HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/91TAPE #892
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27 1991
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers,
239 4TH Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, February 27
1991, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton
presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Wayne Estes,
Spencer Horning, 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 Councilman A1
Colvin.
#0020
#0036
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes Of Meeting - February 13, 1991, #AB91-040
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins) to approve Consent Agenda as
presented.
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/Dawkins) on February 27, 1991, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: 124995 through 124997, 125012 and 125163
through 125342 in the total amount of $668,575.31.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Louis Mentor read a Proclamation acknowledging the
existence of the Bremerton Community Concerts for 50 years and
their dedication to promotion and betterment of the cultural
development of this community. Mayor Mentor congratulated
Bremerton Community Concerns for its golden anniversary and
urged the citizens of Bremerton to attend and enjoy the
concerts throughout the season. Nitajean Bieger accepted the
Proclamation and stated Bremerton Community Concerts is one of
the most important cultural organizations in the area,
bringing many artist and attractions to Bremerton during their
50 years as an organization. She encouraged everyone to take
advantage of this wonderful cultural opportunity.
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 2 of 29
Mayor Louis= Mentor read a Proclamation acknowledging the
contributions made by African American Women in the United
States and world wide, playing a vital role towards the common
goal of equality for all. Mayor Mentor proclaimed March 2,
1991, as AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN'S DAY in the City of
Bremerton. Carol Morrison, President of the Student
Association for Black Awareness of Olympic College, accepted
the Proclamation and stressed that she had seen great strides
in the improvement of relations between people of different
races, religions, cultural and nationalities.
Mayor Louis Mentor read a Proclamation recognizing the
contributions of American women of every race, class and
ethnic background; and their unique role throughout history of
the Nation of providing the majority of the volunteer labor
force, charitable, philanthropic and cultural institutions.
Mayor Mentor proclaimed the month of March 1991 as WOMEN'S
HISTORY MONTH. Dorothy Bristo, Program Manager for the Office
Of Women's Program at Olympic College, stated it was her honor
to accept the Proclamation and to have the support and
encouragement from the community in the College's efforts
recognizing the significant contributions that have been made
by women in the past, in the public and private spheres; and
to support their continued role as history makers in the
present.
Janins DoughertV, Navy wife whose husband is stationed on the
USS Sacramento, thanked the citizens of Bremerton for their
support not only for the military members aboard the USS
Sacramento but all military serving in Desert Shield. She
expressed how much the families of the servicemen and
servicewomen appreciated the visible showing of that support
through the "yellow ribbon" display and flying of theAmerican
flag. She requested that the community continue that support
and to display words reflecting "job well done" as a welcome
upon return of the USS Sacramento. Mrs. Dougherty announced
their support group was selling ribbon and lapel pins as a
fund raising project to finance a large "welcome home" for the
USS Sacramento when it returned from the Persian Gulf. And,
she would be available after the Council meeting if anyone
wished to purchase any of the ribbons and lapel pins. Mr.
Johnson suggested if anyone listening to this presentation
wished to donate reader boards or volunteer to assist in this
welcome, they may call the City Council office 478-5280.
Mayor Mentor presented the City Council with a framed poster,
given by the PSNS Centennial Committee, in appreciation of
their purchasing a Centennial plaque to be placed in the PSNS
Centennial Plaza. President Hotton accepted the poster.
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 3 of 29
Jacquie Svidran, Bremerton Community Theater, announced a
group from this organization would be participating in a
cultural exchange with a theater group in England. The
Bremerton group will perform the play "YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH
YOU" on April 4, 5 and 6 in England and are seeking financial
assistance from the general public to help transport the
theater group from Bremerton to SeaTac Airport. Anyone
wishing to donate funds may call her at 697-2582.
Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, stated he was pleased with
Council's decision to allow the Fire Department to transport
advanced life support patients (ALS). And, he expressed
concerned and confusion over Council members using the phrase
"I can't support that" prior to their actually voting on an
issue. It was not clear if that statement meant they would
not support the vote when called or whether they did not
support the issue. It was his feeling if the majority of the
Council voted to approve an issue, then it became an issue for
the City and should receive full support.
8A - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TO ACCEPT COMMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING REOUEST
FOR A REZONE OF A 20-ACRE PARCEL FROM 8F-3 TO MF, APPLICANT:
REDICORP, #AB91-032
American Redicorp, Inc., requested the rezone of a 20 acre
undeveloped parcel at the southwest corner of the intersection
of Almira Drive and Riddell Road from its present designation
of "Single-family (SF-3)" to "Multi-family (MF)".
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January
15, 1991, at which time it considered 25 letters in
opposition, a petition bearing 223 names in opposition, and
testimony in both support and opposition, as well as the staff
report and presentations by the applicant and Planning staff.
The Commission has forwarded its recommendation to the City
Council for consideration. A public hearing before the City
Council is required prior to a final decision on a rezone
request.
President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated the rezone request
involved an undeveloped parcel approximately 20 acres in area.
He provided view graphs showing existing developments around
the property, such as the Bremerton Shopping Center (Payless
Drug, Albertsons, J.K.Gill), small retail businesses on the
north side of Riddell Road, some warehouses and the new Fred
Meyer complex. He noted he was in receipt of a couple
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 4 of 29
applications for expansion of the shopping center. Kitsap
County is also processing a proposal for approximately 122
additional multiple family units, which would bring some
changes to Riddell Road. To the South the only residential
area that directly abuts the subject site is a row of houses
along Hollis Street and they back up to the area and share a
property line. On the east side of Almira Drive there are
primarily single family residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Hough provided a map showing the Comprehensive Plan (as it
is today) and noted the subject property is designated "medium
density", actually "Residential, 7-15 units per acre". During
the Planning Commission hearing, there was extensive
discussion of the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan
and zoning. The Comprehensive Plan has three basic categories
of density: low, medium and high, but the numbers do not line
up with the new Zoning Ordinance. There are three basic
levels of zoning as well, but the zoning categories go up to
as high as 44 units per acre, however, the Comprehensive Plan
stops at 30.
East of the shopping area is zoned Single Family (SF-3) and
most of it is developed as residential, except for the subject
site. All along Wheaton Way is developed Commercial and
General Business to the south of Hollis and down to Wheaton.
Way. To the north of Riddell Road the property is zoned
Commercial on all four corners of this intersection.
Mr. Hough provided a chart showing the three major streets
that serve the area: Almira Drive, Riddell Road and Hollis
Street. Almira Drive and Hollis are considered collector
streets with Riddell Road being a minor arterial. All of
these streets have a 60 ft. right-of-way. Along Almira Drive,
the best section is between Sylvan Way and Riddell Rd. South
of Hollis Street, Almira Drive narrows and does not have curbs
and gutters. Mr. Hough noted the best section of Almira Drive
fronts on the subject property with a width of 36 feet and
includes curbs and gutters along both sides, however, there
are no sidewalks. Traffic counts along these streets were
discussed extensively during the Planning Commission hearing.
The Engineering Department was requested to do a current four
day count (Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday) and came up with
a traffic count of about 50 vehicles average daily traffic
more than the 1984 count. The residents in the area found it
hard to believe this new traffic data as all types of traffic
had increased considerably due to its being used as a by-pass
as well as a race track. Therefore, there are some traffic
related problems that do not have to do directly with the
amount of traffic. Mr. Hough noted the traffic counts were
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 5 of 29
much lower than what the streets can actually handle.
The subject property fronts directly on a collector street and
secondary arterial, thereby being a good location as it
relates to traffic flow.
Mr. Hough pointed out the Criteria section of the staff
report, noting it did contain explanation as to how staff and
the Planning Commission interpreted it.
The public need for the rezone was not felt directly by the
existing neighborhood residents. It was pointed out that the
need for the rezone was to serve people who had not yet come
to this area, who were looking for housing but could not
afford single family housing. Mr. Hough provided slides
showing the surrounding area, accessing streets to the subject
property, debris along the roadside of the subject property,
existing trails being used by residents and children, and
evidence of transients being on the subject property. He
pointed out most of the homes in the subject area were faced
toward the side streets and not fronting on Almira Dr. Quite
a few of the homes already had buffering, i.e., trees,
landscaping and solid wood fences along the Almira side.
During the Planning Commission's public hearing, the
neighborhood presented a petition containing 223 names in
opposition and 25 letters opposing the proposal. The
objections fall in the following areas:
(1) too much additional traffic for local streets;
(2) development would cause additional noise in neighborhood;
(3) possible transient population with no commitment to the
neighborhood;
(4) possible increase in crime;
(5) adversely affect property values;
(6) no room in schools;
(7) it will remove a greenbelt;
(8) adversely affect the views;
(9) project would not be compatible with the neighborhood
character.
Positive comments made in favor of the proposal were:
(1) multiple family was more compatible with commercial
neighbor to the west;
(2) multiple family allows greater design flexibility on the
site and orientation to buildings and green space/belts,
setbacks, parking areas, etc.;
(3) zoning requires 15% open space for a multi-family
development;
(4) multi-family makes more efficient use of utilities;
(5) Almira Drive is an under utilized collector street and it
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 6 of 29
can handle additional capacity;
(6) very convenient to shopping, employment, transit;
(7) definite need for multiple family housing in suitable
locations, particularly in urban areas;
(8) need for affordable housing opportunities;
(9) eliminates problems and hazards on the site.
The Planning Commissions held its public hearing on January
15, 1991, and the Planning Commission felt this was a good
location for multiple family, but they also felt the density
allowed in a MF zone (up to 22 units per acre) was excessive
for the neighborhood. Their recommendation was to approve the
rezone to Multiple Family (MF) but put a limit on the density
of 15 units per acre.
Mike Hancock, President of American Redicorp, stated he wanted
to set the record straight as to information in a recent news
article in The Sun... he represents Hoff Pacific Corporation
of Kirkland, who have contracted to purchase the property from
the current owners, Merit Corporation and Michael Tucci. He
noted a comment was made during the Planning Commission
hearing, by one of the neighbors, reflecting his displeasure
that he, Mike Hancock was not a resident of Kitsap County.
Mr. Hancock's response at that time was that there were few
developers in Kitsap County who had the financial capability
of building a project of this size. Be believed that 80-95%
of all the apartment complexes built in Kitsap County within
the past 10 years were constructed by out-of-town developers.
Mr. Hancock quoted several passages from the Comprehensive
Plan that he, as a developer, reads into that plan and are
important and applies to this application. First of all,
under the Vision For Bremerton, it indicates "we will have
economic diversity. Public and private actions are needed to
improve the liveability of the community. Population
stability - actions need to be taken to promote increased
economic self-sufficiency of residents and new home owners and
families who want to live in Bremerton. Liveable
neighborhoods - the City will strive to achieve private
actions to clean and beautify neighborhood living and
shopping areas". Mr. Hancock pointed out currently the
property was being used as a refuse collector and haven for
transients. And, he further quoted "the role of the City will
be to support and stimulate private economics activity in
order to expand the Bremerton tax base and thereby support an
adequate level of public services and facilities". Mr.
Hancock noted this project would carry an approximate cost,
including land, between 16-20 million dollars. At the current
tax rate per thousand dollars of assessed value, this project
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 7 of 29
would generate approximately $116-167,000 in annual real
estate tax revenues. Under Planning Assumptions, relative
issues are people and staff's assumption was that the number
of school age children would be relatively stable, meaning
this would have little impact on schools. However, this
project will bear the burden of any impact fee that would be
levied on the property through growth management law, SHB
2929. Under transportation, they assume traffic will continue
to increase, as will the cost to operate an automobile.
Transit ridership will increase gradually and with the close
proximity of this property to existing commercial services
will lessen the expected impact on roads and transit. And, it
makes more sense to increase density here than away from the
conveniences. Mr. Hancock quoted under "Housing, the
assumptions are that housing costs will continue to climb and
the size of housing units will continue to decrease, and
construction of multi-family housing will continue to
increase. There is a need for new single family construction
and that will continue to decrease". He noted the only
projection he felt was not valid at this time was the
decreasing number of new single family construction..as there
had been a continued increase County- wide in this category
and he believed it had also increased in the City. Relative
to social services the assumption is that the demand for day
care services will increase as more women enter the work
force. Mr. Hancock pointed out the current trend in multi-
family construction was to provide on site day care
facilities. He had discussed this with his clients and it
appeared it would be easy to incorporate such care into the
project. Under "government" it states that new parks, play
fields and other recreational facilities would become
necessary. He noted this project would contain many active
and passive facilities and open spaces for the benefit of its
residents, including tennis courts, basketball, indoor gym,
playground, etc. He quoted the following 'from the
Comprehensive Plan: "To remain meaningful, the Comprehensive
Plan must be updated periodically...", followed by "the plan
will never be finished rather it should continue to evolve and
change in order to reflect the concerns and values of our ever
changing community".
Mr. Hancock stated the subject proposal involves a site
containing approximately 20 acres and they are requesting a
rezone of the property from SF(3) to MF. Under the MF zone
they would be allowed to build up to 440 units on the site.
The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the rezone
but placed a lid on the density of 15 units per acre.
However, they are requesting that Council approve the request
for rezone to MF without a lid on density. A conceptual site
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 8 of 29
plan was displayed, being very adaptable for a wide range of
densities. The MF zone allows building heights up to 40 feet.
Because of the contour of the property, it would be easy to
make some of the buildings at the lower elevation taller,
thereby providing the maximum allowable density without
affecting the coverage. Basically, the footprints of the
building can remain relatively unchanged. Although this
drawing depicted one access to Riddell Road and two to Almira
Drive, further study is needed to determine if and where these
accesses will be located. As indicated in the mitigated
determination of non-significance, a full study will be done
by a licensed traffic engineer prior to approval of a final
plan. Mr. Hancock emphasized the plan he was showing at this
time was only a conceptual drawing and if the rezone was
approved, tens of thousands of dollars will be spent to
address the issue in order to develop a final plan that will
pass the scrutiny of the Planning staff.
He was prepared to present visual information, that was
presented to the Planning Commission and he could show how the
characteristics of the neighborhood had changed in the past
eight years, however, he believed Council was already aware of
such information. He believed Council was also aware of
Congressman Dicks' concern for Bremerton's ability to house
the population in the near future. He offered to display
comparison site plans depicting how the area might look if
developed at different density levels, however, he noted land
use issues had been addressed in documents provided. However,
he did want to present some information relating to economic
realities. If Council's decision included a density lid that
made this project unprofitable, it would not get built. He
noted that might make the neighborhood residents happy but
questioned if that was what was best for the City of
Bremerton. He emphasized the fact that economy thrives and
relies on businesses and enterprises making a profit. The
best profitability is the best way for the City of Bremerton
to develop and redevelop into a thriving community. He
believed that everyone who is considering investing in the
City of Bremerton would be watching to see if they will be
allowed to make a profit.
Mr. Hancock stated, in his opinion, density should be only a
function of topography, handling capability of public
facilities, design and market conditions. The developer is in
the best position to balance, along with staff, regulations
and the market to equal a good investment. And, a good
investment for anyone who wants to build in the City of
Bremerton is going use that as a basis for their decision to
build or not to build.. He noted that comment would probably
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27 1991
Page 9 of 2.~
be made that this project was more suited for the downtown
area, but at 22 units per acre this is not a downtown project.
In fact, it is less dense than projects soon to be under
construction to the north in the County, an example being
'Fairgrounds road property -approximately 20 acres and 340
units (about 18 units per acre with little over five acres of
environmentally sensitive areas needing to be set aside).
Another example is a project soon to be constructed on
McWilliams Road (298 units). He pointed out that the City
had been passed over as developers had chosen to build under
County planning rules and regulations.
The land resources of the City will last much longer by
allowing density such as this in outlying areas of the City
rather than requiring them to all locate downtown. Planning
Commissioner Ron Barrington did not want to see the subject
site developed at all until the downtown area was fully
developed. However, Mr. Hancock warned the Council of a
pitfall in considering an idea such as that as it was good in
theory but difficult in application. First of all, much has
to be done to downtown Bremerton before the kind of housing
will be developed there that is best suited for that land. To
restrict multi-family construction to downtown would only
serve to delay that result and would force prices up on the
land downtown and throw off the economic reality that a
developer has to face when he makes a decision to build
somewhere.
Mr. Hancock noted Council's decision would probably be based
on a mixture of emotion and conviction, with a sense of
responsibility to the residents in the neighborhood versus a
commitment to the rest of the taxpayers of the City that the
City of Bremerton will grow and prosper. However, the City
cannot prosper unless there is economic diversity to all
boundaries of the City. He acknowledged Council's decision
may be difficult, but he felt it was quite simple...they had
shown and supported by the staff report, that their proposal
was substantially consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that
the rezone is in the public interest,it would not result in
adverse environmental consequences, in fact, it would be the
most environmentally prudent use of the land, that there is a
need for this project and the essential public facilities and
services are available. In closing, Mr. Hancock wanted the
Council to think, as they listened to comments of the
neighbors, of the words spoken by John F. Kennedy, in 1952,
"There will always be dissident voices heard in the land
expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but
never favor and perceiving gloom on every side and seekinq
influence without responsibility". And, he emphasized there
were lots of other organizations, such as Flagship, who had
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 10 of 29
developed reports that point to housing in Bremerton; as well
as the City's Housing Bremerton Plan and he, as a developer
and consultant when reading all these reports, gets the
impression that there is a desire for Bremerton to grow and to
grow well and diversified.
Jim Robinson, President of Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce,
stated the Chamber Of Commerce was neutral on this issue.
However, the Chamber is allied with all other chambers in
Kitsap County and actively involved with growth management
strategies. They support informed communications between
communities, constituents and decision makers and the overall
goal is to influence planning, assist with planning and to
educate the affected parties so that in the long term the
community continues to offer those qualities that achieved the
designation of "most liveable". Increasing population in
Bremerton is certain and will be significant. The actual
numbers may vary, however, the key to the future will be how
well we plan and manage the growth in the City. He noted
Vision 2020 designates Bremerton as the "Metropolitan Center"
of the County -that means the population center, center for
employment, education, health care, etc. Kitsap County is
firmly on record that future growth will not be allowed to
spread but will be directed to closer proximity of areas with
existing infrastructure. The Chamber encourages the City to
take as much of the growth as can be accommodated. He
strongly supported putting the energy into devising
development standards and creative amenities that soften
impacts, preserve life, preserve view corridors, making this
type of housing not only compatible with neighbors but
attractive, and true people places.
Richard Hayes, Executive Director Kitsap Transit, stated he
supported the proposal as presented. He noted the following
positive aspects of the project relating to transit needs:
established amenities for bus riders, opportunity to make
trips as pedestrians, area well served by bus service;
opportunity for growing portion of the community.
Ray White, speaking for Kitsap County Economic Development
Council (over 120 members), stated this proposal was a step
forward in solving one of the biggest problems in the
city...additional housing will have to be provided. He
suggested if 300-400 units of housing were built, it would not
bring one additional person to the City or County. This City
needs to upgrade existing housing. This project wouldimprove
housing needs in Bremerton, enhance use of already established
infrastructure and encourage shopping at those businesses
located along bus routes. Mr. White stressed change was
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 11 of 2~
inevitable and did not support the concept "don't do it in my
back yard".
Clint Shinkle, Bremerton businessman, gave a lengthy
discussion on population needs, income levels and who would be
attracted to this type of housing. He stressed the fact that
existing populations, including seniors graduating from High
School, young couples, senior citizens, families in the low
to mid income levels, etc., would be looking to this type of
facility. And, he outlined the many positive things happening
within the City that will enhance the liveability within the
community and act as an attractant for future citizens. He
stressed that currently hundreds of people were involved
making things happen - doing for Bremerton what should have
been done 30-40 years ago. He urged the Council to support
this proposal as presented.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the
proposal:David Mitchell, 1513 Nome Drive (who also read a
letter into the record from Rick Wilson, resident adjacent to
the subject property); Carolyn Mercer, 1308 Hollis Street;
Thomas Buehler, 1506 Vue Ct., and speaking on behalf of the
Viewcrest Neighborhood Association; De1 Knauss, 139 Olympic
Avenue and speaking on behalf of BACON; John Cannadv, 4413
Petersville Rd.; Cecil McConnell, 3245 Almira Drive and past
President of Viewridge Neighborhood Association; Steve Mandak,
1810 Rustic Drive; Bernie Startton, 4460 Almira Drive; Ronald
Sinoga, 2830 Alder Street. Following are comments made by the
above speakers:
1. Planning Office and Planning Commission did marginal job
of representation of the area.
2. At the Planning Commission's public hearing over 125
people opposed the proposal with one person in favor.
3. During the Planning Commission's hearing, the rules for
citizen input were changed...asking that the citizen group be
held to 1-2 speakers and for a period not to exceed 10 minutes
when applicant and Planning staff were given all the time they
wanted.
4. Planning officer painted picture of Almira Drive as a
nice, wide, straight street...what was not shown was the area
between Sylvan and Hollis where the street narrows to 20-22
feet in width.
5. Engineering Department put traffic counters on corner of
Almira Drive and Riddell Road on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and
Monday, which did not provide good picture of traffic in the
TAPE #893
TAPE #892
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 12 of ~'
area.
6. Planning office stated there were no sidewalks along
Almira Drive, which was incorrect (pictures were passed out
showing another story).
7. In reference to developers' stance that "rezone need was
necessary because immediate area had changed so much that the
rezone would be in the best interest of the public"...just
because the County made a change to neighboring properties
did not warrant the change in zoning.
8. Increase in noise levels.
9. Major impact on local schools.
10. Major change to the neighborhood life style.
11. Project does not fit in with neighborhood.
12. Increase in crime.
13. Drainage runoff problems.
14. Will lower property values.
15. Attitude of Planning Commissions was to roll over to big
money, not caring about neighborhood.
16. Question - why asking for a rezone to sell property
rather than develop it?
17. Question - what makes it so undesirable to have a home
abut a commercial area but is ok for a multi-family project?
18. This request is only about money, not housing for the
City.
19. Pictures were provided showing other valid residential
areas bordering commercial areas.
20. Put duplexes or small homes on property.
21. Subject property possesses no specific quality for high
density apartments.
22. Roads inadequate for population increase.
23. School children must walk to schools...undeveloped road
TAPE #893
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 13 of 291
shoulders used by the children would become a dangerous
situation with increased traffic.
24. Subject property not near a major work center, such as
PSNS or Olympic College.
25. Let population growth be built on a smaller scale and
disperse throughout the City.
26. If approved, it will send a signal this Council only cares
for big business and unrestrained growth.
27. Growth projections not based on new or increased industry
employment.
28. Area will be saturated with high density projects as
Kitsap County has approved several projects within a short
distance from subject property.
29. Residents do not know what type of project will be built.
30. Planning effort should be going into downtown to improve
services and activities for tourist.
31. Neighborhood residents not opposed to development of
single family homes, just large complexes that do not blend
in.
32. Project will impact water and sewer services.
33. There will be increased demands on Fire and Police
Departments.
34. Planning Department not following Comprehensive Plan.
35. Place burden of proof on applicant to 'show the public
that the proposed project would be in the best interest of the
surrounding property owners..
36. An EIS Statement should be required prior to voting on a
rezone.
37. Impact on air quality due to increased traffic.
38. Population increases and decreases revolve around movement
of military personnel.
49. Area is being targeted for growth greater than can be
accommodated.
TAPE #893
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 14 of 29
40. Residents and public's need will have been ignored.
41. If approved, developers willdictate where projects will
be located.
42. Speakers in favor of proposal live in County.
43. Breaking of Zoning Ordinance covenant (protecting
neighborhoods) between the City of Bremerton and residents.
44. Was raised in the area and when looking to purchase home
desired that same quality of life he had experienced growing
up and would not have purchase his home if a large complex had
been developed there.
45. People moving in from out-of-state probably coming from
high density areas and are looking for lower density living
accommodations.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read a letter (including the
passing of photographs to Council members) into the record
from E.L. Sturdivant, 3231 Halverson, expressing his
opposition to the subject proposal. Mr. Sturdivant's concerns
were listed in above items.
Mr. Hancock expressed concern that he had been painted as a
"bad guy"and not committed to this area, however, he felt his
past record could stand for itself. He noted he was a member
of the Kitsap Futures Board involved in long-range planning
for all of Kitsap County, is currently and has been for the
past three years the Director of the Central Kitsap Public
Facilities Board, doing long range planning for public
facilities and growth in that area. He was a participant in
the Growth Management Symposium, particularly on the Open
Space/Preservation Committee, dealing with HB 2929 and long-
range growth planning for Kitsap County and all the
municipalities within it. He is very sincere in his concern
for wanting to make sure that not only Kitsap County but all
the urban areas within the County grow in a manner which
preserves the quality of life that brought us all here.
The question was raised "why a rezone"? The neighbors have
enjoyed the fact that this property was undeveloped for a long
time, but the property owner does have the right use it for
its highest and best use. Apartment building or multi-family
construction is considered, throughout the nation and Kitsap
County, to be a good transitional use between high intensity
commercial/retail business and single family residential
TAPE #893
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 15 of ~
development. He did not know of any other site in the City
that fits both of those criteria than the subject site. The
neighbors have spoken how such a project would affect the
neighborhood and change the liveability of that neighborhood,
but all they refer to is the neighborhood east of Almira Drive
and there is another neighborhood to consider and that is the
commercial area to the west of the site. The project will
change the character of that neighborhood as well.
The economic conditions are just right and the vacancy rates
in Kitsap County and City of Bremerton certainly dictate that
there is a need for this type of housing. He pointed out all
the builders who built the neighborhood houses would not have
built them if the need did not exist or was not economically
feasible. Everyone in the United States relies on a return on
investment in order for them to maintain their livelihood,
even people who live and work in government.
The question was asked "what will the buildings look like?".
Mr. Hancock stated they have spoken with some of the neighbors
and some of them to the south have expressed concern that on
this site plan the buildings would be too close to their
property and would cause an intrusion on them. He pointed out
during discussions with the neighborhood and Planning
Commission, what he is showing at this time is only a
conceptual drawing. The dollars have not been expended on a
plan that would be submitted for construction. Many of the
concerns can be dealt with prior to the actual design of the
project. Another question raised was "how big will it be?".
He noted he had tried to be very careful in all of his
presentations not to mislead anyone and had always proposed
this project would be built at the maximum density allowed
under the zoning that they were requesting. He stated density
is a function of topography, of carrying capacity of utilities
and the market. He pointed out the Ridgetop area in
Silverdale was a good example of how those projects are
developed.
In response to the concern of capacity of utilities, he had
not arbitrarily come out with a statement that the utilities
in the immediate vicinity have the ability to handle this
project. That information was provided by the City Planners
and Utility operators. This does not mean that some kind of
upgrading may need to be done to service the project.
DelKnauss, President of BACON, stated everything shown on the
developers map did not have anything to do with the request
for rezone. The Council's decision should be simple...that
being leave it zoned as it is, single family, which is the
TAPE #893
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 16 of 29~
reason why people purchased homes in that area. He urged the
Council to vote to retain the area as it is currently zoned.
Mr. Overson stated the City was losing housing all over the
City and he currently lives in an area that was zoned for 15
units or more and felt it provided a good lifestyle. He
stressed as Bremerton grows there will be change.
Mr. Estes questioned if 440 units were built, would it be
responsible for about 600 vehicles per day to those
residences? Mr. Hancock stated that sounded close to what was
in the report and the study that was made on this issue was
based on national statistics for vehicle trips generated by
multi-family construction. At the time of final construction
proposal was brought forth, the impact study would cite
specific numbers of car trips per day that would be generated
from the project. Mr. Estes noted this project would impact
Almira Drive, Hollis and Riddell Road and questioned if any
provision was included to handle foot traffic, i.e., adequate
sidewalk facilities, etc.? Mr. Hancock stated he did have
discussions with the Planning staff and they indicated they
felt if the project went forward that sidewalks would be a
requirement in order to mitigate the impact to traffic. They
are also working with the owners of the commercial center to
the west to come up with some joint pedestrian use to move
people through the project and into the commercial area
without sending them out on the surrounding streets. Mr.
Estes stressed he was concerned with two things, liveability
and quality of life. He questioned how would this improve the
liveability and quality of life for the entire neighborhood?
Mr. Hancock stated the liveability, quality of life and need
for housing would not affect only the people already living in
the City, but would also affect those moving into the
community. The quality of life that would be available to new
residents in this location, if a high quality job was done,
would be obvious. Any time there is new development there is
an impact on the surrounding area. One could look at
different areas around Kitsap County where multi-family
development had taken place adjacent to a single family
development and, in fact was planned that way and there is
little negative impact on liveability of existing
neighborhoods. Mr. Hancock acknowledge there were examples of
both good and bad developments.
Mr. Collins questioned if there had been the same amount of
land downtown that was owned by a single owner and the subject
property had been owned by 20 people, which piece of property
would he be requesting a rezone? Mr. Hancock stated downtown
is already zoned at a higher density, double what was being
TAPE #893
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 17 of 29
requested of the subject site, so to try and make that
comparison would be difficult. If the land downtown was
available at a cost per unit comparable with what this
property might be available for, it would be hard to tell
which area would be selected. Mr. Collins felt the developer
would buy the property downtown because they would be dealing
with a single owner and not trying to aggregate the property.
Therefore, that was one of the reasons he felt the subject
site had been selected to develop. And, he questioned if Mr.
Hancock would pay for road rebuilding plus sidewalk and
gutters on Almira Drive and Riddell Road where they abut the
subject site? And, he noted Almira Drive was 21 feet wide and
questioned if the developer would build to specifications?
Mr. Hough stated the section in front of the subject site was
38 feet wide from curb- to- curb and the section further south
toward Sylvan Way was the part that did not have curbs and
gutters, as well as being 21 feet wide. Mr. Collins
questioned what the anticipated rents would be for the subject
development? Mr. Hartcook stated the market would determine
what the rental value of the property would be. He could give
a wide range that could cover everything that is available in
new multi-family construction in Kitsap County .... about
$375.00 for one bedroom units to $850.00 per month for 3-bed
room units. Also, rents depend on other amenities that are
included in such projects. Mr. Collins pointed out previous
speakers had shared that there was a need for housing for
people in the $20,000 per year income range and questioned if
these people would be able to afford this housing? Mr.
Hancock stated he could not say this entire project would
serve the needs of that income group, but as multi-family
projects are built and developed they are designed to fit a
range of income needs. Mr. Collins referenced a letter to Mr.
Hancock, dated September 27, 1990, from Mr. Pratt, that
indicated Planning's review of the Check List had been
completed and they had identified a potential significant
adverse environmental impact in the ingress and egress, which
was proposed for Riddell Road. Although the Check List covers
a rezone action, which typically does not include
identification of ingress and egress, he felt that additional
clarifying information or changed project design would
eliminate a significant adverse environmental impact. Mr.
Collins pointed out the plan showed two entrances and exits,
one on Almira and one on Riddell Road and questioned if the
developer had made any changes or done anything to mitigate
the impact? Mr. Hancock pointed out the conceptual plan was
not their proposal...these accesses may or may not exist.
Further study is needed and a full traffic impact report must
be generated by a licensed traffic engineer so that they can
determine, before presenting a plan for construction, that all
TAPE #893
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 18 of 2~
those concerns were addressed. At that time, Mr. Pratt will
review that report and the new proposal, and they would work
together to place the accesses where they should be. Mr.
Collins stated he was basing his decision on the information
being provided at this time and may not have the opportunity
to rule on the final development plan. Mr. Hancock stated
recently the City Council enacted a regulation that allowed
multi-family construction to be built, approved and developed
through working with the Planning staff alone. However, now
he is hearing something to the effect that Council may not
have faith in staff's ability to do a good job on something
that was only recently empowered them to do. Mr. Collins
noted the system will work because staff had specific
guidelines on what they must enforce. In good conscience, he
did not know if he could reduce or approve a MF zone if other
problems still existed. However, if he had information that
these items had been mitigated, he would feel more comfortable
making a decision. Mr. Hancock stated if City staff is
charged with the responsibility to take care of those
expressed concerns and they can't be done, then the proposal
should not be approved.
President Horton stated one of the biggest concerns seems to
be that once it was rezoned the design and essential elements
of the project would be totally in the hands of the developer
and Planning staff. She questioned if it would be possible
for Council to place a condition requesting some sort of
Planned Unit Development (PUD) review, bringing in the
neighborhood in that process, and a design review at that
time? In this way, the neighbors would at least feel they
were protected and concerns raised would be answered in a
forum that would be conducive to public input. Mr. Pratt
stated yes, it was possible. However, the developer does not
have his way if Council approves the rezone. Recent Council
action removed the necessity for a PUD on a project such as
this. A site plan review would be required and there is a
review by the Engineer for traffic aspects. And, if impact
fees are adopted, before the building permit was written,
there would be fees assessed to the project. The open space
and landscaping plan must be reviewed administratively by the
Planning Department. Therefore, there are different layers of
oversight that can include conditions stipulated by the
Council. One of those conditions could be the request that
the site plan be brought back to the City Council for review
and approval. However, Mr. Pratt stated he did not prefer
that particular condition; or Council could require a PUD be
brought forward before the project was developed. President
Hortonquestioned if design elements could be incorporated at
the time of a PUD? Mr. Pratt stated a PUD must layout in a
TAPE #893
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 19 of 29
preliminary concept generally what will happen and where the
transportation and other conditions will be resolved. If
there were issues identified at a public meeting, they must be
addressed in more detail than other issues. The intent was to
not force the developer into a complete expenditure of fees
for design effort, but to design remedies for certain issues
that were addressed in neighborhood plans. That preliminary
plan would be brought before the Planning Commission and
Council for approval. President Hotton stated due to the
delicacy of trying to balance out the higher density issue
with the single family neighborhood issues, density had to
match design, and without that she felt the neighborhood
residents were at jeopardy. She was not convinced that simply
leaving the site zoned single family- low density would not be
a poor design and not serve the area any better than anything
else.
Mr. Pratt explained one other opportunity that provided public
review if Council would approve rezone only with no other
requirements. An State Environmental Policy Act process (SEPA)
had not been completed, however, they did identify three
specific issues that must be addressed prior to issuance of a
Building Permit. Depending on what kind of information they
received on those three issues, further environmental
information in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) or project redesign may be necessary before the Building
Permit could be issued. After a decision was made by the
responsible official on whether or not to require more
information or project design, that decision is publicly
noticed and can be appealed by the public for a public
hearing. The three items identified are: storm runoff and
assessment of existing utilities, transportation and traffic,
and parks and schools. All three of these items must be
addressed in more environmental documentation and then must be
found to .be either non-significant or significant before
issuing a Building Permit.
Mr. Johnson explained not only did Council have the
Comprehensive Plan as a guide in rezones but now had to deal
with Growth Management Act SHB2929, that did influence
planning for growth in the City. It was his understanding
that SHB2929 was adopted because the people in the Puget Sound
area did not want this area to turn into something like Los
Angeles sprawl. In order to avoid that happening in this
area, there would be designated metropolitan areas which would
raise density utilizing the latest urban design techniques
making the most liveability environment. By doing this, the
intent was to stop or reduce sprawl in the County area by
increasing densities in City areas. This has not been the
TAPE #893
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 20 of 2~
case in Kitsap County as they have allowed "sprawl" to
continue. If the City Council follows SHB2929 guidelines they
are charged with figuring out ways for projects such as this
to happen. Given the SHB2929 guidelines that if a quality
project comes along and it meets urban design standards
(including proper parks, open space, buffering, playgrounds,
sidewalks, good trash collection and recycling facilities,
safe and proper traffic flow, etc.), then he could support
such a proposal. However, he was not comfortable with the
amount of information as to design and mitigation of other
concerns identified with this project. At this point, he
would not support higher density than 15-units per acre for
this project. To consider a high density project he would
require site plan approval or a PUD process. He questioned
when would the developer take title to the property and when
would the project be completed? Mr. Hanoook stated the way
the transaction was structured the title to the property would
be transferred within 60-90 days of approval of the rezone, if
approved. The completion date of the project would be the
function of when it would be started. It was recognized there
is more work to complete, such as site study, before starting
such a project. Mr. Johnson noted his concern that he had
approved a number of projects that never materialized and he
felt strongly about getting a commitment for a start/complete
date for this project. Mr. Hancock stated the people
proposing to develop this project were anxious to get started
as soon as possible, i.e., meeting all requirements to obtain
a Building Permit. Unfortunately, financing for a project of
this size takes time and giving a specific time table of
construction would be difficult at this time. Mr. Johnson
questioned what assurance did the Council have that the
amenities, such as the gymnasium, would not be less than
desired? Mr. Hanoook stated he supposed Council could go to
the extent of making something like that a condition of the
approval, although he had never seen design to that degree be
a condition of approval. Requirements are set out so that the
developer can develop the minimum of those requirements and if
they were not adequate, then maybe Council should consider a
change to increase. the level of requirement. If Council
desires to change the Zoning Ordinance to require larger
buffers, then that action should take place. However, if
there is a Zoning Ordinance that requires minimums, then when
those minimums are met they should be accepted. Mr. Johnson
stated he believed this project would change the character of
the neighborhood and also understood the need for additional
housing in the area.
Mr. Waibel questioned the validity of the statement in the
Staff Report that states "Riddell Road is in fair condition".
TAPE #894
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 21 of 2~
From his personal experience driving that route each day, he
was not of the same opinion. He expressed concern for the
residents in that area needing some assurance that the roads
affected would be upgraded, sidewalks would be installed,
transit and school bus pull outs would be provided, if the
rezone was approved. Mr. Hough stated they were still in the
SEPA process and this concern was one of the three items that
still needed to be addressed with further study documentation.
He noted that details within the Staff Report on street
conditions was provided by the Engineering Department. Effort
is also being made to work with the County on upgrading
Riddell Road as a part of their new construction projects in
that same area, as well as a portion of Almira Drive. Mr.
Waibel questioned how could the City get the project off the
ground and still get the guarantees to the neighborhood that
they will have a very good development in that area. He
stressed Bremerton needs more housing and must increase the
density and are in favor of good development. Mr. Hough
stressed that the City had no guarantees and did not have
design review as to quality other than what meets the minimum
requirements in the uniformBuilding Code. Mr. Waibel pointed
out SHB2929 talks about impact fees and questioned when would
TAPE #894 the City have the requirement for impact fees? Mr. Pratt
stated SHB2929 did authorize the Cities to have impact fees
after going through a public process and identifying what the
cost of current level of service is and what the cost of roads
andy degradation of that service by new development. It was
the decision of the City, other cities in Kitsap County and
Kitsap County, to employ a consultant, who would recommend an
impact fee formula. Until the City had adopted and gone
through the process adopting an impact fee formula, it would
not be legal for the City to try and extract impact fees from
a developer. Secondly, when the legislature authorized cities
to use impact fees, they specifically told cities to stop
using the SEPA Check List to extract impact fees from people.
What they are saying is "get on with cities" and do it the
right way and don't do it on a case-by-case basis by trying to
take fees from developers on the SEPA Check List. There are
a number of cities, however, that continue to do that and he
personally would not recommend such action and would advise
Council against that. However, if that schedule is in place,
and it is entirely possible to have it in place before the
Building Permit would be applied for, this developer would be
liable for any impact fees that were adopted. He would
recommend collecting impact fees at the point the Building
Permit was taken out and a payment schedule set up for
receiving such funds. Mr. Waibel stated he personally wanted
more of a guarantee and if the applicant were to agree with
some conditions rather than have them imposed, movement could
TAPE #894
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 22 of 29
be made over the transition period. Mr. Pratt stated if the
applicant willingly volunteers to participate in something
like that, it would be different than the City establishing a
criteria. There is currently a payment or revenue production
method in place to fix the roads and the City may be finding
it inadequate in the General Fund and Street Funds, but that
was why the legislature said you can't go to specialty items
because there currently is a process in place to pay for
roads. Mr. Johnson pointed out the applicant already stated
he would pay the SHB2929 impact fees in his opening statement
to Council. Mr. Waibel questioned how could the Council make
sure it was in place? Mr. Hancock stated in his opening
remarks he did say this development would pay its share of
impact fees that were in place at the time that it was
developed. Mr. Johnson noted, from his notes, that Mr. Hancock
stated that the developer would be subject to those impact
fees discussed in SHB2929. Mr. Hancock stated that was
correct, but he did say those that were in place. He was not
saying that impact fees were something that could not be dealt
with and dealt with prior to the submittal for the Building
Permit. He did not believe it was appropriate to try and
negotiate those fees at this time, but he offered to enter
into discussions with the School District to see what kind of
impact fees that they felt were necessary and see if they are
manageable. Mr. Johnson noted he had concern of impacts on
the Parks Department and Fire Department. Mr. Overson noted
that area had other ills brought on by years of neglect or
abuse and this one developer was not going to be able to do
away with allthose problems.
Mr. Horning noted Mr. Hancock's reputation did proceed him and
he was considered to be a good developer. In his opinion, one
of the biggest problems to be addressed at this time was the
roads and felt the developer could make a positive impact on
the neighborhood by improving the roads and putting in
sidewalks. He strongly suggested that the developer commit to
improving the roads and if he volunteered to do so there would
be a more favorable response from the Council. He also
understood that people do not always welcome change, however,
if the Council did not take the initiative for higher
densities, the State, through SHB2929, will step in and
dictate density limits. Mr. Hancock stated he certainly
recognized that especially Riddell Road was in dire need of
attention and he anticipated and offered that they would make
improvements to the portion of Riddell Road adjacent to the
subject property, bringing it up to standards commensurate
with current and projected traffic in that area. If that
means rewidening, resurfacing, sidewalks, etc., that would be
totally reasonable. He also anticipated that they would
probably be putting sidewalks all along Almira Drive as well.
TAPE #894
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 23 of 29
That was not suggested as a condition, but it could be one.
Those types of things are to be expected and he wanted to look
back on this project and point to it with pride.
Mr. Hornin~ suggested concluding this hearing in 2-3 weeks,
and request that something be brought back that would help
determine conditions. Mr. Pratt suggested there were other
ways to accomplish this, such as if the rezone was approved
conditioned with a PUD or some other kind of site plan review
there would be conditions built into that design that will be
brought to light. He could not condone the use of impact fees
without having gone through the legal process. Mr. Hornin~
stated he did not want to force the developer to go back
through a PUD process and extend the proposal for years. It
would not help the City's reputation in the development
community and State, action needed to be taken to get on with
the project. He did feel that a site plan review would be
acceptable to Council. Mr. Pratt stated the way to implement
that would be to approve the rezone conditioned on a site plan
review and indicating what conditions would be included in
that review and authorizing the Planning Director to approve
the site plan on the basis of those conditions. Mr. Homing
stressed the need for the issue to come back before the
Council for final approval. Mr. Pratt explained there was a
site plan process in place, a PUD Ordinance. Mr. Homing did
not feel this was fair to the developer. He pointed out the
Planning Commission recommended a density of 15 units per acre
and felt that something in that range would be acceptable, but
if it were pared down and expensive conditions placed on it,
it would probably not be built.
Mr. Colvln stated he did not believed high density was
synonymous with quality of life. He questioned if the 15
units per acre density was acceptable to the developer? Mr.
Hancook stated 15 unites per acre would not be economically
feasible and the project would probably not be built.
Mr. Dawkins discussed the merits of developing a project of
140 single family homes on the subject site, which would not
provide the amenities that a multi-family complex would
provide.
Mr. Johnson stated coming into this hearing and based on the
information provided he felt favorable to the project, but
also felt there would be some assurances to urban design
criteria. However, what he is finding is that all Council is
getting is a "trust me" and he did not feel he could support
that. President Hotton noted if Council got final site plan
review, not an administrative site plan review, then she felt
TAPE #894
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 24 of 29
this Council would be willing to approve the rezone.
Mr. Johnson stated he was not looking to rule on what color the
project would be painted but rather with roads, sidewalks,
layout of facilities, trees, etc. Mr. Hancock noted that
there had been some discussion on delays, some of them being
self-imposed and some due to uncontrollable elements; and
delays can be very costly. Before getting into the public
hearing process, they were in a period of time with the seller
where they had the time to determined if the project was
preliminarily feasible. Once the project went into the public
hearing process, the "free" time disappeared and now it costs
the developer about $30,000 per month for every month this
transaction did not close. It would be their desire to
channel those dollars toward design rather than delays.
Therefore, they are looking for approval of the rezone so they
can get on with the project. As a potential solution, rather
than suggest that the site plan review happen at the final
stage, which could cost between $150-400,000, he suggested
that the site plan review be done at the preliminary stage.
This could be done at substantially less cost and provide an
opportunity for additional input from the Council to be
incorporated into a final construction design. He would also
like to be empowered to have some input on how this project is
developed during that review process. Mr. Homing stated he
believed this Council was not prepared to approve the MF zone
unless they had site plan review and he agreed it needed to be
preliminary and if a vote was to be taken to support that
position, then the developer needed to set out what should be
brought back at the site plan review. The issues, as he saw
them, are: streets and sidewalks are a must, concerns about
transit access and turn outs, open space and setbacks. Mr.
Johnson stated he wanted to see access onto streets, play
grounds and recreation facilities on site, besides setbacks
the type of buffering, lighting and how it would be arranged,
trash facilities and how it would be structured into the
design, school children facilities (walk areas) as well as
transit. Mr. Collins stated he was concerned that the public
have the opportunity for input. Mr. Horning assured Mr.
Collins that the public would have an opportunity to give
input during the preliminary site plan review. Mr. Colvin
stated once the higher density was approved, the developer
could sell the site to the highest bidder. President Hotton
pointed out to Mr. Colvin that there would be a preliminary
site review plan approved by Council and would be held as a
public hearing. She encouraged the developer to work with the
neighborhoods and get their input as to what they would like
to see included. Mr. Collins expressed concern that Council
was authorizing the full maximum number of units per acre. He
felt Mr. Hancock could tie the City up in court for some time
TAPE #894
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 25 of 29
and felt Council needed to stipulate what density would be
allowed. Mr. Hornin~ stated it was his intent to grant the MF
zoning, granting the higher density. He felt Council should
be more concerned with the quality. Mr. Colvin questioned if
Council should ignore the Planning Commission's
recommendation? Mr. Homing stated Council comprised nine
people too. If Council wants something good to happen in the
City, then we, the Council, needs to take that control .
Mr. Pratt reviewed a list of items listed under "Conceptual
Review Plan (under the PUD Section of the Zoning Ordinance),
and questioned if the items they wished to include as
conditions was contained in that listing? Mr. Horning stated
he did not feel he was going as far as the conditions just
reviewed by Mr. Pratt. Mr. Pratt stated if Council had that
kind of design control, they controlled the density without
specifically stating a number. Mr. Homing agreed with Mr.
Pratt on that point.
#0838
M/S/C(Horning/Dawkins) to approve the MF zoning with the
following conditions: Council had a preliminary site plan
review at a public hearing and the items to be addressed
specifically, although not exclusively as other items may be
addressed, would be: transit access and turnouts, streets and
sidewalks, open space, setbacks and types of vegetation
included in those setbacks, basic lighting, concern for trash
facilities, and access onto neighboring streets.
Mr. Colvin stated he could not support the motion due to the
residents having concerns that were not addressed at this
time. President Hotton reassured Mr. Colvin that Council
could withhold approving the rezone if.those concerns are not
considered or met by the developer.
Mr. Overson voiced concerned that Council had just rewritten
the PUD process to fit immediate needs. Therefore, this
developer is being told if he satisfies Council's whims at
this point, maybe Council will grant approval...but don't rely
on the process because that process is subject to change.
This would then be the message sent out to future developers
as well. Mr. Homing emphasized if Council did not take the
initiative there would not be a development and the State
would ultimately come in and make decisions granting even
higher density requirements. Mr. Waibel noted the City was in
a transition period and steps needs to be taken to get from
the old SEPA Check List to the Impact Fee Plan and he felt
this was the way to accomplish that. President Hotton noted
Council would be looking to update the City's Comprehensive
TAPE #894
City CounciI Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 26 of 29
Plan in the near future and this would be a way to handle the
transition period.
Mr. Collins questioned if he was correct in understanding that
a PUD process would take more time, but that it was available
for a project such as this? Mr. Pratt stated yes, the process
was in place and it would demand a longer process seeking
approval.
Mr. Johnson questioned if Council reviewed the preliminary
site plan what would be needed to make that plan binding? Ian
Sievers, City Attorney, stated the more detailed building
permit would need to conformwith the preliminary plan on file
with the Building Department. Mr. Johnson noted after moving
forward through the rezone process, including the Planning
staff, Planning Commission and Council, the developer made an
ultimatum "MF zoning or nothing".
Mr. Colvin questioned if Council approved the maximum zoning
on this parcel, could they require him to not sell the
property? Mr. Sievers stated no, whatever was required,
either an MF zone or MF PUD process for secondary approval,
that would be the zoning and it goes with the land and anyone
who purchases the property would have to comply with that
zoning designation.
Vote: In Favor: Johnson, Horning, Horton, Waibel, Dawkins
Opposed: Estes, Overson, Collins, Colvin
6A - AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED AND GRANT FISCAL APPROVAL TO
COMMIT FIRE BOND MONIES TO PURCHASE OR CALL FOR BIDS, #AB91-
041
Approval by Council by motions to expend Fire Bond money on
the following projects and, if approved, to then approve an
interlocal Governmental Purchasing Agreement or authorize a
Call for Bid.
Mick McKinley, Deputy Fire Chief, identified the following
items to be purchased directly through Interlocal Governmental
Purchasing Agreements and/or bid process:
(1)(2) purchase PBI/Kevlar firefighting bunker pants and
coats through an Interlocal Governmental Purchasing Agreement
with the City of Sea-Tac;
(3) call for bid for ladders, hose and equipment;
(4) tO develop specifications and authorize the call for bids
TAPE #894
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 27 of 2~
on Fire Station #1 remodel;
(5) to purchase Opti-Com vehicle emitters and traffic
signalization equipment;
((6) Note: Action delayed on Agreement between City of
Bremerton and Kitsap Transit for use of Opti-Com in City);
(7)(8) purchase three fire engines through an Interlocal
Agreement with the City of Enumclaw;
(9) call for bids for refurbishment of ladder truck and
related equipment.
Public comment - none.
#1423
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) to approve all items enumerated and
duly recorded by the Secretary be approved, including items 1
through 9 except item #6.
6C - RISK MANAGEMENT POSITION SALARY, #AB91-043
The job description of the Risk Manager has been re-written to
more accurately reflect the job requirements. Salary ranges
or similar jobs were used to set the proposed salary of
$37,215. As described more thoroughly in the background
statement the position requirements have changed considerably
since first instituted in the early 80's.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated this item did go before
the Council Fiscal And Budget Committee and received their
favorable support to have it heard by full Council. And, when
this position was originally stated it was 1/2 time and a
claims processor function. At that time, the City had full
coverage insurance. In recent years, that position changed
dramatically and moved from a claims processor to a full Risk
Management Program, without being upgraded to reflect that
level of responsibility. The Risk Manager job description was
rewritten in 1986 during the James Study, however, the
position had continued to evolve since that time.
Mayor Louis Mentor urged the Council to support this proposal.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson reported Fiscal And Budget Committee did review
this issue and noted it. did not include a range for this
position, but in fact a single salary change.
Mr. Johnson noted his support of this proposal and agreed with
#1570
#1661
TAPE #894
City Council Reg.' Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 28 of 29
Ms. Marshall's comment, on the Agenda Bill, that the range
adjustment would be made at the time all management and
professional classifications were placed in Salary Bands as a
group. And, that it not be treated as any type of bench mark
position.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) to approve the annual salary of
$37,215 for the Risk Manager.
7B - RESOLUTION #2337, TREATNENT OF THE CITY'S UNION RIVER
SURFACE WATER SUPPLY, #AB91-046
The Utility, in response to a request of the Washington State
Department Of Health, is required to state its intention with
regard to a treatment and monitoring program associated with
its Union River Surface Water supply.
Attached for Council approval is a Resolution setting forth a
City policy with regard to a program for compliance with the
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Surface Water Treatment Rule.
Bill Dully, Utilities Director, noted that regulations on the
City's drinking water had changed and approximately 1/2 of
City water comes from the Union River. Because of those
changes, the City was at a point where decisions needed to be
made as to how that water would be treated or filtered in the
future.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson noted this Resolution states the City's intention
to do whatever is necessary to continue using the Union River
as a source of high quality water without having to build a
multi-million dollar treatment plant.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horning) to pass Resolution #2337, setting
forth a City policy for treatment of the City's Union River
surface water supply.
6D - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PARAHETRIX, INC., TO
PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO MCKENNA FALLS
INTAKE FACILITIES, #AB91-044
The Utility, pursuant to the Surface Water Treatment Rule of
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, has a requirement to
upgrade its surface water intake facilities at McKenna Falls.
These facilities currently consist of two earthen settlement
basins, screening and chlorine facilities and a limited
instrumentation and control system. The Utility contemplates
replacement of the basin with a concrete structure which will
#1753
TAPE #894
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 27, 1991
Page 29 of
provide for the separation of the water sources, expansion of
the chlorine facilities to provide for redundancy and
emergency back-up facilities and revision of the intake
structure to provide for increased flow and improvement
hydraulics.
Attached for Council's consideration is a professional
services contract with Parametrix, Inc., for providing
engineering services for improvements to the Utility's McKenna
Falls Facilities. The estimated cost for this service is
approximately $50,000.00.
Bill Dully, Utilities Director, stated now that the decision
was made to not filter, improvements need to be made to allow
the City to remain that way. This would include grading the
basins as well as putting in some redundant chlorination
equipment and monitoring/control equipment.
Public comment - none
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Dawkins) to approve Professional Services
Contract with Parametrix, Inc., to provide engineering
services for improvements to the Utility's McKenna Falls
Intake Facilities and authorize the Mayor to execute the same,
subject to the City Administrative Policies and Procedures.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
L~~ORTON, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault