Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/92TAPE #1028 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES #0047 #0083 JUNE 3, 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, June 3, 1992, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Richard Neville, Eileen Fitz, Hank Waibel, Morris Dawkins, Russ Johnson, A1 Colvin and C.R. "Tiny" Collins. 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 Horton and Invocation given by Reverend Bill Kittenring of Free Methodist Church. CONSENT AGENUA A. Bid Award Recommendation - McKenna Falls #AB92-130 Intake Facilities Improvement Awarded To IMCO General Construction Inc., of Bellingham, Washington In The Amount Of $979,527.50 Plus Tax M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTER8 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/Dawkins) on June 3, 1992, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 149897, 150216, 150218, 150219, 150220, 150,222, 150852 through 151177 in the total amount of $765,356.24; and Retirees Payroll for the period ending May 31, 1992, in the amount of $90,474.72. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Collins expressed how pleased was about the Memorial Services held at Ivy Green Cemetery. He was especially proud of the condition of the cemetery. He requested President Horton issue a letter of thanks to Vicki Vanneman, Director of Parks and Recreation, Ray Otis and other staff members who participated in the making Ivy Green look so splendidly. He talked with some Canadian guests at the Memorial Service and they were surprised about how things were handled and how nice TAPE #1028 UNAPPROVED DRAFT the cemetery looked. He attended Memorial Services for Captain Don Ross, which was done in due form and with great dignity. He noted Don Ross was a "common" person but he also had great dignity and he will be missed. Mr. Colvin announced the boardwalk dedication will be held June 6, 10:00 A.M. He hoped all citizens of Kitsap County will attend this event. He reported on a flooding condition that occurred on May 28 in the vicinity of 950 E. 31st Street. The rushing of ground water that is unable to sink slowly into the earth due to increased pavement between Sylvan Way and Riddell Road caused a havoc on E. 31st Street. The water runoff dislodged a manhole cover and flooded several homes in that area. Mr. Colvin was contacted by Mr. Hendricks and several other neighbors affected by the water damage. Mr. Hendricks will speak on this issue duringPublic Recognition. Mr. Colvin received an opportunity from the Turner Joy to purchase a Book for $20.00 which would include one year of free visits to the Turner Joy. Mr. Overson reported he and Council President Horton spent five hours this date at the Kitsap County Regional Planning meeting. He felt this group was working well together and were faced with lots of difficult problems, which they are working seriously to solve. He noted there are some contentions, but he believes everyone on that Council are concerned with the constituents interest and their goals. He commended Council President Horton for her leadership as Chairman of that group. Mr. Neville expressed his sympathy to the Bob Jennings family in the loss of Bob. When out boating on Sunday, he had the opportunity to welcome back the USS Nimitz. Mrs. Fitz stated the boardwalk is looking great and worth taking the time to view the progress. Mr. Waibel stated he viewed the boardwalk project this morning and most of the granite blocks are in place. He anticipates a good dedication ceremony on Saturday. Mrs. Hotton stated she did spend a very lengthy day at the Kitsap Regional Council meeting. It seems that all of the boards are grappling with growth, how to deal with it and moving into the year 2000, which all takes funding. This Council did finish up the Policy Plan and the final document will be altered somewhat by the County before they make a final adoption. This was anticipated and once the document is adopted by the County if there is disagreement there is an appeals process in place. She hoped there would not be the need for an appeal. This group will be meeting on Monday, June 8, 5:00 P.M., at Mitzel's in Poulsbo to discuss "growth TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 3 of 32 projections". Lastly, she requested those who participated in the "water sampling" for the City's Water Utility to please turn them in as soon as possible. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Louis Mentor read the following Proclamation: 1. National Safe Boating Week - June 7 through 13, 1992. The proclamation was accepted by Dave Jogerst, Commander of the Bremerton Power Squadron. Mayor Mentor extended thanks to the many volunteers who participated in the clean up of Ivy Green Cemetery. He participated in the following events: Friday - Kitsap Community Clinic's fund raiser aboard the Spirit Of Puget Sound Saturday -Memorial Day Services at Ivy Green Cemetery and served as an Honorary Judge at the Destruction Derby Sunday - Literacy Council's Spelling Bee fund raiser held at the Silverdale Hotel Project Family fund raiser held at the RoxyTheater Tuesday "Irish Wake" memorial for Bob Jennings held at the Kitsap Pavilion Upcoming events: Friday, June 5 - Lions Club Installation Saturday, June 6 - Dedication Ceremony for Boardwalk project Sunday, June 7 - Kitsap County Chapter Of Blacks In 2:00 - 8:00 PM Government and the E1 Camino Restaurant are sponsoring a fund raising for Jimmy Moore, the Bremerton boy who was badly burned in the November fire bombing of a residence. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated the regional policy document has been completed by the Kitsap Regional Planning Council and is about to go forward. The work program required that a population projection for the next 20 years for the City of Bremerton be included; and that the urban areas in Kitsap County are identified in that document. One urban area happens to be one that Bremerton is in the middle of and the process is for Bremerton to make a recommendation to Kitsap County on what is viewed as an "urban area". After consultation with Council's Growth Management Committee, Mayor Mentor sent a memorandum to the Regional Planning Council identifying both the population projections and the urban growth area. The process included looking at the land use holding capacity for the City of Bremerton's existing Comprehensive Plan. It TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 4 of 32 is the City's recommendation that the population numbers identified can be accomplished with the existing Comprehensive Plan without tearing down existing residences and without seriously or moderately impacting existing single family neighborhoods. Secondly, sewer and water capacities were an extreme concern and the City resolved that by not letting them be a concern. There is simply not enough sewer and water capacity in Kitsap County and Bremerton to handle the 91,000 people the Planning Council expects within the next 20 years. The assumptions the City made are without consideration as to whether or not Bremerton has adequate capacity but with the assumption that someone in Kitsap County will develop that capacity. It will probably be a consortium or cooperative effort between all the cities and County. No one single government will be responsible for adding the increased sewer and water capacity and costs that might come with it. Mr. Pratt displayed the table showing the population figures and noted neighborhoods conform with a Census tract, some not being traditional neighborhoods, lists the number of current dwellings and the existing population as of the 1990 Census and new dwelling units. In the case of the Sheridan Neighborhood there are 950 new dwelling units for a grand total in the year 2010 of 3535 and population based on that number of dwelling units is 2,280 more people for a grand total of 7,920. There are columns showing increase of population and increase of dwelling units. The primary heavy increases are in the Hadden and Campus neighborhoods. The Smith/Highland Neighborhood shows an increase of 66% and is targeted for high density, multi-story, multi-family dwelling units and the Manette Neighborhood shows a 50% increase in population and that is expected because of the waterfront being zoned for high density. The single family neighborhood at the top of the Manette area should not be impacted. Kitsap Lake and Westhills shows a 164% increase in density, which is because the Westhills 254 acres recently sold to Pope Resources is undeveloped and it is anticipated that area will have approximately 3,000 people along with some other limited areas. Kitsap Lake single family neighborhoods should not see any change. Another high density area is the Central Business District with an estimated additional 2,160 for 300% increase in population. This would be brought about by multi-family residences. Lastly, Puget Sound Shipyard's population will increase through development of additional Bachelor Officers Quarters (possibly as many as 5 facilities with 300-400 personnel per facility. The Shipyard is within the City's jurisdiction and population count. Mr. Pratt explained he would be taking this information out to TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 5 of 32 the neighborhoods and other opportunities to inform the public. The City was asked to recommend what an urban growth area around the City should be. The Growth Management Act asked that two kinds of land be identified, rural and urban. The difference would be defined by what local governments define it to be and the primary difference is urban lands will be lands in which agriculture and forestry uses will not be viable and would be dedicated to developed types of uses. The City believes that all the way from the southern boundaries of the City of Bremerton north to Bucklin Ridge have so much infrastructure and residential areas that it is predominately developed or soon to be developed. Some adjacent lands have also been included which will also be developed. By definition City watershed and utility properties are "urban" lands. The need to include industrial areas within the urban growth area was determined so the Industrial Park near the airport was included. The Growth Management Committee determined that because the City bracketed the McCormick Woods development with City lands, that area should also be included in the urban growth area. Mr. Overson stated he felt the urban growth area was a natural. Mr. Collins stated he has observed a growth in housing directly along Hood Canal but the map displayed did not show any type of urban area. He questioned if that area will remain rural, urban, or is the City concerned with just its boundaries? Mr. Pratt stated the City is talking just about Bremerton itself. Within the Regional Policies there will have to be a definition of "rural"; and if it is rural, what services will be provided. Waterfront properties and the density around those properties present a special problem for Kitsap County. They do not want to bring in sewer because it tends to increase densities in remote areas on waterfront. On the other hand, they need sewers to preserve water quality and it would be an aesthetic mistake to put an urban border around the shoreline. This issue is something that will have to be dealt with next year. This is not something the City is actively participating in because the City feels the list of conflicts with the County over what is urban and non-urban around City boundaries fills our agenda. President Hotton stated it was recognized that in order to preserve water quality some areas may be designated as rural but have development in them and should be sewered to preserve water quality. This does not necessarily mean that area would grow like a regular urban growth area. Mr. Collins stated near the TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 6 of 32 McCormick Woods development area there are five lakes that are hard pressed at this time. He questioned if it was envisioned to include those lakes in the urban area? Mr. Pratt stated yes and he clarified the urban growth area is not a jurisdictional hit-list and in no way implies the City's intent to annex. It is anticipated that the area between the Air Port and Anderson Hill Road and bounded by Lake Flora Road would probably be urban within the next 20 years, including those lakes. Mr. Johnson stated he has been watching the media coverage on the east side of the Sound, who are going through the same type of scenario as Kitsap County. Residents in unincorporated areas in the Counties on the east side are wondering what the density will be. Currently, depending on the jurisdiction, it is sometimes one unit per two acres, one unit per five acres and one unit per 10 acres and there are some very serious proposals being put forward as to one unit per 35 acres. If you are not in an urban area and not in one of the self- contained planned communities or planned resort, they are talking cows, pigs, chickens and trees. Mr. Pratt stated if there are any constituents who have concerns about where the growth is going, please have them contact him and he will show them where numbers can go without having their home next door to a high rise apartment building. Mr. Johnson emphasized public input is welcome. Mrs. Fits stated for clarification that there is no intent to build on the watershed even though it is shown in an urban area. Mr. Pratt stated that was correct - the Critical Lands Ordinance was being developed and following that would be the Resource Lands Ordinance which would designate the City's watershed property as resource lands which makes it unavailable for development but within the urban area. Mr. Overson questioned wasn't it true the Growth Management Plan intends to have greenbelts between urban development areas and established by the land use authorities? Mr. Pratt stated that was correct. Between each urban area with the region there shall be identifiable greenbelts and there shall be regulations adopted to preserve them. If there is an urban area in Poulsbo, which we assume there will be, there needs to be regulations between Bremerton/Silverdale urban growth area to preserve that green between this urban area and the urban area to the north. And the reason there is one urban area between Gorst, Bremerton and Silverdale is that we could not find any viable greenbelts between Gorst and Bremerton and Bremerton and Silverdale...simply too many sewer, water, TAPE-#1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 7 of 32 schools and roads in the middle of all that land to be a large enough mass of trees to call it a greenbelt. Mr. Overson pointed out there is no requirement for the citizens to buy that greenbelt but just a function of the land use authorities to control it. Mr. Pratt stated in the rural area the land use authorities can zone it so that it has the affect of a natural rural area but they can't say nothing can happen on the greenbelt and must leave some residual use. If greenbelts are placed within an urban area, you must buy or secure the ownership or easements on the land, which is what the City has already done on the watershed. Mr. Colvln questioned if a person had a large area of land, would the land use authority have the power to designate that as a greenbelt? Mr. Pratt stated yes, if it is in the rural area and some use is left so that it maintained the characteristics of a greenbelt but still had an economic use. Mr. Colvin questioned if there would be any compensation for the property owner for economic loss? Mr. Pratt stated it is not required and you can in a rural area own property for agricultural or low density residential use without "taking" the land in legal terms. However, if a residual use is not left like a viable agricultural use or some type of residential use and there is no economic use left other than leaving it there as a park, then that person's land has been taken and must be compensated. Within the City it is more strict - if a greenbelt is established through the Zoning mechanism, it could be called a "taking" because technically urban areas are required to host high density development. If greenbelts are desired in urban areas then there would be the need to buy the rights to that green area. President Hotton stated when the City-wide rezone was done, the down zone could occur as long as the City left an some economic viability to that piece of property. She believes a lot of people who purchased property or own property think it is their inherit right that they ought to be able to develop that property at the highest possible economic use and that is a fallacy. Ron Hendricks, 930 E. 31st Street, reported on a flooding problems after a recent rain storm. A manhole cover was blown off resulting in stormwater runoff flooding nearby residents. This is not the first time this has happened and he was very concerned that no action was being taken to correct this problem. He believes the problem is caused by a 24" pipe coming in and an 18" pipe going out. He was very concerned about the potential danger to children in that area if the manhole cover continues to blow off. He also noted that at one time the Utility welded the manhole cover in place, however, during a rain storm the water pressure was so strong it blew TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 8 of 32 the cover off. President Hotton requested Council's Legislative Assistant contact Mr. Duffy Utility Director, or Dave Baker, City Engineer, to get in touch with Mr. Hendricks. Mr. Colvln questioned if Mr. Hendricks had reported this problem to the Mayor? Mr. Bendticks stated he had not. 6A - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT/ACTUAL 1992 CARRYOVER DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, #AB92-139 The 1992 budget for Community Development, including the Development Division was adopted in December 1991, prior to determining actual 1991 budget carryover. City Council action is requested at this time to adjust the 1992 Development Division Budget. Carol Dickinson, Community Services Manager, stated this budget adjustment was carryover of unspent obligated Block Grant funds from 1991 into 1992. These numbers represent a snapshot of where the Block Grant budget started out as of January 1, 1992, where they could look at actual carryovers through all expenditures the prior year. Because their budget for 1992 was adopted prior to year-end, she made her best "guess" estimate of how much money would be expended and what the entitlement would be for Block Grant funding in 1992. She noted the numbers in this budget adjustment reconcile City projects files to the City's ledger as well as to HUD's Letter Of Credit. Both the Operations Committee and Fiscal and Budget Committee have reviewed this item. President Hotton questioned what was being proposed for expenditure of the $79,0007 Ms. Dickinson stated the $79,000 difference represents two figures: (1) $24,000 is the difference between her estimate of the 1992 entitlement and what actually came in; (2) $55,000 amounts to funds expected to be spent on projects in 1991 but were not actually expended until 1992. (Note: these are not additional monies but rather funds obligated to projects that were not spent by December 31, 1991). Mr. Johnson questioned how the $24,000 got committed? Ms. Dickinson explained in early December, 1991, the City learned that the 1992 entitlement was greater than estimated. At that time a Budget Adjustment was brought before Council and the final allocation of 1992 was acted upon, but she did not fold it into the total budget adjustment until now. Public comment - none. TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 9 of 32 #1653 M/S/C(Dawkins/Johnson) that the City Council adopt the 1992 Development Division annual budget as adjusted to incorporate the actual 1991 carryover of funds. Vote On Motion: In Favor: Overson, Neville, Fitz, Horton, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson Abstain: Waibel 6B - TO CONSIDER THE LETTER OF INTENT TO ANNEX THE BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT'S CROWNHILL SITE INTO THE JURI8DICTION OF THE CITY, #AB92-140 The City has certified a "Notice of Intent" from the Bremerton School District for the annexation of the Crown Hill Elementary School site into City of Bremerton. The petition is to serve as Notice of Intent to proceed with annexation. According to RCW 35.13.125, the legislative body is to determine the following: 1) Whether the City will accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation; and 2) Whether said annexed property shall be required to assume current City indebtedness; and 3) Whether pre-annexation hearing on land-use planning and zoning will be held or the assignment of provisional zoning will be allowed. Terrie Hartson, Municipal Services Coordinator, provided a map showing the Crown Hill Elementary site. This annexation consists of only one parcel, School District land, and is the second time the District has petitioned for annexation of this site. According to RCW 28A.335.110, the annexation of School District property must be processed by its self. The State statute authorizes the School District to sign the Annexation Petition, which they have. Concurrently, with this annexation she will be processing the Kitsap/Corbet Annexation, which is a separate annexation but would take effect at the same time. The Annexation Area is 6.4 acres, has no population, businesses or industries. The school site houses 690 students and 75 staff members. The total assessed value is 2.8 million, however, it is State land and the City would not receive any Property Tax collected from that site. The School desires City benefits, which includes Police, Fire, and possibility of sewer connection in the future. Currently, the site receives City water through the Marine Drive/Rocky TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 10 of 32 Point Water District and once annexed will receive a benefit in a reduction of water cost. Staff recommends that Council accepts the proposed geographical area. Pre-annexation zoning will be completed by the time this annexation is finalized, which would require the assumption of all or a portion of existing City indebtedness. Although they would be exempt, it is just a matter of formto process in this manner. President Horton asked the"Appearance Of Fairness//Conflict of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Public comment - none. Mr. Waibel pointed out this was the second time the School District had tried to consolidate their holdings under one jurisdiction and hoped with the concurrent annexation of the surrounding area, the Boundary Review Board will see fit to allow the School District's desire to stand. #1872 M/S/C/U (Waibel/Overson) Notices of Intent for Annexation area. that the City Council accept the the Crown Hill Elementary School Mr. Waibel questioned how often does the State revisit the funds they allocate for contracted fire protection services provided the cities? Ms. Hartson stated she had discussed the issue of fire service with the School District and to her understanding they pay $1.00 per pupil to the special district. However, they did mentioned that they would not be paying the City for fire protection service. Mr. Walbel wanted to make sure the State was notified that the City was increasing its liability through this annexation. #1933 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Fitz) require the assumption of a proportional share of the City's current indebtedness as a condition of any future Petition for annexation of the proposed area. #1966 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Collins) require the adoption of Comprehensive Plan and land uses prior to the final petition for annexation. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING ON A 75% PETITION TO KNNEX THE 16 ACRE NATIONAL HEIGHTS ANNEXATION: AREA #1 MARION AVENUE AND FIRST RE~DING OF THE ORDINANCE, #AB92-144 On February 27, 1992, the City Council gave it's tentative approval to the National Heights annexation: Area #1 Marion Avenue. The Boundary Review Board notified the City on May 1st that the proposed annexation would not be subject to a TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 11 of 32 review and was approved by non-action. The owners of several lots in this area, compromising of more than the required 75% of the total tax assessed value, have submitted their proposal to annex. The Council is asked to (1) hold public hearing to accept comments pertaining to the annexation and related matters; and (2) to make a final determination on the annexation before them. Terrie Hartson, Municipal Services Coordinator, provided a vicinity map of the annexation area, consisting of 11 parcels and approximately 16 acres. She noted prior to the affective date of this annexation, the Hoskinson's Annexation from 1991 has made Marion Avenue an irregular boundary. In 1981, the Marion Court Apartment Complex was proposed for construction and solicited the City for use of the City's sewer and water services. Since that time, the City has collected other Outside Utility Agreements in that area and in December 1991, she questioned some of the residential neighbors, in that area, to see if they would be interested in annexing into the City. At that time, she came up with 75%, which is required by State, who would like to annex into the City of Bremerton. That 75% is based on the County's assessed valuation of the property, approximately 2 million dollars. The assessed valuation of 75% of the area would amount to approximately $1,502,000, and she had well over that requirement. This is the most commonly used method of annexation in the State of Washington. The RCW also states that the Election method of annexation and Petition method of annexation are both equal and neither one should be favored over the other. The area is comprised of 16.14 acres, with a population of 147 people. Only 11 parcels are identified in the annexation area and does include high density housing. Services to the Annexation area include natural gas, electricity, telephone/cable, water/sewer, refuse services and mass transit. This annexation fits well within the criteria as defined by the Boundary Review Board, who did not find cause to invoke jurisdiction. President Horton asked the Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 12 of 32 annexation: DoVle Dillard, 127 S. Marion; Dick Fenske, 135 S. Marion; Jason Smart, 3317 Olympus Drive; Mary Wagner, 3125 Ricky Road; Glen Petroski, 2508 Stone Way. The above individuals expressed the following concerns: (1) gotten along with the County exceptionally well but received nothing from City as a County resident near City services; (2) at the time City installed a storm sewer on Marion Avenue they removed a corner marker from two pieces of property; (3) believes the petition form of annexation is unfair to residents; (4) problems of vandalism occur when parking vehicle on City side of street; (5) did not to hook up to City sewer because it would require installing a pumping system; (6) County does better job maintaining roads; (7) County provides better fire protection services, medical emergency services, water, sewer; (8) City is desperate to get additional money for City and is using the petition method to annex in order to obtain that funding; (9) why doesn't the City ever go the people for a vote on annexation; (10) believes the City is "crooked" and does not provide backup documentation relating to annexation agreements/petition; (11) State law should be changed so that only the vote of the landowners would bring about annexation; (12) challenged the legality of using the petition method of annexation over the vote of the landowners; (13) signatures on petition are obtained through coercion; (14) see common denominator in this annexation proposal and previous annexation actions - high assessed valued properties are used to induce the leverage for the 75%; (15) many of the owners of the high assessed value properties live outside the area; (16) application of State law is being misrepresented because of high value areas being the controlling factor; (17) directed City to get away from using the petition method and use the election method where each individual has the right to vote; (18) group of residents are seeking counsel and expect to file a class action suit. Gil Johnson, Acting City Clerk, read into the record letters from the following individuals: Hugh Rapp, owner of property at 143 and 145 N. Marion; Philip M. Best, Attorney, representing Doyle and Ruth Dillard, 127 S. Marion Avenue. The above individuals were opposed to the proposed annexation for the following reasons: (1) cannot find one good reason to annex into the City; (2) only reason for annexing this area is so City can get more money to throw away on some deadend project; (3) County already provides good fire protection services; (5) currently have animals on property that may be objectionable to City's Animal Control laws; (6) use high assessed valued properties to act as leverage for annexation even though land owners live outside the area; (7) property TAPE #1028 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 13 of 32 taxes and costs of services will increase if annexed into City; (8) opposed to the use of Outside Utility Agreements; (9) question the legitimacy and effectiveness of the "annexation agreement" form with limited power of attorney given to the City of Bremerton. TAPE #1029 President Horton requested the City Attorney clarify the method of annexation (petition) and Outside Utility Agreements that the City utilizes. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated we often hear challenges to the method the City and other cities typically use - the Petition method. That method is provided by State law along with an Election method. The State law specifically states: RCW35.13.120 that the Election method of annexation, provided for in the named section shall be a alternate method not superseding any other". Therefore, it is an alternate and not more important or supersedes the Petition method. As far as the validity of Utility Agreements as signatures on a petition and the City initiating the petition itself rather than having citizens present a petition, both have been decided by courts in a Spokane case. Attached agreements committing to a petition of annexation are sufficient as signatures without having a second signature on the various petitions are the limited power of attorney, which are less confusing because it does give the right to sign to the City. Ms. Hartson stated the Petition, which was referenced as "not being available", is a matter of public record and she provided copies, when requested, to anyone who requested them. The petition outlines each of the property's value and of the 11 properties within the annexation, six have granted consent as well as the Marion Avenue Court Apartments. In reference to Mr. Dillard's concern over lost survey markers, the City is looking into correction this condition. She emphasized the requests for City services did come from the landowners. There is a difference in opinion about people wanting City services but not wanting City membership. Many residents of the City feel quite offended by that - if you want City services provided only by the City, then they are requesting something that belongs to the City and the City has every right to request that they become part of the City. Mr. Dillard also has "wetlands" on his property that are included on the City's Comprehensive which the County does not recognize on their Comprehensive Plan. In reference to 911 calls and broken glass from a vehicle, she noted because the vehicle was parked across the street, which TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 14 of 32 is in the City, and the owner called 911 from an address within the County, the County does not typically respond to calls of that nature and the City's Police Department was never informed of that problem. However, the City does respond to such calls when received. By bringing this area into the City, making the street fully in the City, such problems can be handled. Maintenance and responsibility of Marion Avenue has been a large problem and would be corrected through annexation. Ms. Hartson emphasized hook up to City sewer is not required when properties are annexed into the City. The Health District is responsible for making such mandates. There are many people within the City who are on septic systems. Property owners can continue to use their septic system unless the environmental officials step in and require it. In response to Jason Smart's comment, to Ms. Hartson's knowledge, she has never spoken with Jason Smart, however, she offered to meet with him to discuss the benefits of annexing into the City. In reference to the statement that large complexes were placed on City fringes... those areas were developed not because of anything the City did, but due to the County placing them there and it was the City's services that were requested that caused utilization of the Outside Utility Agreements. In regard to Animal Control, Mr. Dillard was informed that there was a"grandfather clause" that would allow him to keep his currently owned animals/fowl once the property is annexed. The City and County have many of the same Animal Control policies. Ms. Hartson noted Mr. McDermott, who signed for the Marion Court Apartments did reside in the area proposed for annexation and did sign to have the property annexed into the City in 1981, which was prior to his death. Since 1981, the City has collected additional petitions in the annexation area. Mr. Overson noted the Petition method of annexation was established by the State because the State's interest is that cities provide services. It is not the intent of the State that there be Sun Fjords, Silverdales, etc., that are County entities but are not centrally supplied city services. The function of a city is to centrally provide services and that introduces efficiency, effectiveness, control and many benefits to the constituents. The landowners are the most interested in annexation and that is why it is a percent TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 15 of 32 valuation. #0367 M/S/C/U(Collins/Waibel) approve the annexation petition of the areas designated as the National Heights annexation Area #1. Mr. Colvin questioned whether the City had the authority to sign a petition in behalf of the property owners? Ms. Hartson stated yes, it is a limited power of attorney. The reason an Annexation Agreement is used, is to obtain a limited power of attorney that is revocable at any time up to the 75% petition process. The City uses the limited power of attorney because of the amount of time and paperwork required, making it easier for the person agreeing. Mr. Colvin questioned if a person hooking up to City services had the right to revoke their power of attorney? Ms. Hartson explained when someone hooks up to City services, they sign an Outside Utility Agreement, which is also a limited power of attorney and are recorded. Those agreements are not revocable because the property owner receives the service. Mr. 8levers pointed out the distinction drawn by Ms. Hartson is proper. Mr. Colvin questioned the legality of basing the percentage of the annexation on the economic value of the property and not the number of citizens involved? Mr. 8levers stated that right has been in State law for a long time and has not been challenged. There are also other systems for providing services, such as L.I.D., which use valuation for totalling protest votes. It is a well accepted method when talking about benefits being of economic value and lets one's dollars vote rather than having a per capita vote. In regard to the comments on coercion, none of the Utility Agreements were coerced but rather a free choice to ask for City services in order to develop property and offer this promise in return for those services. The voluntary limited powers of attorney that Ms. Hartson's receives by canvassing the neighborhood are not obtained by coercion. Ms. Hartson stated if the 11 property owners were surveyed there would be six agreeing, two undecided and three opposed to the annexation. If a vote was taken of the area residents who would stand to benefit from City services, it would very likely bring about a majority vote. As far as the majority of property owners in the annexation area, they have given their consent. Mr. Waibel questioned the percentage required for a majority favorable vote? Mr. Sievers stated it would be 60%. Mr. Waibelquestioned in a Petition process what percentage of the assessed valuation have to agree? Mr. Sievers stated 75%. Mr. Waibel pointed out there must be larger percentage under the economic situation than by the vote method. He questioned the cost for someone who lived outside the City and was TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 16 of 32 required by the Health District to hook up to City sewer system? Ms. Hartson stated if someone had a failing septic system or their neighborhood decided, by a majority vote, to form an L.I.D. to hook up to sewer, it would be a 50% higher hook up fee and 15% more per month. On her analysis of taxes, she found that persons who had sewer and water services from the City of Bremerton would have a net savings of about $36.00 per year. Those who are not on City sewer are charged $2.91 more per month. Mr. Waibel pointed out that a City resident could hook up to City sewer for $1,000 and it would cost someone outside the City $1,500. Ms. Hartson stated yes, and emphasized it would cost 50% more to hook up both sewer and water outside the City. Mr. Colvin stated it appears to him that someone who does not live in the City but owns property of a high enough valuation could "drag in" other people through an annexation. Ms. Hartson explained the person owning the property is paying taxes. A vote of the people for annexation is normally used when an annexation area is so large that it would not be possible to give 100% of the property owners the opportunity to make the decision. She emphasized if someone lived outside the annexation area they would not have the opportunity to vote on that action. A person who owns and pays property taxes can decide whether it is annexed. If a vote is taken and there is rental property, those residents living in the annexation area are allowed to vote, however, the person who is responsible for the tax bill cannot if they live outside that area. President Horton stated by this discussion, some people are saying people who live in that apartment complex wouldn't see the benefits of annexation and yet the owner of the complex does. In the case of emergency response, the City's is practically unequalled in the whole Puget Sound region. Ms. Hartson stated if the annexation was put up for a vote, there would be 145 people voting. The people living in the apartment complex have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose. Vote on motion - unanimous. #0705 M/S/C/U(Collins/Overson) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, annexing approximately 16.14 acres known as the National Heights Annexation Area #1 Marion Avenue; and affixing the effective date of annexation. Councilman Morrie Dawkins left the Council ChaSers at 7:35 P.M. 7B - RESOLUTION NO. 2393 REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF FEES FOR TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 17 of 32 DEMOLITION OF 213/215 S. CONSTITUTION AVENUE, #AB92-143 In October of 1991, the City was forced to demolish 3 unsafe buildings located at 213/215 S. Constitution Avenue. The owners, Mark Eder and Stanley & Michelle Adams, had not responded to the Notice and Order to Abate Unsafe Condition posted on the property and mailed to them. The City advertised for bids for the demolition, and incurred expenses for administrative time spent on the abatement. In accordance with the Dangerous Building Code, the City may recoup expenses either by a personal judgement against the property owner, or by a lien against the property. This action must be decided by the Council. David Nelson, Building Official, stated he believed the only way for the City to recoup funds on this abatement was by lien because the owners are not available. One of the three owners had been contacted and she indicated no interest in it at all. The other two owners are gone from the area probably because of legal process due to their owing money to other State agencies, governmental entitles or institutions, who filed liens on the property, which the City will share in. It was not anticipated that the City would recoup all expenses. Mr. Waibel questioned since the Resolution did not include any dollar amount, should there be a cost included and would it limit it to that amount if additional costs were identified at a later date? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he believed the City's costs should be identified at this time. Mr. Nelson explained the City's costs are basically finished. Mr. Sievers stated the City does not have to incur foreclosure costs because this lien would be collected through the County. He did think it was one of the findings Council had to make that the cost, as presented by the Building Official, are reasonable and should be reflected in the Resolution. President Hotton suggested listing the Inter-Office Memo as Exhibit "A" and indicating that reference in the Resolution as follows: "NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture demolition and administrative fees, as shown in Exhibit "A", by filing a lien against the property". Mr. Colvinquestioned the City's costs up to this date and would there be any interest charged? Mr. Nelson stated his department filed a report with the City Clerk reflecting $6,803.04. There is no interest charged until the owners become delinquent. Mr. Slevers stated that was correct and they would become delinquent after this hearing and the interest rate would be 7%. Public comment - none. #0871 TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 18 of 32 Mr. Overson questioned what would happen next and will the City some day receive its funds? Mr. Nelson stated his understanding of Washington State Law is that a lien be in effect for three years. The City has that much time to file foreclosure proceedings on property that is not paid. He also understands that the City can assess a bill as an assessment that would be billed to the owners of the property and stated it is payable at the next go-around of that assessment. If it is not paid, the City can then start foreclosure proceedings immediately upon the delinquent payment. Mr. Overson questioned if Mr. Nelson was proposing that procedure? Mr. Nelson stated yes. Mr. Colvin questioned what time frame was Mr. Nelson talking about? Mr. Nelson stated it would probably be six months. It was his understanding there was a four month procedure on a foreclosures. Mr. Johnson question if some wording should be included in the Resolution as to moving on this ,'posthaste"? Mr. Sievers explained in the Agenda Bill summary it outlines the two ways to collect: (1) pursued as a Civil claim against the property owner; (2) a property lien. He agreed with Mr. Nelson in that the City could foreclose the lien sooner than it would go through the tax delinquent process and be sold by the County. If Council desired to pursue it as a Civil claim, it may not be very productive because of being unable to locate all owners. Mr. Waibel stated he did not believe a decision could be made on which method to use until the City has a delinquent account that needs to be responded to. This issue should be brought back to Council as soon as that delinquency was determined. Mr. Overson complemented Mr. Nelson and his staff for carrying out a very economical demolition. M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) approve Resolution #2393, ordering that the fees incurred for this demolition be filed as a lien against the property at 213/215 S. Constitution Avenue, the feels to be as shown on Exhibit "A" of the Agenda Bill and the cost would also include 7% interest compounded annually. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING MITCHELL REZONE: TO CONSIDER A REOUEST TO ADD THE "LIMITED PARKING OVERLAY (LPO)" ZONE TO A PARCEL AT THE INTERSECTION OF RAINIER & 7TH 8TREET, #AB92-145 Jeff Mitchell (FBK Ventures) is the owner of Olympic Plaza, a small commercial complex at the corner of Sixth and Rainier. He also owns a vacant lot immediately north of the complex and would like to provide some additional off-street parking on that property to alleviate a substandard parking situation for Olympic Plaza. The current zoning of the vacant lot is "Duplex Residential" which does not allow accessory commercial TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 19 of 32 parking. The applicant has requested a Rezone to add the "Limited Parking Overlay (LPO)" zone to the "DR" zoning which, if approved, would allow the creation of the parking lot. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this request on March 31 but were split 3-3. Therefore, a formal recommendation from the Commission is not included. President Hotton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated this is a request to add the Limited Parking Overlay (LPO) to a piece of residentially zoned property in a Duplex Zone. The subject site is a single 15,000 square foot lot, located along the west side of Rainier Avenue, 150 feet north of Sixth Street, and at the intersection of Rainier and Seventh Street. This parcel is under the same ownership as Olympic Plaza, a small commercial complex at the corner of Sixth and Rainier. The existing land uses in the area include commercial uses along Sixth Street, single family neighborhood and duplexes north of the property. The subject property consists of five lots, (30 feet wide by approximately 100 feet deep), all of which are vacant and have been combined by the County Assessor into a single tax account. Olympic Plaza is a retail office complex fronting onto Sixth Street and has a parking lot in the front. Mr. Mitchell purchased this property about one year ago, which included the vacant lot in the rear. It appeared Mr. Mitchell assumed he could use part of that lot for accessory parking related to the business, which has been used for that purpose on-and-off over the years, not necessarily legally, and the City has had some enforcement actions on this property in the past. Mr. Mitchell also wanted to clean up the property after he purchased it, which he did and then covered the area with gravel. Within a short period of time vehicles were parked on that area and the City received a flurry of complaints. As a result of the complaints, the City informed Mr. Mitchell that the subject area was a Duplex Zone not a Commercial zone and he could not continue commercial related parking on the site. Therefore, Mr. Mitchell had a couple options, one being to apply for a rezone to General Business, which is what Olympic Plaza property is currently zoned. Staff suggested at that time that it would probably not work since it would be moving commercial use into a residential area and the General TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 20 of 32 business Zone would allow a whole variety of uses that would not be compatible with the residential district. Staff also explained there was the LPO Zone that might be considered since it retained the Duplex Zoning that allows parking. The applicant then applied for rezone of the entire property and during that processing staff came to the conclusion that the subject site was too large a lot for the commercial business. The applicant was really trying to supplement current parking, which is currently deficient and to allow a parking lots this size goes way beyond that need. Staff came up with an alternative proposal - to proposal the LPO Zone on only the two most southern lots, directly behind Olympic Plaza and retaining the northern three lots as Duplex Residential, which would keep a buildable site that could accommodate a duplex or three legal lots accommodating three small single family homes. Several concerns were identified: (1) neighborhood residents did not want a parking lot at the end of 7th Street or additional traffic on their street; (2) Olympic Plaza has a parking deficiency. Current zoning in the subject area include: the Olympic Plaza is General Business (GB), subject vacant lots are zoned Duplex Residential (DR), and residential neighborhood on the east side of Rainier Avenue is zoned Central Bremerton Residential (CBR) south of Eighth and Single-family Residential (SF-3) north of Eighth. Mr. Johnson raised a question of parliamentary procedure...when the City Council's vote ends in a tie the motion fails and in this case shouldn't it be a recommended "denial" coming to City Council? Mr. Waibel pointed out there was a second motion by the Commissioners that was also defeated by a tie vote so they had both recommended denial on the first motion by a tie and recommended passage on the second motion that ended in a tie. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated since this was an item that would move forward without an action type vote, all the Planning Commission had to do was provide a recommendation. In terms of Planning Commission action, the tie votes would reflect a "no recommendation" to Council, but not considered a negative recommendation. Mr. Hough explained the Planning Commission does make recommendations and they did not postpone this item for another month to again review it on their next agenda. Mr. Hough outlined the following issues that were brought out during the Planning Commission hearing: (1) O1vmpic Plaza parking deficiency: Olympic Plaza has 8,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area in their facility and according to TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 21 of 32 the City's parking requirements they would need 27 spaces for office and retail uses. They presently have 16 spaces and currently it is not a major problem due to one vacancy in the building. However, when all of the space is filled, it does demand more parking and can create an overflow. Such overflow parking had been using the vacant lot and along residential streets in that vicinity. One possibility the Planning Commission suggested was an agreement across 6th Street with the Canned Food Store for additional parking in their lot. It was generally felt that people would rather park along residential streets than to cross 6th Street. (2) Traffic Patterns Rainier. Seventh Street and alley: Traffic counts were not available from the Engineering Department as Seventh street is considered a low traffic street. However, residents living on Seventh Street consider it a high traffic area caused by people using it as a by-pass route for the intersection of Sixth and Naval. Also, several auto repair businesses in the vicinity test drive vehicles through the subject area, which does impact the neighborhood. (3) What is a neighborhood and land use compatibility: People tend to feel only the residential area is their neighborhood. Planning tends to look at uses on the fringes of the neighborhood and sometimes commercial districts are also part of the neighborhood. In this case, a neighborhood backs up to a commercial strip along Sixth Street and there is a well defined boundary - the alley between residences and parallels Sixth Street between Sixth and Seventh. In the case of Rainier, there is a property line boundary, which is a little ragged and is one of the issues as to where should that line be drawn...should it be a hard line or is there some room for flexibility. (4) How far from a residence should a parking lot be - orientation of homes. view impacts: there are times when both sides of the street are lined with parked vehicles, which is normal for a residential area. The vehicles are visible and the homes are directly oriented towards the street, straight across the street from each other and look out their windows to parked vehicles. The residents were concerned, at the Planning Commission hearing, about seeing the parking lot, located at the end of the street and slightly around the corner. This was a valid point for some residents. There are street trees in the area, which help block the view during the summer months, however, in the winter time leaves fall off and things are more visible. (5) How aesthetically pleasing must a parking lot be: TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 22 of 32 One of the questions is "how invisible does a parking lot have to be? Is it part of the environment, is it part of the neighborhood or not, if not is it something so bad that it has to be totally out of sight? C6) Long-termemployee versus short-termcustomer parking: the proposal is not proposing a commercial lot but accessory parking only related to the businesses and there is no intent to charge for parking. The employees are generally long-term parkers when compared to customer parkers who come in for 10- 15 minute periods. Customers would utilize parking in front of the businesses and employees would use the proposed lot. (7] Use of alley for access: this access has a problem where it intersects Sixth Street...the building is built to the edge of the property line to the sidewalk. When traveling down the alley to Sixth Street there is no visibility to the left and a vehicle would have to move out into a lane of traffic before on coming traffic would be visible. Staff did not want to propose a parking lot that had access out the south end of the alley. Staff did suggest making the alley one way ingress or egress and a one way parking lot would take half of the traffic off Rainier Avenue. (8] Effect on residential property values: there was no documentation offered to support the fear that a parking lot at the end of the block would adversely affect property values of the neighborhood. It is possible, however, there are a lot of other things that would affect property values, such as a poorly maintained property in the middle of the block. On the other hand, an attractive, well landscaped, paved parking lot may not be all that bad. (9) Should an accessory parking lot be considered a commercial encroachment into a residential area: the neighborhood feels it would be. The LPO Zone allows only parking and the parking is part of the business that is already there. The parking need has already been generated by the business. Allowing the LPO Zone and additional parking will provide for the deficiency of parking that already exists and won't promote additional businesses. Staff feels the encroachment is not present and a minor accessory parking lot is not a major problem. (10] Are the primarydevelopment pressures on this lot related to housing or parking? Must the property serve only one or the other...can it serve both: The property has been zoned Residential for years. Prior to 1988 when the City adopted the new Zoning Ordinance the subject property was zoned R-2, TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 23 of 32 allowing a density of up to about 70 units per acre. This site has not been developed and there is very little interest in residential development but there is considerable interest in parking, which has been demonstrated over and over and brought about the City having to enforce parking requirements over the past few years. the primary interest today is known, but it is not know if there will be a residential development interest in the near future. Staff recommends allowing a small portion of the lot for accessory parking, a compromise that would provide parking needed for the businesses and would retain the residential lot for future development. This would also relieve some of the vehicles parking on the streets. It was felt if those vehicles could be placed in small, landscaped parking lots adjacent to business districts that might not be a bad transition...business district to the neighborhood. Mr. Hough referenced Exhibit "B", the modified Mitchell Rezone proposal that includes: the northern most 9,000 square feet of the subject parcel will remain current "DR" zoning and the "Limited Parking Overlay (LPO)" zone would be applied the souther most 6,000 square feet (lots 14 and 15), allowing for the development of a small accessory parking lot at that location. The City's code requires a 5-ft. landscaped strip between the parking lot and residential lot or a 5-ft. high fence. The purpose being to screen the lot from adjacent property, but not properties up the hill or a block away. Jeff Mitchell, applicant/co-owner, 4755 Erlands Point Road, stated when the subject property was purchased, about one year ago, three of the lots were graveled and two were covered with brush and the entire property was fenced. Also, at the time of purchase there were unauthorized parking signs posted. He does have documentation showing parking use on the subject property for at least 14 years prior to their ownership. The Planning Commission requested the owners to research some options, one being that a parking agreement be obtained from the grocery store across the street along Sixth Street. This was looked into but the corporation who manages the canned food store denied the applicant's request. The Planning Commission also suggested tenants of Olympic Plaza not park in front of the buildings so that there would be spaces available for customers. He pointed out that was something that was being done at the present time. The third option suggested was to establish a Residential Permit Parking 2-hour limit, which the Assistant Engineer stated would not be helpful unless the rezone was approved. The owners of Olympic Plaza feel it is imperative to have accessory parking to make the building a viable concern. It is felt that the Planning TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 24 of 32 Commission's proposal was acceptable to the owners and he urged Council to give their approval to that proposal. Debbie Franklin, co-owner, 15427 llth Avenue SW, Burien, WA., handed out photos showing historical use of the subject site. She also provided a letter from Development Services of America, property managers for the grocery store on Sixth Avenue, stating that such a joint use of the parking lot was not allowable. The land owners believe the accessory parking will help the viability of the business and they do want to be a "good" neighbor and not detract from that neighborhood. After purchase of the property, there was some discussion of Ms. Franklin moving into the subject area into a duplex, if built, and considered that a pleasant possibility. In an effort to work with the residents, they did communicate with them since the Planning Commission meeting and discussed the possibility of the neighbors using part of the vacant property for a garden. The property owners discussed this idea with their insurance carrier and found if the neighbors organized into a "Neighborhood Association", they could continue that use on a lease basis, without putting all the liability on the property owners. In light of that, they came up with an alternate plan, Exhibit "C", which is less parking than that recommended by staff. This proposal would provide 10 spaces and suggested closing off the alley access and make the lot a one access only. Recently, it was brought to her attention there is an issue of parking on streets in other districts and by permitting the proposed parking, it would be utilizing the space they currently have. She noted the overflow has not reach into the neighborhood so it is not determined how much of a problem it will create since the subject site had been used for additional parking. Glen Christofferson, co-owner, 8845 SE 61st Mercer Island, WA 98040, explained FBK Ventures Inc., is an organization made up of individuals who wanted to invest in a property to learn how to operate a business/building successfully. It is their intent to upgrade the building, which in turn would upgrade the community. The actual building space is 8,275 sq. ft., and currently one of their largest spaces is vacant and two prospective tenants indicated they could not make a decision unless there was adequate parking spaces for their customers. Both of those tenants are currently outside the Bremerton area and they are being encouraged to move into the downtown area. The owners plan to remodel the facade of the build this year and are holding off until they are assured they have funding available for operating losses, which is where they are at the present time, and the cost of putting in a parking lot. Mr. Christofferson pointed out the space to the west is currently TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 25 of 32 a bank parking lot and it extends farther than their current building lot and about to where there recommended LPO would cover two lots. Currently, Montoney's Auto Electric, the property to the east of the subject site, opens their facility earlier than Olympic Plaza tenants and take up on-street parking. This forces Olympic Plaza tenants to use the front parking lot or to go farther up on Rainier Avenue, Seventh Avenue and Eight Avenue. Also, on the east side of Rainier Avenue there is a "no parking" designation and recently both sides of the street were painted with fire zones, which also limits the amount of parking available. If and when the owners are able to develop the back three lots into residential duplexes, a buffer will be needed between the commercial building and those duplexes. It is not economically sound to build a duplex next to a commercial building. They discussed several ideas about how they could make the community accept the proposal of a parking lot, one was the concept of leasing back an area to the residents for a playground or whatever was needed. After contacting their insurance agent, they were advised to not take such action due to the liability issue. But, if the neighbors formed a Neighborhood Association, they could lease a site and the liability would be shifted to that group. In reference to the alley going south onto Sixth Avenue, they agree that it would be unsafe and if the alley was made one- way in the northerly direction, it would be forcing traffic up into the residential neighborhood, which was not their intent. Therefore, the exit only onto Rainier would seem to fit better with their intentions and move vehicles quickly away from the residential area and onto the major arterial streets. Steven Rice, 2328 7th Street, announced he would be speaking for 16 of the 18 property owners living on Seventh Street near the subject site. He requested that the residents in attendance of this meeting stand up and be recognized. He stated he and his neighbors are in opposition to this proposal for the following reasons: (1) previous statements by Council members during rezone hearings reflected there is a State mandate that the City encourage housing density within the City limits. Rezoning an area that is zoned for multi-family dwellings to accommodate a parking lot would not comply with the State's mandate. Also, the Mayor and Council President both stated publicly the City of Bremerton should be prepared to absorb 24,000 additional people within the next 20 years. Mr. Rice pointed out this objective would become more difficult if potential residential properties are turned into parking lots. TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 26 of 32 (2) People living on Seventh Street do view the area proposed for the parking lot (photos were provided). (3) Residents are concerned about increased traffic and decreased property values. Mr. Rice noted during the seven years he has resided in that neighborhood he has seen decreasing property values the first five years and the last two have shown an increase. He believes the reason for this increase is due to a strong and contiguous neighborhood. (4) The residential area is a "fragile" neighborhood and does not have a City park anywhere nearby, with the exception of one public school. (5) Concerned that proposed parking lot will lead to erosion of the boundary of the residential neighborhood. (6) On the issue of adequate parking to make a business viable...Olympic Plaza was obviously over built and constructed at a time when there was no parking requirements. Tenants having to seek additional parking is not a concern of the residents. (7) Residents are concerned that a parking lot deemed as accessory to the building would be utilized as a commercial lot. Mr. Rice stated the Planning Commission's deadlock on both issues was because there was exhibited object of principal by three of the Planning Commissioner members. We are not talking about just a microscope on this little section of Bremerton, but Bremerton as a whole and what happens to strong residential neighborhoods, fragile around the edges, when these individual decisions are being made. As documented along the commercial corridor of 6th Street in real life, that shows it does not work. He was proud of that matter of principal and felt it was that principal that the neighbors are most concerned about - that Bremerton's residential districts be maintained. Mr. Rice and his neighbors do not wish to see any encroachment of commercial parking in their residential zone. Beverly Short, 2334 Seventh Street, stated her objection to the proposal. She lives on a corner lot and has worked hard to beautify her property as have other on that block. She believes if a parking lot was allowed at the end of 7th Street it would make it more difficult to maintain their neighborhood and provide a safe place for their children ( 8 children in one block area). TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 27 of 32 Mr. Christofferson emphasized the owners of Olympic Plaza would not allow a tavern use in the building and there is no "paid" parking in the back of the building and such parking is for building tenants only. The property owners personally cut down the brush, moved lawns and weeded the vacant lots and at that time decided to grade and gravel the area rather than use pesticides to keep the weeds down. In reference to property values, it is their hope that such values will be going up and by cleaning up their area and improving the building facade, they feel they have contributed to the betterment of the neighborhood. Gil Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, read letters of support from the following individuals: Eric W. Hunter, Accord Mortgage Services, Inc., 2502 6th Street; ten business owners and employees of the Olympic Plaza building, 2500 Sixth Street; Robert Montoney, 2332 6th Street, Montoney's Auto Electric. And, a letter from Marion Bosshart, Property Facilitator for Development Services of America, 4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98106 (denial of request for use of parking spaces at Canned Foods Store). Mr. Johnson read the following letter opposing the proposal: Rita DuBord and Janet Woolley, 2321 8th Street. Their concern had to do with impact of traffic into neighborhood . Mr. Waibel reflected on when the Zoning Ordinance was passed he did not think the LPO was ever intended to fezone one or two lots. This process was tried once before and staff was told that was not the intent of the LPO. Again, at this time, two lots are being proposed to be rezoned with an overlay. There are very few areas considered applicable for the LPO's and were residential areas that had problems with commuter and overflow parking that could develop some type of parking to elevate parking needs...not rezoning a specific lot or two. He believed the proponents and opponents have clarified the issue very well...we are on a border between a commercial area and a residential area. Border are always areas where it is difficult to make choices as to which way to go. Historically, TAPE #1030 this City never required sufficient parking for the uses that were allowed. This Council and the new Zoning Ordinance stated that is not right and we want to make sure sufficient parking is required for the uses granted. The proposed request would correct problems in an area that was allowed to develop far beyond its parking requirement. He would rather see the question be do we want to make lots 14 and 15 or lot 15 Commercial in order to allow sufficient accessory Commercial parking for Olympic Plaza, or do we want to keep it residential. He questioned if a line were drawn straight TAPE #1029 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 28 of 32 across the Commercial area that is on Montgomery Street would it be to the north of lots 14 and 157 Mr. Hough stated it appears it would line up close to the top line of the two lots. Mr. Waibel felt it would be appropriate to identify a specific Commercial area and not go beyond that point so that the residents in the neighborhood would know there would not be any further encroachment into their neighborhood. He emphasized if a LPO was used, it would allow Commercial paid parking in a residential area and would not stop the owners from using that area as "paid" parking. Mr. Hough stated there is a code requirement that someone cannot lease out or rent out any parking spaces that are part of their requirement for parking. Olympic Plaza is deficient 11 spaces and even with 10 additional spaces they would still be deficient. Mr. Waibel stated they would not have to correct that deficiency since they are grandfathered in. Mr. Houuh stated the owners want to correct the deficiency. Mr. Waibel stressed if the area is allowed to develop it as a commercial addition to the current use they are then required to have 11 additional parking spaces. But, if a parking lot is allowed through a LPO, it is not necessarily associated with the other Commercial use and they can do anything they want with it. Mr. Hough explained this request was associated with the existing commercial use, and any parking configuration would be specified as a condition for approval. Mr. Overson stated he did not believe the City could enforce unauthorized parking because it was currently going on in many areas. He agreed with Mr. Waibel about not using the LPO application on the proposed site, however, he does agree with the LPO process because it works in his neighborhood. The values behind the LPO is getting overflow of vehicles off the street, an upgrade view area and there will be a more successful business that will add to the economy. He supported giving some relief to a "fragile" business. #0265 M/S/C/U(Overson/Fitz) to approve the LPO on lots 14 and 15 as shown on Exhibit "C", and such parking would only be used as accessory parking for Olympic Plaza businesses. Mr. Collins supported Mr. Waibel's position that lots 14 and 15 should be rezoned Commercial. Even if two duplexes were built on the five lots, it would require a parking area about the size of what is being requested for accessory parking for Olympic Plaza. If a condition is added that states: "any parking would have to be associated with the Commercial property", that would be giving the citizens a much better hammer on what is going on than if a LPO is given. He stated TAPE #1039 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 29 of 32 for clarification that under the motion the parking requirement for Olympic Plaza is 11 additional parking spaces and if theorized he owned the building, he would consider putting the "front" of the building facing out onto the proposed parking area. Mr. Johnson stated he had always worked to preserve residential neighborhoods, however, to deny this request would force vehicle parking in neighborhood streets and to approve, if done correctly, could remove those vehicles. He did not support rezoning lots 14 and 15 Commercial because then a tavern use could be developed. Mr. Colvin stated in consideration of the neighborhood there should be some provisions for screening. He questioned, under the motion, if there is no provision for using that lot as a commercial lot. Ian 8ievers stated that was not part of the motion. Mr. Colvin supported tieing the parking only to the existing Commercial building as accessory parking. Mr. Overson stated "parking is parking". President Hotton stated there is a difference between long-termparking and short-term parking. There are differences in traffic patterns emerge from short-term parking versus long-term parking. A short- term lot is far more impacting to a neighborhood than long- term parking. Mrs. Fits stated this area is in her district and was an area she would like to live in some day. She also understands the needs of the businesses in Bremerton to be successful for the property values of the home owners to continue to rise. Without viable businesses, the City will not survive and property values will decrease. She felt the owners of the subject property tried to work with the neighborhood and were willing to compromise for enough spaces to accommodate the people who own the businesses in the complex. In the long- term, she felt screening of the parking lot with trees would enhance the neighborhood. She understands the concerns of the neighborhood but there also has to be concern for businesses who will make this City viable also. She supported having 10 parking spaces in lots 14 and 15. President Hotton questioned if the motion passed as stated, would the parking lot be tied only to the commercial uses within Olympic Plaza or could those parking spaces be leased out for commercial parking? Mr. Hough stated as the recommendation is worded it would be open. If Council desires to tie the parking to the commercial building, it would be easy to do, such as Condition No. i under the Planning Commissions recommendation...designating parking would only be TAPE #1039 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 30 of 32 used as accessory parking for Olympic Plaza. Mr. Overson and Mrs. Fits agreed to add that condition to the motion as stated above. Mr. Colvin questioned if lots 14 and 15 could be sold separately if the proposed motion was approved? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated it could be sold separately but the use would be tied as accessory parking to the commercial building only. He agreed with Councilman Waibel that it needed to be attached as a condition simply because requests that are applied for this way need to make it a condition because it was developed as a non-conforming use and you wouldn't lose that right by simply acquiring or owning property next to it. It could be sold and developed residentially. The question is whether the owner would be surrendering some of those non- conforming rights not to have adequate on-site parking through this application and then that owner would not be allowed to create a more intense type of use by selling off the parking. Mr. Colvin stated he believed current parking for Olympic Plaza was adequate at the time it was built, therefore, it is adequate today. Mr. Waibel emphasized the motion as worded would not force the property owners to conformto current code standards. President Hotton pointed out because of the LPO, if the building portion was sold separate from the parking lot, the parking lot would only be allowed to be used as parking for that building. Mr. Collins stated the parking lot could be sold separately and that would leave a non-conforming building. Mrs. Sievers stated that is the present situation and if approved the condition on lots 14 and 15 would be that it be used as accessory parking for the commercial building. Mr. Waibel stated this is a compromise proposal that will accomplish everything Council was asking for. He will support the motion with the additional condition but he still felt this was an improve use of the LPO and was really correcting the commercial under-parking condition on this lot permanently. He hoped Council would look at more permanent solutions for parking concerns in the future. Vote on motion: unanimous. 6C - AMENDMENT TO THE LABOR AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTONAND TEAMSTERS' LOCAL 589, #AB92-141 A new classification titled Legal Technician III has been added to the classification plan through the Personnel Department. The City and Union have met and agreed upon the wage grade placement for this position as set forth in the Amendment. TAPE #1039 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 31 of 32 Ian 8ievers, City Attorney, stated Council had previously approved an organizational change in the Municipal Court approving this position. The Personnel Director and Union bargained that the duties included under this job title deserve a Wage Grade-9 and Council is requested to approve the amendment to the Teamsters Bargaining Unit to include that position and Wage Grade. Public comment - None. #0815 M/S/C(Collins/Colvin) amend the Labor Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Teamsters Local 589 to add a new classification to the wage grades contained in Appendix A as set forth in the Amendment to the Agreement. Vote on motion: In Favor: Overson, Neville, Fitz, Horton, Collins, Colvin Abstain: Waibel, Johnson 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ADOPTING RCW 46.61.517, #AB92- 142. RCW 46.61,517 addresses an evidentiary issue, whereby the legislature has permitted a person's refusal to submit to a breath or blood alcohol test to be used as evidence in a subsequent DrivingWhile Intoxicated trial. The Model Traffic Ordinance, which is adopted by the City pursuant to BMC 10.04.01, does not adopt RCW 46.61,517, therefore preventing the City from using a person's refusal as substantive evidence in a DWI trial, thus hindering effective prosecution. The proposed ordinance specifically adopts RCW 46.61,517 as part of the City's traffic ordinance. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the City wants to have every advantage it can get in DWI trials. The real reason this is coming before Council at this time, is the City received notice from Municipal Research that some litigation in the courts were challenging positive breathalyzer results because the warning that tells the person that this could be used against him in a trial, which the City's officers give, the whole warning may have been defective if in fact that information cannot be used in a trial thereby throwing out the test results. There is already one defense motion in Court and the City prevailed on that motion but did not want to see any more or have that one taken up on appeal. The State adopted this admissability procedural rule but did not include it in the State Model Traffic Ordinance, which would have automatically placed it in the B.M.C., so it must be adopted separately. #0907 TAPE #1039 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 32 of 32 Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, first reading, adopting BMC 10.04,032which allows the fact of a person's refusal to submit to an alcohol test as evidence in a subsequent DWI trial and adopting a new section to Chapter 10.04 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. LY~~HO ~' ~ RTON, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault