Commission at this
point? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated it would be up to
the City Council. The ordinance calls for an automatic stay
of the Cease And Desist Order if there is an appeal filed
until it is completed. Mr. Dunaway apparently believes this
information is important enough to his rights in presenting
his case that he requests the remand and it has been the
City's policy to do that in the past. Rather than forcing Mr.
Dunaway to proceed without this valuable information and have
a decision made on that basis by Council, he felt Council
would allow a remand back to the Planning Commission.
President Hotton questioned if at this point the hearing be
closed without further input? Mr. Sievers stated yes.
Mr. Johnson questioned if the City Attorney recommended that
Council give any guidance to the Planning Commission as to why
and what Council expects them to do with the issue if remanded
back to them? He felt the appellant alleged she would not get
#1307
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 22 of 29
a fair hearing or opportunity to respond properly, which he
believed needed to be clarified. Mr. Johnson believed Mr.
Dunaway may have significant new input that the Planning
Commission should consider. He was going to raise the
question, if Council carried on with the public hearing, what
happens to a non-conforming use if a site is expanded beyond
a certain point?
Mr. 8ievers stated for clarification, the Cease And Desist
Order is not in affect pending final resolution of the
process. He stated Mr. Pratt had a good point and he did not
think it should be a policy of Council to offer this remand
procedure more than once.
M/S/C/U(Fitz/Colvin) to remand this matter back to the
Planning Commission for further consideration of new
information from the applicant; and that the Planning
Commission expedite this issue as soon as possible.
7B - ORDINANCE NO. 4383 (SECOND READING) VACATING PORTIONS OF
KITSAP WAY ON THE NORTH SIDE ADJACENT TO AND WEST OF LOWER
OYSTER BAY ROAD (ROBINSON), #AB92-061
The right-of-way vacation and first reading of the ordinance
was unanimously approved by Council on March 4, 1992. Second
reading was held pending receipt of payment. Payment for the
ROW vacation has now been received and the ordinance should
proceed to second reading.
Mr. Overson stated this action would put $17,000 into the
City's Cumulative Reserve Fund and would be budgeted later,
according to Council requirements, for capital purchases.
President Hotton pointed out according to our end-year-status
she anticipated those funds most likely will go to pay 1992
bills.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Collins/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance No. 4383, on second
reading, vacating portions of Kitsap Way on the north side
adjacent to and west of Lower Oyster Bay Road.
7C - RESOLUTION NO. 2398, ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES SCHEDULE -
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, #AB92-182
Planning fees have not been adjusted for five years. Fees are
approved by City Council Resolution. An explanatory
memorandum regarding policy and costs associated with the fee
schedule is attached.
Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated the
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 23 of 29
policies used by the Administration in making up the proposed
fees are based on the following issues:
(1) People who implement adopted City plans would pay
relatively less than those proposing to change
City plans. Implemented adopted City plans means the people
paying for subdivisions and PUD's that are permitted and
encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance
would reimburse the City substantially less than those who
would want to change them. Those challenging adopted plans,
i.e., Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Rezones, would pay
relatively more.
(2) that fees assessed by Kitsap County should be a
consideration but not a control for the fees assessed by the
City of Bremerton. (This has been a long standing discussion
point with the City Council as to being competitive with fees
assessed around the City. He felt this was a slightly new
tact and both he and Mayor Mentor are comfortable with this
proposal for the following reasons: (a) local policies
regarding who pays for fees are quite different from the
County to City. The City is trying to recover more of the
actual cost of processing paperwork than the County tries to
recover; (b) the processing systems are significantly
different between County and City, both in quality and in
quantity. The County has a number of short plat permits to
the extent that they are able to a assign one or two people to
short plats only. City staff is required to cover numerous
types of activities. He emphasized for every penny the permit
processing costs above any fee that is recovered the general
taxpayer makes up the difference.)
Mr. Pratt provided a view graph showing the proposed fee
schedule as well as current fees being charged:
Proposed Current
Fee
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS '
Text $500.00 $300-$850
Re-zone (map Amendments) 500.00 ,, ,,
VARIANCE
Fence
Administrative
Planning Comm. Hearing
10.00 $ 10.00
250.00 50.00
250.00 50.00
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
Single Family Residential
Commercial or Multi-
Family Residential
125.00 125.00
250.00 250.00
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 24 of 29
PLANNED ~TlqIT DEVELOPMENT
Residential Only 250.00
(plus $12.50/dwelling unit)
Industrial, Commercial,
Mixed Use Or Other 250.00
(plus $12.50/dwelling unit
plus $12.50/acre)
125.00
125.00
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Administrative 185.00 185.00 +
Planning Comm. Hearing 400.00 185/00 +
(plus $20/per each full 20,000
Sq. Ft. increment of site area)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Text or Map Amendment
Combined Text And
Map Amendment
1,000.00 200.00
2,000.00 200.00
SUB-DIVISIONS
Short Sub-Division 75.00 40.00/lot
(per lot(exclusive of road lot)
Long Sub-Division 600.00 300.00 +10/lot
(plus $100/lot)
Final Long Sub-Division 100.00 100.00
RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
Initiated By Private Party 425.00
125-425.00
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Substantial Development
Permit 500.00 200-425.00
Note: Following shoreline projects do not require
a Substantial Development Permit:
- Projects below $2,500 fair market value.
- Protective bulkheads for single-family homes.
- Emergency construction necessary to protect property.
- Single-family residences and related apportenances.
- Private docks below $2,500 fair market value.
Conditional Use Permit
500.00 175-355.00
Note: Conditional Use Permit cover allowed uses which require
sensitive environmental analysis -such as boardwalks.
Permit Revision
250.00 100.00
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY (SEPA)
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 25 of 29
Checklist 100.00 50.00
Note: Checklists are required for ALL projects except:
- Residential structures of four dwelling units or less.
- Commercial or public buildings of 4,000 sq. ft. or less.
- Parking lots of twenty stalls or less.
- Fills or excavations of 100 cubic yards or less.
*** This is a partial listing.
Environmental Impact Statement
Review/Adoption 500.00 plus additional cost to
acquire expertise.
Note: This cost covers review/adoption by the City of an EIS
prepared by the proponent.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Single Family Residential
Site
Others
-0- -0-
50.00 -0-
APPEAL
To Planning Commission
To City Council
30.00 30.00
300.00 50.00
Mr. Johnson stated he appreciated Mr. Pratt's point of view
and supports his proposed fee schedule. When major revisions
are made to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, it
does involve literally hundreds of people and when development
takes place in accordance with what represents the wishes of
the community, the City should expedite them. Considering the
current low cost of $50.00 to appeal a decision to the City
Council, he felt it made it too easy for either side of an
issue to go one step further and appeal it to the City
Council. He would not be apposed to some type of refund if
Council upheld the applicant's decision if Council considers
the proposed charge to high.
Mr. Colvin stated he applauded Mr. Pratt's effort and
understands that service costs. He requested an explanation
as to what was required under the item marked "Variance -
fence". Mr. Pratt stated frequently they get fence variances
from a family that is simply trying to deal with a situation
in their back year. That type of request is referred to as
"mom and pops". They usually come in to get a fence variance
because the City wants to look at their plan not because they
want to change or challenge anything. It was felt the $10.00
fee for that service was appropriate. If someone does not
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 26 of 29
need a variance a fence can be built without a fee.
Frequently, requests come in where the front yards slope at an
angle and they are limited to a six foot high fence and in
order to get adequate fence coverage it would require a height
of more than six feet. That extra height requires a variance
and it was felt those could be handled simply
administratively. Mr. Colvin strongly opposed the $300 charge
to bring an appeal before the City Council. He believes the
citizens have the right to bring an issue before the elected
officials. President Hotton stated in rebuttal to Mr.
Colvin's objection, Council has tried very had to place
emphasis on the Planning Commission and referenced the prior
Agenda item that was remanded back to them for further review.
Council wants to focus the attention onto the Planning
Commission because that is a citizen group that does a good
job in assisting the City. She also felt it was too easy to
progress through public hearing process thinking it was more
advantageous to keep going regardless of the decisions and
pursue it through the City Council. The Planning Commission
is the place where applicants should give it their "best shot"
and if they don't agree with the Planning Commission's
decision they can make an appeal. Mr. Colvin stated his
statement stands that Council members are elected officials
and should be making those decisions.
Mr. Collins stated the small sum for appeals to the Planning
Commission is appropriate, but when there is an appeal to the
City Council the administration has to expend added time in
preparation of that process and he felt $300 was appropriate.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if appeals that have already entered
into the process, i.e., being remanded back to the Planning
Commission, would they have to pay the higher fee? Mr. Pratt
stated he suspected they would not be charged a second time to
get back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Neville stated as a member of the Fiscal and Budget
Committee he is very aware of the "money trail" and he
believes the Planning Department expends a large amount of
money through their services to the public. The increased
fees are greatly needed considering the way the City is
progressing.
Mr. Overson stated the Operations Committee endorsed the fee
structure as presented. He did have a concern in the
Comprehensive Plan section where it states the fee would be
waived if a person knew a City Council member or Mayor. Mr.
Pratt stated there is a proviso that the Planning Commission
must agree that is the case and was a valid request by the
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 27 of 29
Mayor or City Council member. Mr. Overson questioned what
would be a valid request? Mr. Pratt stated a valid request
would be similar to the item addressed this evening. Rather
than bringing in one specific parcel of property for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, we included an area-wide
proposal to make it a valid request. If Council received a
request for a specific piece of property but ignored a
neighborhood, he thought the Planning Commission would see
right through that as being a special request by a specific
owner. A Comprehensive Plan is a policy document that needs
to relate to a policy that affects more than an individual on
a specific project. He noted that comment is not typical in
fee schedules and doubted very many cities had something
similar. Mr. Overson questioned if there was a more artful
way to state that? Mr. Pratt stated the most artful way to
state it is to assume the Administration is not going to favor
someone. There will be locations coming up that need
Comprehensive Plan changes and staff will initiate those
changes and no one will pay for it even thought there will be
some "windfall" of values within that area. If a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is initiated by a private party, a fee will be
assessed. If a City Council members suggests to the Mayor or
to him that there is an area that has some dynamics going on
and needs to be reviewed and may warrant a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, they will do it and no fee will be charged. He did
not think the referenced statement was entirely necessary,
however, it was included as part of the Fiscal and Budget
Committee and Operations Committee review. Mr. Johnson stated
the "Planning Commission" was not part of that statement when
it was discussed at the Fiscal and Budget Committee and they
had similar concerns that some point in time some Council
member or Mayor could begin to use these for political
patronage.
President Hotton questioned assuming the fee schedule is
passed, what will that do to the percentage of current
planning expenses that will be reimbursed by revenues from
building projects as opposed to long-range planning of the
City? Mr. Pratt stated the increase in revenue goes from
$17,000 to about $25-26,000 over the department, which costs
about $250,000 to fun. The cost recovery is minimal in the
larger scheme and it does not have a major impact on their
ability to provide more service. President Hotton stated even
by raising the fees dramatically, it is still not putting a
dent in Planning expenses. Mr. Pratt stated the revenue base
from fees only in 1991 was a little below $20,000...the
increase should bring that up to approximately $26,000.
Alex Roos, City resident, stressed Council is the "supreme
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 28 of 29
court" of the City of Bremerton and he did not want to see it
made prohibitive to get to the City Council for an ultimate
decision. He supported setting a more reasonable sum for an
appeal to the City Council. He felt the Planning Department
and Building Department generally handled issues fairly, but
he did not want the opportunity to come before the City
Council limited to only those who could pay a higher fee,
leaving out the "little guy". He suggested having more rules
and regulations for presenting arguments at the Planning
Commission level so that by the time an issue came before
Council it would be more "cut and dried".
Mr. Collins questioned on the appeal to the City Council, if
the Council upholds the person appealing, could the cost be
reimbursed to the appellant? Mr. Pratt stated something to
that affect could be added to the fee schedule or it could be
included in the decision of the appeal. Mr. Overson stated he
could not support Mr. Collins' proposal because it would
become a significant incentive to make an appeal and it would
also put undue pressure on Council. In his opinion, the
reason for the fee is the appeal to City Council requires
significant time and effort on the part of staff. Mr. Pratt
stated that was not the way it came forward. If Planning
staff takes an appeal to the Planning Commission and the work
behind it is done what is left to bring to Council is mostly
the hours spent in a public hearing before Council. The
reason for the appeal being higher at the City Council level
is two fold: (1) to establish a higher threshold of effort to
get projects in appeal before Council, therefore telling
people when they get to the Planning Commission that is the
place to plead the strongest case; (2) to try to cover more
costs. Mr. Overson pointed out this would not generate a lot
of money because Council does not see a lot of appeals.
Mr. Colvin stated the quality of justice should not be
predicated on how much money someone can afford. If the
public does not protest, then he would support it, however at
this time he will cast an "abstention" vote. He questioned
how many appeals have been brought before Council this year?
Mr. Pratt stated 2-3. President Hotton questioned how many
appeals have come before the Planning Commission? Mr. Pratt
stated only 3-4. President Hotton pointed out about 50% of
appeals to the Planning Commission end up coming before
Council as well. Mr. Pratt stated it was his recollection
that most everything that is appealed to the Planning
Commission is appealed to the City Council. There is
relatively little additional effort required for someone to
get an appeal to the City Council. In fact, his staff
encourages that practice as a way to deflect controversy at
TAPE #1042
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 22, 1992
Page 29 of 29
their counter. President Hotton stated based on that
information she supported Mr. Colvin's position. Mr. Pratt
provided the following comparison of appeal charges for areas
surrounding Bremerton: Kitsap County $30.00/per appeal; City
of Everett $100/per appeal; City of Bellingham $75/per appeal;
City of Poulsbo - unknown.
Mr. Overson suggested reducing the City Council appeal fee to
$150.00. Mr. Colvin suggested giving further study to that
particular fee and accept the rest of the fee schedule.
#2715
M/S/C/U(Overson/Collins) to pass Resolution 2398, with the
exception of the fee for an appeal to City Council would be
retained at $50.00.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:42 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCL[ SKEY, City Clerk
~ HORTON, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault