The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/22/90TAPE #758 UNAPPROVED DRAFT SEP 1 1990 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES #0043 #0060 _A,,U__G_'U~S_T_,__2_2,, 1990 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 August 22, 1990 at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present were: Wayne Estes, Spencer Horning, Hank Waibel, Morrie Dawkins, A1 Colvin, Russ Johnson and C. R. "Tiny" Collins. Councilman Lon Overson was absent. Also present were City Attorney ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen L. McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horton invocation was given by Deacon James Boyd of the Emmanuai Apostolic Church. Councilman Russ Johnson was absent at the first of the meeting but joined it later. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes Of Meeting - August 8, 1990, #AB90-209 Bid Award Recommendation - Sign Making System, #AB90-210 Awarded to: Denco Sales in the amount of $14,466.49. Bid Award Recommendation - Construction OF Wastewater Sludge Storage Pad, Awarded to: McClure & Son in the amount of $238,296.00 #AB90-211 Change Order No. 3 - Schedule C/Contract #3089 (Voiker Steven Pacific Inc.), Central Bremerton Wastewater Improvements (C!7), #AB90-212 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horning) presented. to approve Consent Agenda as CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on August 22, 1990 the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 115093 through 115099 and 115477 through 115590 in the total amount of $307,422.94. TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, i990 Page 2 of 39 Mr. Estes announced KIRO Broadcasting System is doing some thing special for Bremerton by sponsoring a renovation project at Kiwanis Field, Saturday, August 25, 9AM - iPM. Volunteers are needed to assist in this endeavor to help plant trees and shrubs, paint restrooms, spread beauty bark, pull weeds and generally spruce up the park. He noted Furney's Nursery is donating the trees and shrubs for this project. On Sunday, August 19, 4:00 p.m., Mayor Mentor, Councilman Johnson and he attended a meeting at the Sinclair Baptist Church and listened to problems and concerns expressed by citizens. The issues discussed are being looked into and the important impact from that meeting is the fact that this type of dialogue will continue to help solve some of the problems. One individual at the meeting talked about "economic improvement" involvement, which could grow into a money making opportunity. Another concern that has been voiced by senior citizens is that the $12.00 per year Residential Parking Permit fee puts a hardship on their limited budgets. Due to the reduced buying power of those on limited retirement incomes, he would support consideration of a "senior citizen exemption" from the Residential Parking Permit fee. President Horton stated she and Kath!een McC!uskey, Director Of Administrative Services, have discussed this issue and expected to bring something to Council for their consideration in the very near future. Mr.._H_~_!~_q stated he spent last week in the City of Los Angeles and in the recent Money Magazine that city was only rated #10 - congratulations Bremerton on being #I. He stated he was proud to be part of what Bremerton represents. Mr. Waibel announced Bremerton has been named #1 most liveable city in the nation and one of the big reasons for that is the City's lower housing prices in the Pacific Northwest. He referenced an article in The Sun about attempts to annex the Rocky Point Fire District into South Kitsap Fire District. He noted there is a group of people who are so upset about dealing with Bremerton they are willing to expose themselves to increase numbers of deaths in their area. They indicated even though the City's response time was approximately 4 minutes and South Kitsap's response time is approximately 9 minutes, they are still more interested in going with South Kitsap than the City. He noted 5 minutes makes a big difference in emergency situations - it can mean the difference between saving a house from burning to the ground and someone living or dying. He could not understand how the emotional response to annexation to the City or dealing with the City can be so strong that the people are willing to risk death and loss of their homes. TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 3 of 39 Mr. Colvin stated he received the news of Bremerton being the ~'~'"'~i~"'~ the nation with mixed emotion. He has known this fact all along and is somewhat hesitant in letting the news out to the entire world. It will be difficult to keep that small and comfortable feeling that exists if there is a great influx as well as inheriting the problems associated with big cities. And, he proudly showed off the #1 button he was wearing and felt it was appropriate as he does represent District #1. And, he shares the same concern as Mr. Estes regarding the parking permit costs and senior citizens. He explained he is writing a letter to the editor, which addresses decisions not being etched in concrete and when shown to be unduly oppressive on some citizens he feels sure the Parking Committee will consider making appropriate changes to have a more equitable ordinance. Mr. Dawkins stated the City being Rated #i is probably a spin off from seattle because Olympia and Tacoma were included in the top i0 along with Bremerton. A positive point for Bremerton is the ferry boat ride between Bremerton and Seattle, giving those living in Bremerton the advantages of a big city but not having to put up with some of the problems relating to a big city. Mr. Collins announced there is a meeting, sponsored by the Real Estate Division of the Navy regarding property acquisition, scheduled for August 30, 1990, 6:30 p.m., at the Great Northwest Savings and Loan building. He urged those individuals to be affected by the acquisition of the property along Montgomery, Callow and Wycoff to attend this meeting, especially those who attended the meeting held previously in the City Council Chambers. He was a little concern over two of the Council members sort of apologizing for Bremerton being #i and he pointed out The Sun could not stomach the fact that someone had found Bremerton to be the "best" He did not know what it would take for everyone else to accept the fact that maybe Bremerton has something going for it and it is OK. He stated it is a good place to live and he is proud to be a part of it. Last Thursday evening one of the major things that has happened in the City of Bremerton happened - the dedication of the breakwater for the new marina and the starting point of implanting the USS Turner Joy. Mrs. Horton stated it gave her much pleasure to inform her mother, who lives in Olympia, that Bremerton was chosen as #1. And, she read a statement given by past Council member Marty Crutcher: "Please convey my congratulations to the Mayor, City Council members and City staff helping to make Bremerton the #1 place to live in the nation". Mrs. Horton noted that Mr. TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 4 of 39 Crutcher also deserves a note of congratulations since he served on the City Council during the years those building blocks were assembled. The whole City needs to feel proud of the fact that Bremerton has been chosen #1. Obviously, there are a number of problems that need to be overcome, however, the City needs to keep "on rolling" and only going to get better and better. Lastly, she extended a note of "thanks" to Ian Sievers, City Attorney, for a job very well done while handling a recent lawsuit issue. She had heard from a number of individuals involved in this court action of Mr. Sievers very professional handling of this case, helping to save the City many dollars and set a precedent that she hopes will be carried on. In reference to Roosevelt Field, she was not ready to state the City's position but did indicate the possibility of going into a court of law. Effort is underway to formulate the City's position at this time and City staff, Mayor Mentor, a couple Council members and she had met on this issue and are in the process of formulating a stance on that issue. She gave assurance that the City will be well prepared and well represented going into whatever actions brought about by the College. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Boy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, stated he was happy to report that Councilmen Johnson and Estes and Mayor Mentor attended the meeting at the Sinclair Baptist Church on August 19, and he thanked them for their support. The important result of that meeting will be an on going action to address problems and concerns that are happening in the City. He was disappointed that Police Chief Del McNeai was not present and understood that he was on vacation leave. [_[~!~en~__.~9[~ stated in reference to comments made by Councilmen Estes and Coivin regarding parking, discussion had been centered on some of the complaints arising the past few weeks and such complaints will be collected through the month of September. At that time, they will discuss what sort of adjustments should be made to the Ordinance or Parking Plan and working through the Parking Advisory Committee to formulate some recommendations to be brought before Council. Councilman Russ Johnson joined the meeting at 5:56 p.m. Mr. Johnson stated in talking with a number of the City's neighboring jurisdictions, Port of Bremerton, Kitsap Transit and Visitor and Convention bureau, everyone is excited about Bremerton being named #1 and they have a lot of pride being a part of it. Just prior to his joining the Council meeting, he attended a reception for Congressman John Miller's opening of TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 5 of 39 his Pou!sbo office. Although Congressman Miller does not directly represent Bremerton, he does represent part of Kitsap County. Congressman Miller stated that during his travels this date the major topic he heard everywhere was "Bremerton". He questioned what the major issues were in Bremerton that he could be of assistance with in supporting Congressman Dicks and the rest of the delegation? Mr. Johnson stated he brought up the issue of the Shipyard expansion as probably the #1 issue he could help with, which he was familiar with and supported. Also, if funding issues came up Congressman Miller would do his best to support the Navy and support the community in getting the expansion done properly. Mr. Johnson stated he felt this was key as it ties in to the new road, transportation, utilities, etc. And, he felt it was very nice that a Congressman from a neighboring district would care that much about someone outside of his district. 6A - AMENDMENT TO KITSAP Y.M.C.A. CONCESSION AGREEMENTL.~_A_~gm 213 ~ City of Bremerton and the Kitsap Y.M.C.A. entered into a Concession Agreement in anticipation of the construction of the new Y.M.C.A. facility at 60 Magnuson Way, adjacent to the Bremerton Municipal Pool in East Park. During the past 3 years the respective personnel of the Y.M.C.A. and the Parks and Recreation Department have experienced difficulty interpreting Section 8 of the original agreement. It is ambiguous, open to interpretation, and creates a budgeting and bookkeeping nightmare for both Agencies. The mutual concerns were brought to the Fees Committee and the attached amendment is based on the Committee's recommendation- Vicki Vanneman, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated during the past three years the only major difficulty that the two agencies have had has been dealing with Section 8A (fee section) of the Concession Agreement. In the original agreement, it called for payment by the "Y" to the City of of their gross membership fees. In theory this system should have worked fairly well, but in reality it was very difficult for the "Y's" bookkeeping staff as well as the Park and Recreation staff anticipating the revenue generated by 20% of the gross membership fees. Therefore, budgeting was difficult for the City. At the requests of both staffs, the Fee Committee was reconvened, which was established in the original agreement. That committee was comprised of Councilmen Horning and Dawkins, Ian Sievers and she as City representatives and the "Y" was represented by three Board members - Karlin Haberly, Ike Parker, Brad Knight and Glen Godfrey, Executive Director. This group held several meetings over the past three months and came to a mutual agreement on TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 6 of 39 a flat rate to be paid by the "Y" to the City annually. It is felt this will be much easier for both agencies. Ms. Vanneman noted as soon as Council gives its approval it will be submitted to the Department Of The Interior for their approval. Public comment - none. Mr. Waibel suggested the following changes: Section 8 (5th line) should read: "...I of each year based on the annual change in the Consumer..."; and "...as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the U.S. Department Of Labor for the Br_e_~K~p_n_Metropolitan statistical area..."; and the next line should read: "as published ~__the end o_~ th__e__~_~_~ quarter of the prior year..."; last sentence should read: "The first ~.~e__n_~ ..... shall not occur until January, 1992. Mr. Johnson questioned why the Secretary of the U.S. Department Of Interior had to give his approval? Mr. Dawkins explained the land belonged to the Federal Government and even though the City is now in possession of the land, the City is still responsible to the Department Of Interior and any changes of that facility must be submitted for their approval. Mr. Colvin questioned how much money had this contract yielded to the City during these past years? Ms. Vanneman stated it amounted to approximately $25,000 per year. Mr. Horninq noted the complexities involving military connections, scholarships and outside programs did make this a nightmare to handle and he felt the mutually developed amendment provided a fair resolve of the problem for both agencies. #0883 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins) to approve the amendments to the Kitsap Y.M.C.A. ConcessionAgreement with the changes so noted by Mr. Waibei. The Utility's five year Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to provide additional pumping and transmission capacity into the 239 service zone serving East Bremerton. East Bremerton is currently supplied by two transmission mains to include a 12" main on the Manette Bridge and a 20" main on the Warren Avenue Bridge. A 3rd transmission across the Port Washington Narrows was abandoned several years ago due to pipe line failure. The proposed new main will replace the abandoned main and will again provide full capacity to East Bremerton. TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, i990 Page 7 of 39 The Utility contemplates building the third transmission across the Port Washington Narrows and will connect to existing mains at 15th and Snyder Avenue and Sheridan and Lebo Blvd. Attached for Council's consideration is a Professional Services contract with CH2M Hill Inc., for design and construction management service for the construction of the proposed transmission main. The estimated cost for this service is approximately $198,000.00. ~l% Du~_f_X, Utilities Director, noted the City is desirous of replacing one of its transmission mains that was abandoned several years ago. The item was scheduled for design this year and actual construction in 1991. Funds have been set aside this year to undertake the design phase. The department solicited design proposal from five firms, and of the three responding firms it was narrowed down to two firms that had approximately identical man hours and then narrowed down to one firm - CH2M Hill. The selection was made based on their experience in having construction a line across Port Washingtoil Narrows a few years ago and the fact that they could do most of the work in-house without hiring a number of sub-consultants. Public comment - none. ~n_._~ohn~o_n_questioned if the installation of this main would be compatible with stormwater and wastewater separation? MX~ Duff~ explained this main would be water only transmission- Mr. Johnson questioned since the City would be going across The Narrows shouldn't they consider laying more than one pipe in at the same time? Mr. Duffy stated no, what was done as part of the previous job was to put a pipeline across as part of the C1 Pump Station project. The General Sewer Plan does contemplate some upgrades of the overflow pipeline in an existing wastewater pump station at 25th and Snyder. Mr. Waibel pointed out that the contract is a CH2M Hill agreement for professional services and it had been modified (page 48 of the agenda). He noted one of the amendments eliminates the minority of women who owned businesses, owner- specified subcontractors section, which also includes a paragraph about CH2M Hill's liability. He also noted he understood why paragraph (G) was not relevant in this situation as there are no subcontracts, however, he believed any contract the City signed, including professional services agreements, should include the City's standard non- discrimination clause. Therefore, he requested that Paragraph G be replaced with the City's standard non-discrimination clause. ~_n_n..._~!~_v__e~_~_, city Attorney, stated he also felt TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 8 of 39 paragraph (G) had been deleted due to there not being any subcontractors. Mr. Waibel questioned why the paragraph on their liability was eliminated? ME=_~ Sieve~ stated it was eliminated because it refers to the Engineer's liability for those subcontracts, however, he did want to include a statement that CH2M Hill will carry insurance. M~__P~.~!~ questioned the total cost of the pipeline? MK~ Duff~ stated he did not have firm costs but preliminary estimates amount to about 2 1/2 million dollars. Mr. Colvin questioned if Council will see the modified agreement? ~_~__~!~e~r.~ stated yes, he would provide a copy to Council. #1217 M/S/C/U(Dawkins) to approve the Professional Services Agreement with CH2M Hill, Inc., for design and construction management services for construction of the new Port Washington Narrow transmission main, including a clause relating to EEO and affirmative action and liability insurance and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement subject to Administrative Policies and Procedures. 6C - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT - NORTHWEST ENGINEERING The Utiiity's Comprehensive Water Plan provides for the replacement of the 24-inch transmission main along State Highway #3 between SR #3/SR #304 intersection and Gorst. The main will connect two previously constructed sections and enable the Utility to separate the Anderson Creek ground water supply from the Union River surface supply. The Utility needs to acquire an easement from the Navy for both the planned transmission main and one installed under a construction permit in 1989 as part of the SR #3/SR #304 interchange project. The Utility contacted six surveying/engineering firms to obtain proposals to do the required surveying and prepare legal descriptions of the easements. Northwest Engineering Company of Beilevue, Washington, responded with a proposal that will best provide the required services in a timely manner. The estimated cost of the services is $11,950. ~_~_pu_f~, Utilities Director, stated this project is part of the on going project the City has been doing along the highway - the first phase being completed in 1989 as part of the overpass project. #1309 TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 9 of 39 Public comment - none received. Mr. Waibel noted the City Council has asked that all contracts the City enters into contain a minority non-discrimination clause and suggested that such a clause be added to the Northwest Engineering Professional Services contract. Ian ~.~Y~S., City Attorney, agreed to add the clause. M/S/C/U(Waibet/Colvin) to approve the Professional Services Contract with Northwest Engineering Company in the amount of $11,950 and authorize the Mayor to execute said contract subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures, with the inclusion of the non-discrimination paragraph. 6D - DOWNTOWN WATERFRO~__0~__W_~TER PARK/BOARDWALK SITE PLAN ..A~_E~ND_ ME~___~__~E~Q~__UT_ION #231~, #AB90~_~6 The schematic design phase included coordination with various waterfront development participants and inclusion of cost estimate. Subsequent to this work the following amendments are proposed to the adopted site plan: 1. Inclusion of Harbor Master office; 2. Placement of PSNS Centennial Plaza on the over water portion of the project; 3. 1st to 2nd boardwalk width - 30'; 2nd to Turner Joy width - 40' D~QD._V~a~, Director Of Community Development, noted proposed Resolution #2312 asks for an amendment to the general site plan of the downtown waterfront project. In February, 1990, some changes were made to the first site plan and those changes basically amounted to taking out a broad protrudence of land jutting out into the marina area and identifying PSNS Centennial Plaza at the foot of 2nd Street. Since the February discussion, there had been some additional designing and planning/coordination with other agencies that are both developing and funding projects on the waterfront. Two changes to the site plan came out of that design work that needed to be addressed: (1) the Port of Bremerton has requested to site a Harbor Master's office near the marina. The proposed structure would encompass 1,000 sq. ft., which would offer services and security for the marina area. The location of the boardwalk in that area is strategic due to their needing visual access to the marina, which also gives the City visual access and enhances security. Some of the discussion was driven by the fact that the proposed site of the Harbor Master's office waterward is owned by the State of TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 10 of 39 Washington, with the Department Of Natural Resources managing it. The Port of Bremerton is a major lessee of those tidelands and as such they have a fair amount of control over what will occur on those tidelands. The Port of Bremerton has been most amenable, supportive and involved in the City's planning effort. (2) Location of the PSNS Centennial Plaza - this occurred for several reasons, one of which was that it is a significantly more visible site, easier accessed and would become more of a focal point for the area rather than being located up away from the boardwalk. Secondly, within the scheme of funding that will be discussed in another Agenda item, this portion is being proposed to be developed first and would be developed in time to host the PSNS Centennial celebration. All other aspects of the site plan area basically the same with one exception, the parking area designated in the uplands. The site plan being discussed at this time only addresses publicly controlled lands, which are State tidelandsr the parking is not shown on this plan but does show up on other copies that had been distributed depicting what the Bremer Shoreline Permit proposes to build. Resolution #2312 is a paraphrase of Resolution #2290, adopted in March 1990, and the wording is nearly the same. He reminded everyone that the site plan is a "general site plan" and in the body of the resolution it depicts it as a "general conceptual site plan which conveys geographical relationships and locations and depicts general forms and functions of the proposed public facilities on the waterfront", by that it means the project will be designed basically to this site plan design. Other aspects of the design still need to be designed to a great degree, i.e., placement of garbage receptacles, locations of stairways, etc. Council's approval of the proposed site plan at this time will give the go ahead with the design work. ~.~p., 6625 Lake Drive, stated when the USS Turner Joy was located the idea was to use a mall concept, that meaning have anchors at three locations and allowing for development between the major locations. The idea of placing the Turner Joy away from the ferry terminal was to pull tourist to the Turner Joy and then bring them into the redeveioped downtown area. The plan being proposed does not show anything that reflects "future" development and pointed out it was great for developing the waterfront but he did not believe it would do anything for the downtown district. He suggested the notation of "future" or "proposed" on the site plan to give some indication that development will be made to the northern access. TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page !i of 39 Mr. Johnson stated except for the "cheapy" landscaping planned for the Ferry Terminal area, he supported the proposal and he looked forward to getting out of the concept phase and into the construction phase. He felt Mr. Amo's concerns were valid and personally he knows the City will address the northern access, however, he felt the City needed to work with the Bremer Trust and future developers as to just how this is done. Mr. Dawkins stated the Council Operations Committee had been looking at this item over the past 3/4 months and supports this proposal. Mr. Colvin stressed his desire that the project be done right and if it required further design he would support that. Mr. Waibel stated action taken by Council would actually be refining, not amending, the site plan because it was originally a general concept plan, but through this action it actually becomes a general site plan. In terms of addressing Mr. Amo's concerns, there is another item on the Agenda (Waterfront Access Plan), which does address the access to the 4th Street area. Mr. Estes questioned if it would be possible to host the "Lady Washington" sailing vessel for a 4-6 week period, allowing moorage along the recreation pier? ~r. Pratt stated it was his understanding that the recreational breakwater is adequate to handle an exhibition vessel such as the Lady Washington. Moorage of such a boat would probably be on the outside edge of the breakwater. At the present time there would be room to moor the boat on the inside of the pier. And, he noted items such as this was given careful review in developing the design for the marina. Mr. Horninq questioned if all of the other agencies accepted this proposed plan? Mr. Pratt stated Connie Devaney had been the main liaison with those agencies and he felt assured they were all on board, in writing, that this is an acceptable plan. In fact, some of them had agreed to assist with some additional funding needed to accomplish the plan. Mr. Horning noted this is truly a community project with everyone teamed together. Mrs. Horton questioned when could the Council look forward to the next phase? Mr. Pratt stated the next Council action required would be to approve the construction contract. The contract with the architect does not require production of those documents until December. It is his understanding that #1763 TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 12 of 39 there is consideration of split designing, breaking loose a bid to get some of the in-water work done with the Port, which is coming up in an October bid. There is a 90-day permit period that would need to be started immediately if the City wishes to meet this timetable. In the event the City does not make the required deadlines, then a bid in January would be the next possible date, with a great effort being put forth to get 6-weeks of construction in the water before the March 15 pile driving deadline. Mr. Johnson stated for the record he did not want the type of landscaping like the Ferry Terminal park area to in any way be interpreted as precedent setting for other development that may take place later on. When private investors develop the upland areas, the City has significantly higher standards then what is reflected in the terminal beautification effort. He noted State agencies are somewhat limited, however, he felt that a few more trees could have been provided. Mr. Colvin stated he had talked with a group of senior citizens and they wanted to know if there would be restroom facilities provided on the waterfront. He noted at one time when this topic was brought up a Councilman suggested the public use the Ferry Terminal facilities. Mr. Colvin had talked with some of the Ferry System officials and they indicated the City should build their own restroom facilities. Therefore, Mr. Colvin asked, for the record, if restroom facilities would be provided in this plan? ~!.L_~K~I~ stated the ferry employee who gave out that information was not operating on the same policy as his boss, whose policy is that the Ferry Terminal is a public building and there are public restrooms in that building, which are only closed down for 2- hours in a 24-hour period. At all other times of the day those restrooms are considered public facilities. Secondly, there are public restrooms developed in the observation tower/pump station located on the waterfront and there is the possibility the Port of Bremerton is contemplating public restroom to be located in the Harbor Master's office. M/S/C/U(Collins/Dawkins) to adopt Resolution #2312, which amends the Boardwalk Site Plan as presented. 6E - BUDGET ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOARDWALK: !__StTQ_~N~_+.~T__R~ETS, ~AB90-217 Design of the boardwalk cannot continue without establishing a construction cost. The administration wishes to establish a construction cost with Council concurrence. The use of a budget adjustment requires Council concurrence and allocates the funds for construction. TAPE #758 City Council Rego Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 13 of 39 if construction funds are allocated, Council will be asked to delegate authority to the Mayor to sign construction contract. The architect will be required by contract to re-design the project if the lowest responsive construction bid exceeds the estimated cost by 15%. D~_._F~t_.t_, Director Of Community Development, stated the proposal is the Mayor's recommendation to actually budget the funds to construct the boardwalk from First Street Dock to 2nd Street extended. A supporting documents in Council's Agenda packet identifies what is anticipated as the total cost of the boardwalk project inclusive of 2nd Street, amounting to a $2,273,000.00 project. The portion that is being proposed to design/build the boardwalk is $767,924 and that amount is being requested at this time. It is proposed to take funds from Funds 109 and 104, the Real Estate Excise Tax and Hotel/Motel Tax. The boardwalk project is a part and parcel with the placement of the USS Turner Joy, which does have convention facilities on board, in fact that is one of its main attractions to host conventions of former shipmates in such a setting; and because of that. the City can use the Motel/Hotel tax. There is an apparent gap in the amount of funding needed and the amount of funding requested. Documentation shows a total of $490,924 being required from Funds 109 and 104, yet the proposed motion only asks for $465,000. The variance is due to the City receiving an earlier grant from the Department OF Natural Resources and other grants the Council previously budgeted $35,000 as match for those funds. After funds have been expended from funds 104 and t09, adequate to do the full construction, there will be on the order of $52,000 remaining in each fund. B.~.i_A~_o_, 6625 Lake Drive, questioned if the City is not planning to fund the route to the USS Turner Joy until later? ~__!~__~e_~, Grants Manager, stated the proposal includes design of the whole boardwalk to the USS Turner Joy. However, the City is waiting for the EDA grant to request construction funds to continue building from 2nd Street to the Turner Joy. President Horton questioned why the inner harbor park was not included in the first phase? Mr. Pratt stated the Resolution Council adopted in March 1990, requested the first priority on funding the boardwalk to the Turner Joy and it is the administration's feeling that until there is more assurance, regarding the EDA grant, that this piece needed to be done but to hold back to see the outcome of that grant. The funding #2560 TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 14 of 39 picture given in this presentation - $703,000 - from Funds 104 and 109 takes into account $118,000 in the future that would be reserved to be used at the time it was needed. Horton noted as long as the City would be building the boardwalk she questioned wouldn't it be wise to do the whole thing at once? Also, it was her understanding that if the project was broken up into pieces, the City would have to pay more dollars for each piece than if it was combined into one project. pQ~___~I stated she was correct in her understanding...the whole project will be designed and it is being set up to either go out in a piecemeal contract or a contract in total. If the EDA grant shows good promise or is in place within a couple of months this fall, the City will be in a position to bid out ist to 2nd Street and 2nd Street to USS Turner Joy and the inner harbor park all at once. And, there will be time to come back to Council to allocate the funds through the budget process. However, they did not want to request allocation of funding ($118,000) until they knew exactly where this portion would land in the funding scheme. Mayor Louis Mento~ stated until it is known exactly what is going on with the Harbor Master project and what they will be doing in the way of landscaping, the City is not sure what it will have to do to blend it together. ~A~__Es~t~ questioned if the funding does not come through the EDA grant how will the boardwalk be funded to the Turner Joy? Mr. Pratt stated if the EDA grant does not come through the City will have left in the $755,000 City funds being used a little under $300,000; and in addition there is a little funding available through the History Ships Association. He raised the question to Becka Hanson of Portico Group, if all the City had was $300,000 was there any conceivable method to complete the boardwalk project. Becka Hanson, architect, stated yes there was - they had been more than generous at this point in terms of the width and the structure that is needed to support the project. Under the worst scenario, the project could be narrowed down and tightened up and it could be brought within the budget of funds available. The assumption they were working with was to provide access for all kinds of emergency vehicles and that would be preserved at all cost. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve designation of the construction cost of the Phase I Boardwalk to be $650,000 and that the Mayor be authorized to prepare the necessary budget adjustments. The funds are to be allocated from the following fund accounts into the Waterfront Construction account: 104 - Civic Improvement $350,000 #2786 TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 15 of 39 106 - Block Grant 109 - Real Estate Excise Tax 202,000 115,924 ~qj._._AQTHOR~_Z~_T_iO__N__~Q__A~CE_p.~._~_R_A~_~._~AR__D_~OR CRIME_S~P_E~ PROGRAM, #AB90-221 City Council authorization is required in order to sign Acknowledgement of Crime Stoppers Gant Conditions and to accept the grant award. Connie Devaney, Grants Procurement Officer, stated this is a small award for $16,000 from the Attorney Generai's office in order to establish a Bremerton/Kitsap County Crime Stopper Program. Police chief Del McNeal and she designed a program in conjunction with all of the other cities in Kitsap County and the Kitsap County's Sheriff's Department. It is intended that Bremerton will be the lead agency in this effort and it is planned to purchase a telephone system whereby one day a week phone calls will be answered in each of the other cities in the County. With this program the staffing responsibility does not fall on any one agency unfairly. In order to accept this grant Council must give its authorization to do so. Public comment - none received. President Horton questioned what could be developed with $18,0007 Ms. DevaneI stated funding from the grant would mainly purchase phone answering machines and a 1-800 number° The Crime Stopper Program is a national program that involves the citizens in assisting the Police department. President Horton questioned if receiving the grant would require the City to run this program more than one year? Ms. Devaney stated no - the program can run as long as the City desired. The intention will be to set up a private non-profit group that would be able to raise money for the program. Horton questioned if there would be joint interlocal agreements with the other jurisdictions? Ms. DevaneX stated yes. Mr. Waibel pointed out this is a successful effort to gain a grant that involves a number of the agencies in the County and he hoped the EDA grant is as successful. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Collins) to approve authorization for Mayor to sign Grant Conditions and to accept grant award. 7C - RESOLUT~9~_~4_~_CITY OF BREMERTON DECLARING S__UPPORTAND ~Q_MM_!~T~d~E~ ~Q_ TH~___I.~EME~TAT~Q~__D.~__~.~_3I_N~_~!~ AND DYES INLETS URBAN BAY ACTION On July 18, 1990, Fran Solomon, Department Of Ecology made a #2987 TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 16 of 39 summary presentation to the City Council of the Urban Bay Action Plan. Mr. Johnson stated the City of Bremerton has had a priority commitment to work on the environment and particularly the clean up of Puget Sound. The construction of the City's sewer secondary treatment plant and other efforts in the area of shoreline planning are beginning to show up in a much better Puget Sound. Puget Sound is one of the gems of the United States and should be protected. The proposed Resolution accepts and formally adopts the Dyes and Sinclair Inlets Urban Bay Action Plan, puts the City commitment to do their fair and equitable share of the clean up and public education part. And, he introduced Dr. Fran Solomon, Department Of Ecology (DOE). Dr. Fran Solomon,DOE, stated at this point she did not have any additional comments - she covered the topic very thoroughly at a previous Council meeting. She did appreciate Council's consideration of the Resolution and was available to answer any questions they might have. Public comment - none received. Mr. Waibel emphasized this plan does not assign all the clean up of the urban bays to the City of Bremerton. Mr. Johnson noted the Department Of Ecology were very fair in how they distributed the actual clean up efforts. The first major effort of the City of Bremerton is an education program to educate the public on what contaminations do to shell fish, etc. He noted the heavier responsibility of clean up will rest with the Federal government. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horning) to approve Resolution #2314, City of Bremerton declaring its support and commitment to the implementation of the Sinclair and Dyes Inlets Urban Bay Action Plan. M~ Lou!~--Ment°r made a special presentation to Merle Strassburg on his retirement from the City Street Department after 25 years of service. Mayor Mentor presented Merle with a plaque, expressing the City's appreciation for his dedicated service to the City. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED - HEETER REZON~ #AB90-150 6n June 13, 1990, the City Council held a public hearing to accept public comments and consider the Planning Commission's recommendation pertaining to the zoning of a single lot at Kitsap Way and Harlow Drive from its present designation of "Neighborhood Business (NB)" to "General Business (GB)" The property has been developed for commercial uses and is the TAPE #759 TAPE #758 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 17 of 39 site of a carpet sales business, which is a nonconformity under the present NB zoning. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this request on May 15, 1990, and is recommending City Council denial of the rezone. Such requests are heard by both the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the final decision. President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with the following members stepping down: Mr. Johnson stated he lived within 250 feet of the property being discussed and was required to step down. He did note that his Council District was left without representation due to his stepping down. Mr. Estes stated before he was aware of the appearance of fairness rules he visited the subject property with one of the neighboring landowners, which disqualifies his being seated on this issue and stepped down. Mr. Dawkins stated he was absent from the first public hearing and did not review the video tape or recorded tape of that meeting and stepped down. Mr. Collins announced that he had reviewed the video tape of the previous meeting relating to the subject site and upon the City Attorney recommendation he would remain seated on this issue. Those remaining seated were: Mr. Horning, Mr. Waibel, President Horton, Mr. Collins, Mr. Colvin. Ron Houq~h, Planning Manager, stated a decision was not made at the June 13 public hearing, but the Council continued the public hearing to give the applicant the opportunity to work with the neighborhood and possibly put together a compromise to the situation. The applicant had provided a Concomitant Rezone Agreement, which included a rezone to General Business (GB) but limited the number of uses that would be allowed on the property to eliminate all or most all of the uses that have some potential for adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Division's recommendation originally was for denial and they were not changing their recommendation, but they had no objection to a compromise. President Horton questioned if the uses, as outlined in the Concomitant Rezone Agreement, included some uses listed under General Business? Mr. Hough stated the list starts with "all uses permitted in NB District and all additional uses come out of the GB District, but did not include the uses that were determined, by the applicant, to have some potential for adverse affect on surrounding properties. Mr~_~O_~g~read the TAPE #759 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 18 of 39 list of uses included in the Concomitant Rezone Agreement: All uses permitted in NB; hotel or motel; large and small restaurants; private schools; library; social and welfare services, and similar; hospital and medical services and laboratories; veterinarian and animal hospital; photographic services; funeral services; athletic club, weight control, aerobics; car truck, motorcycle and RV sales (new and used); car and truck rental; liquor store; tobacconist; cameras, photo supplies;p optical goods, retail; commercial parking lot; commercial parking structure; bus terminal and maintenance facility; construction services office (without yard); government services; banking services, including drive- through; building maintenance services; communications exchanges, broadcasting studios; convenience market with gas sales; lumber and other retail sales of building materials; heating and plumbing equipment - retail; paint, glass, wallpaper - retail; electrical supplies and services; retail or wholesale greenhouses; research development and testing services; furniture and equipment sales, rental and leasing; food lockers; apparel manufacturing; newspaper publishing, printing and commercial printing; manufacturing of professional and scientific instruments, food products and furniture and fixtures; wholesaling of drugs, chemicals, dry goods, apparel, groceries, electrical goods, hardware, plumbing and hearing; general warehousing; mini-warehousing. Mr. Waibel stated since this is a compromise, he requested reading the list of GB uses that had been eliminated. ~L~ Hough read a listing of uses that were not included in the agreement and were under the GB zone: fast food restaurants with car service; drinking place with/or without entertainment; adult businesses; video/pinball arcades; bowling alleys; pool halls; dance halls; rifle and pistol ranges; mobile home sales (new or used); tires and batteries and other auto accessories; gas station; car repair services; car washes; small engine repair; other repair services; recycling center; maintenance yards; large retail groceries over 7,000 sq. ft.; manufacturing of electrical machinery equipment; fabricated metal products. Mr. Colvin requested clarification if the above list of uses were eliminated at the request of the surrounding neighborhood? Mr. Hough stated no, they were excluded by Mr. Heeter in his development of the Concomitant Zoning Agreement. It was intended to be a compromise between a full rezone to General Business. Gary Sexton, Attorney representing the applicant, stated the subject property had been under a commercial zone and down zoned under the NB zone. The question had been presented "how do you handle property owners rights, how do you handle future TAPE #759 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 19 of 39 uses of this particular property for potential purchasers, seller and the City of Bremerton"? It was his understanding of Council's instructions to the applicant during previous hearings to come up with a compromise and a settiement~ Mr. Sexton met with the Planning Department to review the list of restrictive uses to include in the Concomitant Rezone .Agreement, which might be objectionable to the surrounding neighborhood. They then attempted to meet with the neighborhood over this particular list, but were only able to meet with Jim Strait, President of the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association, and he indicated he was basically opposed to the concept and did not want to negotiate at all and could not speak for the association's members. Therefore, there was no way to come to the conclusion whether they agreed or disagreed to items included in the proposed agreement. Mr. Heeter is willing, and believes that this Council and the City wants a reasonable compromise that does not constantly bring him back in front of the Council and allows the uses that fits with the property. If there are particular items on the list that are objectionable to the neighborhood, Mr. Heeter is willing to discuss further compromises as appropriate. David Heeter, applicant, stated prior to Mr. Sexton becoming involved he and Gary Garten met with the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association with the objective of discussing and coming up with a compromise as to what might be acceptable. Basically, that meeting lasted about one hour and they were requested to leave the meeting room while the members discussed what might or might not be acceptable. Upon re- entering their meeting Mr. Heeter and Mr. Gartin were told that they were not able to come up with a compromise and it was suggested that Mr. Heeter go ahead with the proposed compromise and they would strongly consider that compromise. After that meeting, he met with Mr. Sexton and enlisted his help in developing the Agreement. And, he wanted, as a matter of record, the fact that he had met with the neighborhood association prior to their developing his own proposal. ~!~._~_!i~, 6530 Hariow Drive, President of the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association, stated the Neighborhood Association did meet with the applicant and the final vote was to retain the NB zoning. On August 16 the applicant's attorney and a Planning Department representative met with him and showed him a proposal that had been prepared. At that time, the attorney requested Mr. strait to review the document and asked whether or not he objected to any of the uses listed. Mr. Strait stated yes, and that he could not speak for the neighborhood as they had voted at a previous meeting to keep the NB zone. He personally felt the zoning should remain NB, and one reason TAPE #759 City Council Reg. Mtg~ Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 20 of 39 being the domino effect it would have on other properties in the area. Mr. Strait stated the attorney then stated that he would recommend to his client, Mr. Heeter, to go for everything in a General Business zone and if he did get it he should file a suit and then the residents would get nothing. Mr. Strait felt this was harassment on the part of the attorney and applicant. He stood on the grounds that the City put in a new Zoning Ordinance, it was done correctly and he saw no need to grant Mr. Heeter's request. Mr. Strait objected to the following proposed uses: hotel/motel; large/small restaurants; veterinarians and animal hospital; athletic club, weight control, aerobics; commercial parking structure; bus terminal and maintenance facility; convenient market. with gas sales; manufacturing of professional and scientific instruments, food products and furniture and fixtures; mini-warehousing. He noted two uses plus the mini- warehouse require Special Use Permits even in NB zoning. The following individual spoke in opposition to the proposed Concomitant Rezone Agreement: ~_!__Bur~, 6410 Lake Drive; ~1~, 6625 Lake Drive; p~isy J. Whitney, 6519 Lake Drive; ~_~__S~de~, 6504 Lake Drive; ~!~li~ Carlson, 6604 Lake Drive;_R_~_l~p_~._~W~itney, 6519 Lake Drive; Chalmer Doll, 6614 Lake Drive; A1 Hachqbloom, 6601 Lake Drive; Rose Kerson, 1725 Lakehurst Drive NW; Paul Lindblad, 6607 Lake Drive. The following comments were made by the above listed individuals: (i) Financial risk is Mr. Heeter's alone; (2) do not want to water down Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan; (3) this had the ear markings of a "done deal"; (4) all Mr. Heeter had to do was to go to court and say the City coerced him to submit a compromise; (5) public will not be served if rezone approved; (6) how many times do the residents have to defend their living conditions; (7) Comprehensive Plan should stand except for a compelling reason and best interest of the public; (8) this rezone would set a bad precedent; (9) a BG zone is to abrupt next to Residential, NB zone more compatible to neighborhood; (10) City is making too many exceptions to Zoning laws, making it difficult to comply with zoning; (11) residents duty to see neighborhood is protected; (12) no need shown why the zone has to be changed; (13) a rezone could change the neighborhood. p_~vi~._Hee~e!, applicant, noted his proposal had been painted as one of his being an opportunist... he stressed the fact that he had been in business at Kitsap Lake since 1972. Approximately five years ago he purchased the subject property and at that time it had a B2 zoning designation. Public testimony at this meeting stated that he was trying to increase the value of his property - that was incorrect - what TAPE #759 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 21 of 39 he was trying to do was to maintain the value of his property. He could not imagine a businessman in this town or any other town buying property zoned business with the idea that the City would come along and down zone it. This may happen, but it was difficult for him to believe this was going on. Testimony had also been given that he had not given a reason for the rezone request - that also was not a correct statement. His reasoning was that he wants what he went in with - what the City gave him in terms of B2 zoning and the down zoning of his property had definitely decreased its value substantially. The same people speaking against this proposal were supportive of his previous actions when he built his building. He feels the neighborhood group is now taking an opportunist approach to stifle any chances to bring back the zoning he once had. Nothing had gone on in his building that was foreign to what the neighborhood residents realized would be happening there. He once again requested that he be returned that which he had under the B2 zone, a business zoning.. He believed the restrictions he offered in the Concomitant Rezone Agreement puts the zoning as close as he could determined to the original B2 zoning. He noted the subject property was unique and stands alone as far as other properties in the City that were B2 and down zoned to NB. He realized financial reasons were not suppose to be considered, however, he believed financial reasons had to be considered. Mr. Strait stated he realized what Mr. Heeter is after and that he had a problem, however, when the property was rezoned the neighborhood agreed to what he requested because it was within the B2 zone. He emphasized that a BG zone goes far beyond what a B2 zone allowed and a NB zone is a little below - true, but it is much closer to the NB zoning than GB zone. Mr. Collins stated he had put out of his mind that there were several (4) previous hearings on the zoning that was done when the entire City was rezoned. He was looking at it strictly from the standpoint of rezoning a piece of property and under that there are five things that he had to answer in the affirmative: (I) that the rezone is substantially consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) the rezone is necessary because of three factors; (3) the rezone would not result in an adverse environmental consequence; (4) the rezone bears a substantial relation to the public welfare because there is a public need for a change of the kind in question; and that public need will be best served by changing the zoning of the subject property; (5) essential public facilities and services are presently available and adequate. He could not answer all of these in the affirmative, therefore, he did not support the TAPE #759 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 22 of 39 request to rezone. He only gave consideration to the rezone, not to any financial aspects that have gone on before. M!_=__~!V_!~ questioned if there was the possibility that the applicant could come back later and say that the City had coerced him in accepting a compromise? And, he questioned whether the City had down zoned Mr. Heeter's property?. Ian ~i~X~, City Attorney, stated in reference to what existed before under B2 and what exists now under NB zone, the Council can decide to change zoning of property, the problem of down zoning certain properties in the Council's objective or goal of setting compatible land uses and in fact does cause some loss of value to properties that are down zoned in an attempt to reach compatibility with the surrounding properties. This is not unlawful and is well within the range of a regulatory objective of the Council to regulate land uses. It is far from the threshold of regulatory taking, and the definition there is that there is no reasonable use left for the property, which is not the situation in this case. The applicant can continue his use and in fact that is the reason liberal rights are granted to non-conforming uses in Zoning Ordinances in order to preserve the Constitutionality of those Zoning Ordinances. In the City's recently enacted ordinances the City is generous with rights granted for non-conforming uses. ~q~_Mqp~[_h stated he did not have available a copy of the old Zoning Ordinance, however, that Ordinance did allow all the uses lower than whatever a specific zone designated. The lowest zone was R1, single family, single family duplex and R2 which was a multi-family up to about 70 units an acre, then there were business zones, B1 and B2. The B2 zone allowed all the uses of the R1, R2, B1 and B2 zones, therefore, there were a lot of uses allowed in that zone, including high density family buildings. Giving it a NB zone designation would be considered a down zone because all those residential uses were removed as well as a number of commercial uses that were allowed in higher intensity commercial zoning districts, but not in the neighborhood zones. There was a fairly radical change in the Zoning Ordinance going from 7-8 zoning districts to about 20 zoning districts, which are much more specific and geared to the specific location of the properties. Mr. Colvi~ stated he was concerned that the City not create a liability. President Horton questioned Mr. Sexton if he had a listing of the properties that were in the B2 zone? Mr. Sexton stated it was a fair statement that the compromise proposal was as close as they could reasonably come to what the B2 zone was. He noted there may be some minor differences. TAPE #759 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 23 of 39 Mr. Waibel stated he was very careful when he made the suggestion at a previous meeting - he did not ask Mr. Heeter to volunteer a compromise. Mr. Heeter volunteered without any prompting from the City Council and Mr. Waibel did not make any suggestion until after Mr. Heeter made the voluntary statement that he would enter into some kind of agreement. It is on 'the record that the Council did not make any threats, advances and did not even indicate this was a possible opening until the applicant made the first overture. He, Mr. Waibel, made that suggestion assuming that the B2 zone was amenable to the neighborhood. That in 1979, when the B2 was requested and heard, the neighborhood did agree and felt it was a proper use of that property. And, it was his assumption that through a Concomitant Agreement those same conditions could be recreated, which should not have been limited simply to a restriction on the particular uses but should have also included restrictions on landscaping and environmental concerns that were included in the previous zoning. It appears now that a compromise had not been successful. If the City had not had the mess that was in place with the zoning there would be no need for exceptions or compromises. It was his perception that as a Council they are seated to discuss those exceptions. And, he believed it was his function as a Council member to address problems between neighbors and particular landowners. He did not know why, in the preceding month, the B2 zone condition had not been recreated. Mr. Hqrn!~ stated Mr. Waibei was correct in his statement and the whole objective was to not constitute a taking, which he sincerely believed happened on this site. And, he did not object to a compromise - it does resolve unique situations. If the City Council turns this request away, it will be a year before the applicant can bring it back and try something again. Mr. Horning questioned the City Attorney even though a Concomitant Agreement is proposed is it within the rights of the City Council to add further comments and restrictions? Mr. Sievers stated yes, he believed that could be done and as one speaker mentioned earlier there was a buffer zone included in the previous zoning and not included in the compromise proposal. Any of the variety of things that were done previously on contract rezones can be done here again and they can be proposed to be included in the contract. If the individual does not sign the contract as restrictions on his property, then he remains in the NB zone. Mr. Horning questioned if Council was to say the intent was to return fully to the B2 conditions in all regards is that within Council purview? Mr. Siever~ stated he would not put it into those terms because as he mentioned before the new Zoning Ordinance rezones seemed to be done by contract in every case TAPE #759 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 24 of 39 and each one became custom tailed. So, he felt the B2 zone may have been conditioned by some contract terms as well. ~_~_t ~p~_.n~q stated his intent was to return to the conditions this particular piece of property had before under the B2 zone. And, he questioned the City Attorney if he could do that? Mr. Sievers stated yes - this could be done by moving that the Concomitant Agreement proposed reflect all of the conditions on use and restrictions on development contained in the prior zoning and any Concomitant Agreement that existed prior to the new Zoning Ordinance. M~- Horning noted the reason he believed this was an appropriate action was the fact that there was GB on the same side of the street as the subject site and he did not agree with the argument that Council was headed in the wrong direction in zoning in that area; and there is only one side of the subject property that doesn't have a street on it. He did not believe this type of action would set a precedent as this was the last one that came out of the non-agreement stage of the Errors And Corrections phase. President Horton stated if Mr. Horning's suggested approach was considered then there also needed consideration given to which zoning designation would be used when regulating setbacks, density, etc. She felt disappointed that this had not gotten any farther - she disputed it being a "done deal" She agreed with Councilmen Waibel and Horning that the intent at the previous meeting was somewhere in the area of the previous zoning. This was once of those pieces of property that was in a gray zone under the new zoning. Somehow this Council needed to come up with a fair and equitable situation that was fair to the business and was not detrimental to the neighborhood. M~,~_ C__.q~v_i_~ questioned for clarification if when the property was zoned B2 that it was agreeable to the neighborhood? M~_t Horninq stated that was what was stated during this hearing and he assumed that statement was correct. Mr. Coivin stated it was his understanding that Mr. Horning wished to propose a compromise to return the uses allowed under the B2 zone. Mr. ~.9~L~ stated yes, along with all the conditions that existed at that time. Mr Houqh stated when the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted they also kept alive a number of Rezone Ordinances, which contained conditions that were not removed or replaced with the new Zoning Ordinance. One of those ordinances affects the subject property, Ordinance #3546, a 1979 Rezone Ordinance, and it gave some conditions: (1) new commercial construction and development shall be required to receive site plan approval - currently site plan review is required under the new ordinance of all new development. The TAPE #759 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 25 of 39 requirement shall not apply to single family residential or duplex - single family or duplex are not allowed in the NB zone; (2) all developments requiring the above site approval shall in addition to the screening requirement of Bremerton's land use regulations provide an unbuilt upon screening area of lot less than 25 feet in width where existing vegetation is maintained and augmented with either additional planting or fencing to provide a dense site obscuring screen between the development site and adjacent residential zone or used parcels. And, he believed these conditions were still in effect and will continue to be in effect unless the Ordinance is repealed. Mr. Collins emphasized at least five years were spent developing a Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Map, Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance and established a series of zones, identifying everything to be done within those zones. Now, a new one is being built and he questioned if Council would continue building new zones. He supported sticking to what was already established through the land use regulations. Mr. Colvin stated his only concern was to be fair to all parties. He requested Mr. Amo to further clarify the B2 zone. Mr. Amo stated he could not clarify the B2 zone, but if the Council was intent upon a compromise, which he was not in favor of, he requested that the zone designation not be BG with modifications, rather NB with modifications. President Horton questioned if the NB designation was kept, would this then be a rezone? Mr. Sievers stated he was interested in Mr. Hough's comments that maybe this property was not rezoned NB but continued in affect under the prior ordinance. Mr. Hough stated the zone was changed to NB but the conditions of the previous rezone were continued. ~F2__~P~ing stated he would like to concede to Mr. Amo's point and retain the NB designation, but he wanted the Concomitant Agreement to read out just like it was when it had the B2 zoning designation. Mr. Sievers stated the B2 zone was a general land use classification and he believed there were some additional restrictions. He was not sure what the general banner was on the zone. Mr. Horning stressed it did matter to the neighborhood and he wanted to protect the businessman as well. Mr. Sexton stated if it is left as NB, then he felt the posture would be the applicant would be looking for a Special Permit under the NB. He did not see this as creating a problem to the degree that the City accept the applicant's request for a Special Permit in keeping with the conditions previously stated. The normal process would be TAPE #759 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 26 of 39 TAPE #760 to go to the higher rezone and then set the conditions. He was not aware of any legal restrictions that a Special Permit could not be given under the terms and in accordance with the B2 zone that existed. Mr. Sievers stated he agreed and it was more conventional to go more liberal and then restrictive. Mr. Collins stated he remembered back to 1978-79 when this issue first came up and he did not believe this particular land use was totally agreed to by everyone in the neighborhood. He believed Mr. Sexton was correct, if Mr. Heeter decides he was to do something then he can come and request a Special Use Permit. If that is done, then discussion will be centered on "a specific use", not granting 39 open uses. #0123 M/S/C(Horning/Colvin) to return all uses under the B2 zoning designation with the banner of Neighborhood Business. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Horning, Waibel, Horton, Collins Collins 8B - PUBLIC HEARING R~CQ._NJ~,_~N~D__Z___~ATERFRON~ AF_~_~ PLAN, #AB90-196 The Bremerton Planning Commission is recommending adoption of the 'Waterfront Access Plan as an amendment to the Bremerton ~p~rehensive Plan. The Plan will provide more specific guidance for acquisition, protection and development of both physical and visual public access to Bremerton shorelines. The Plan includes a "Link One Plan", which proposes water access areas and connecting pathway routes for the shoreline between the ferry terminal and Ohio Street. K~i__W_i~p~, senior Planner, stated she was requested to explain what a Comprehensive Plan Amendment means as opposed to a development plan or ordinance. If adopted, the Waterfront Access Plan will be like a Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. It will provide additional policy guidelines, it will notify the pubic what the City policy is on access to the shorelines. Out of the Comprehensive Plan could/may come other laws that would be addressed at a future time. The Shoreline Regulations may need to be amended; in which case the City would be back to the Planning Commission for new public hearings and other ordinances may be needed depending on what the plan ends up saying. This is a policy play which helps the City define what City policy is toward the issues of public access. It specifically helps the City when a Shoreline Permit is issued and the issue of public access is addressed in that permit and ask what does the very general public access requirement mean on any particular piece TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 27 of 39 of property. This is generally the role of this plan. Secondly, the question was raised what kind of notification is given when the Comprehensive Plan is amended? With an Ordinance or rezone notices are mailed out to all properties within 300 feet of a site and properties posted. This proposal is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and affects the City as a whole even though one part of the plan affects one part of the City, that is downtown to Olympic College shoreline. The Plan does provide guidelines for all shorelines in the City and under State Law the only requirement for amending a Comprehensive Plan is that at least one public hearing is held and notice provide~ in the local newspaper. In this instance, the Planning Commission studied this issue at a series of study meetings and held four public hearings, legal notice was published in The Sun each time and mailed notices have been sent out for those public hearings to people on a mailing list that is voluntarily put together even though it was not required. Those notices go to groups like Bremerton Main Street, Flagship, Chamber Of Commerce and neighborhood associations; and to specific individuals who have asked to be on the mailing list or in the case of this plan, anyone who has testified at a public hearing and given their name and addresses. Also, about 15 posters were posted along the shoreline of the Link One Plan at the various street ends hoping to get the attention of as many people as possible. Financial resources were not available to send notices out to every property owner. As a part of the Agenda Packet, Ms. Wilson included two new attachments, which were not available at the last public hearing: (1) Proposed Revisions To The Waterfront Access Plan; (2) proposed Resolution to adopt the plan. Ms. Wilson presented three model motions, which would: (a) allow modification of the suggested revisions; (b) approve the revisions as modified or as not modified; (c) adopt the Plan as revised through the Resolution as an Amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Using view graphs~ Ms. Wilson stated one of the misunderstandings that seemed to be a problem at the last hearing, was "what is the role of the Waterfront Access Plan as it relates to the Shoreline Master Program as it relates to State law", which is the Shorelines Management Act. The Shoreline Management Act was passed in 1971 and it says that the shorelines are such an important resource to the State that there will be basically two kinds of uses permitted on the shorelines: (1) water dependent uses, industrial, commercial and including Ports - uses that must be on the TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 28 of 39 water or they cannot function; (2) certain non-water dependent usesf which are deemed to have special value on the shoreiine...single family residences (residences of two or more units are not on that list), recreational uses, "water enjoyment" uses, which is a term that has evolved over the years to represent other uses that provide the opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shoreline. Specifically, the State law has some very general public access requirements: (i) to preserve the public's opportunity to enjoy physical and aesthetic qualities of the natural shorelines to the greatest extent feasible, particularly in Puget Sound which is a shoreline of State-wide significance to not only preserve but increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline. The surface of Puget Sound is a publicly owned area of the shoreline. The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program is an extension of the Shoreline Management Act - State law says that each community shall set forth regulations consistent with the law, which specifically explain how the law will be applied in that community. The City's Shoreline Management Master Program was adopted in 1977 and recently amended about two years ago with major amendments, including public access amendments. Those public access amendments say that commercial and multi-family units of 5-units or more will be allowed on the shoreline but they must provide "improved public access" to and along the shoreline. This is in an attempt to qualify these uses as "water enjoyment" uses, which are otherwise not permitted on the shoreline unless they provide the public access. Other non-residential uses are also required to provide public access, although the City's regulations are not as specific as they are for commercial and multi-family. The Waterfront Access Plan then comes along and helps define how these two requirements for public access are going to be interpreted, so the plan includes policies to help interpret the regulation; a Link One Plan, which shows specifically how the City would like the public access to link up at some future time and design guidelines to assist developers in actual construction design requirements, such as how wide a sidewalk, what kind of railings, lighting, landscaping, etc.; so that there is a consistency in developing properties along the shoreline and the City does not find itself in the position of making up Concomitant Agreements on a case-by-case basis for each parcel. Five issues were identified from the last public hearing: (1) pathways across residential property; (2) street ends; (3) security; (4) boardwalk to Evergreen Park or not; a boardwalk along the entire waterfront or not; (5) liability. Ms. Wilson provided a supporting document which summarized what the plan TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 29 of 39 says now as proposed by the Planning Commission along with a suggested list of revisions that could be made to the plan to respond to these particular issues. The proposed revisions are as follows: to address the issue of pathways across residential property - to make some changes on the map by removing the pathway designations from the single family zoned areas (note: this does not change the impact of the plan but it changes the message of the map, so that the message of the map is consistent with the text. The text already states that single family zoned areas are exempt from pathways along the shoreline). Using a view graph, Ms. Wilson stated in front of the Central Business District zoning this variation of the map would show a boardwalk from First Street Dock all the way up to 6th Street. There are a lot of variations whether it would go to 4th Street or 6th Street, this is just one variation. The next segment in front of the multi-family zones which are called Mixed Residential and Highland District, shows the erosion control pathway, which is not a change to the maps_ except on the prior map the erosion control pathway was shown only north of the Manette Bridge. Now it is shown down to 6th Street because the shoreline south of the bridge is actually mapped as unstable soils in the Soils Atlas. In front of Smith Cove a boardwalk is shown again, with a shoreline pathway around the cove beach. If a boardwalk were put in it might cut off the Cove beach area. One of the suggestions made by Wolf Bauer was that north of Pt. Turner, which is between 2nd and 4th Streets, is a beautiful natural beach. If a boardwalk were placed there it might destroy access or at least convenient access to that nice sandy beach, so there might be a case to be made to take the boardwalk only up to Pt. Turner and simply have a shoreline pathway north of that location. North of Evergreen Park there are two zones that allow multi-family, the Central Bremerton District, which is a mixed single family and small multi-family zone. The shoreline pathway is shown along this area because potentially all of the shoreline will be developed into multi-family and be required to put in that shoreline pathway. Ms. Wilson pointed out the Shoreline Regulations state the owner has the option of building a shoreline pathway up on the shore or a boardwalk can be built, at their option. The City expects more people would prefer the pathway because it is probably less expensive. In front of the Single-Family (3) zone west of the Warren Avenue Bridge, the plan would show another item that was not included in the supporting information and should be, a beach access easement. What this would say is if at any time these properties in the single family area need a Shoreline Permit, which is not usual for single family development, but for an unusually large development a Shoreline Permit could be required, then the City would ask, TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22~ 1990 Page 30 of 39 in exchange for that permit, an easement to the beach. As discussed in Study Sessions, the public may already have a right to walk on the beaches without an easement, the courts have not yet ruled on that issue. Another idea that is not listed in the information provided but was intended to be included on the map, was the designation "Major View PointZ and Minor View Point". On the Planning ~Qmmi~.sion'~ proposed map, there was a designation called "View point". She thought if the designations were spit into "major" and "minor" it could be more clearly indicated in the text of the Plan. ~ome of these accesses in downtown, Evergreen Park and south shore of Smith Cove, would be designated "major" public accesses The other accesses would be designated "minor" - those in residential areas (llth Street, Park Avenue, Elizabeth Avenue, Chester Avenue, Ohio Avenue). This would not change what is in the text of the plan but would help the map be more clear about the intent. In addressing the issue of street ends, and in addition to the change in the view point designation on the map, a text change is suggested.A, that a neighborhood meeting be held any time a street end were to be developed for public access. This would provide an opportunity to solicit concerns of the neighbors so that those concerns could be addressed by the design of the park or public access. If the neighborhood meeting indicated that there were some problems that needed to b~ worked on, an Advisory Committee would be set up to work with the park designer to come up with a proposal that would address those concerns. It would not come to Council as a Shoreline Permit until that Advisory Committee and park designer had worked together to come up with a proposal that represented a reasonable compromise. This effort would be used to protect the neighbors and still allow the public the right to use the public access, which they now have the right to use. Ms. Wilson pointed out that when a street end is located on a shoreline, the public has public access, but if it is undeveloped it can become a problem by attracting litter, undesirable behavior, etc. She felt that the Planning Commission was convinced that good design of these street ends will improve the public access that already exists wb~]e better protectinq in the neighbors and that is the inten~. Security is an issue that is addressed by both of the first two issues. The text changes address both the street and security issues. The second text change would be that there would be a later amendment generated for the Shoreline Master Program to say that any park or recreation use on any shoreline in the City would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit and therefore a public hearing before the Planning TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 31 of 39 Commission and City Council. The way the Shoreline Management Program reads now is that only certain areas are required to have Conditional Use Permits, i.e., Kitsap Lake and Tracyton Beach. All other shoreline permits for parks can be approved administratively by the Department Of Community Development. So, this change would ensure that all public recreational facilities on shorelines came through the public hearings process and the public had ample opportunity to comment. Boardwalk to Evergreen Park is an issue of "should the City make a commitment to a boardwalk or should it be dealt with on a case-by-case basis" Ms. Wilson posed three options: (1) no change, the developer would retain that option; (2) boardwalk between downtown and Evergreen Park; (3) boardwalk between downtown and Chester/Ohio Avenue. She posed the question "what is the difference"? If the City commits to a boardwalk that raises some issues, such as how will it be paid for, is the developer responsible for the whole cost - these issues are not known and this does not have to be dealt with until Shoreline Amendments are brought back to Council, because that is the point that regulations come into play and determine if the developer pays 100~, 10~, 0, or. pays a"fee-~n-]i~u" option to a fund to build a boardwalk? If the City wishes to make a commitment to a boardwalk, it is made in the Comprehensive Plan, which tells the staff to go back and bring back a proposal how this would be accomplished. An issue of liability has been raised - Policy #14 of the Plan says that the City will assume the liability for public access, pathways and boardwalks just as it does for sidewalk and streets, and that the property owner is responsible for maintaining it in a safe condition. That is a policy in the proposed Waterfront Access Plan, however, as Ms. Wilson researched this she realized that there is a State law which seems to protect the landowner now more than it does for sidewalks. That State law says that there is a limit to the liability for landowners who allow public recreational use of their property. It states if there is an unsafe condition the property owner is still liable, but as long as it is in general~y good condition, it is a public liability. Ms. Wilson interprets this to mean a greater liability to the public than for.~ sidewalk, however, she was not sure in her interpretation and noted the City Attorney may want to comment on that point. Because of this understanding, she suggested a policy revision to Policy #14 to eliminate that reference to streets and sidewalks and let it stand just to say that the City does assume the substantial liability for public access facilities, which i~ does any time a park is built. TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 32 of 39 In conclusion, Ms. Wilson stated they did mail out a map to everyone they had an address for and hopefully a number of citizens are present for this public hearing. Charlie Foster, 12088 18th Street, pointed out that anything like this proposal, if it is once put in, would never be taken out regardless of the level of problems that might develop. He thought the crime problems that could develop from a project such as this could make the whole area almost un!ivable. He did not support the idea of having view points at street ends. HoW.~_r~__.~llnutt, 6289 Gleneagle Ave. SW., Port Orchard, representing Flagship, stated Ms. Wilson had presented the Waterfront Access Plan to the Flagship Waterfront Task Force and discussed many elements of the plan. He noted there are a lot of problems and issues that would have to be dealt with, however, the important issue is that this is a golden opportunity to keep in the forefront for future development to expand a boardwalk or pathway. tt is the Task Force's considered opinion to keep this as a cornerstone for future development/redevelopment. If a developer would come in and want to create a condo complex from 4th Street to the Manette Bridge, it would be wise for the City to have at least a contingent requirement that developer be required to submit to the City a plan for boardwalk or pathway depending on the conditions requiring one or the other. Flagship recommends approving the proposed Plan. Forest Steeled_ 1735 Ohio Avenue, stated the presentation made by Ms. Wilson was much more acceptable than the proposal presented at the previous meeting. He find~ the concept of the developer being required to put in facilities reasonable and acceptable. The shoreline where single family dwellings are located becomes a moot point because the bank is relatively high and tide comes up very high, which leaves no access without taking private property. It was also a moot point about whether one has the right to deny people access to the beach, as it is nearly impossible to stop people if they decide to take a particular route to a particular destination. Clint Shinkle, 3129 Rocky Pt., encouraged the Council to support a commitment to a boardwalk all the way to the Warren Avenue Bridge. Some of the concerns about security can be addressed, other cities have already tackled this problem. He cited the Bert Gilman Trail (a 25 mile trail) and the fact that the trail actually enhances the property located along it. If security is a concern, then funding needs to be TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 33 of 39 identified to provide security levels to protect the property owner and citizens, i.e., such as bicycle Police Officers, etc. D~V~.~_~__u~, 956 Washington, questioned if the view point at the end of llth Place had been omitted intentionally? Ms. Wilson stated that was not a deliberate omission - there is no ~'~'~ to the Planning Commission's proposal at this time. Mr. Guertin stated there is presently a parking problem in ~hat area and the view site presently accommodates 4 vehicles. On the issues of noise and security, living next door to that area he is inconvenienced enough now, and questioned the value of a view point at that site. Ron Harmon, property owner end of 6th Street, stated the Plan did have some excellent points in it, but if it is an issue that Council is deliberating on and passing into law, which is how the Building Department will interpret it, then he felt it needed to be cleaned up. He felt it was premature to act upon the Plan at this time. In regard to notification, at the last public hearing he requested the Planning staff meet with the property owners - this was not done. Historically, reviewing what has been done to date with this whole idea of a boardwalk, the Plan has been put together by four members of a subcommittee. That subcommittee met with Mr. Wolfe Bauer and then met with the Planning Department. He never received notification of any of the public hearings held on this issue, he has been a member and support of Bremerton Main Street Association since it was formed, so the notification system is poor. He noted the staff's interest in this document is stated on page 3 of the Plan: "it is a policy document, they intend to use it and it stabilizes the framework for private permit conditions for public acquisition by the permit process." He felt this was coercive and it exists in the Plan. On page 3, last paragraph, it states: "Where public access is not required because of one or more of the above factors, payment in lieu of providing public access may be required before the permit is granted". In other words, if it is not required there still must be payment. He did not know if this was legal. He believed this Plan will be interpreted to the letter, therefore, he believed it critical that it be correct before being implemented. The basic criteria he was concerned about was the right of private property. He felt wording in the original document was unconstitutional in that the Plan demands the concept of public access over the rights of private property owners. The Attorney General of the State of Washington and Shoreline Management Act as written, states that those rules that these people are using applies to coastal areas .... these do not even apply to inland waterways. TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 34 of 39 He felt this point was clear and decisions should not be made by an innuendo by the Planning Department staff. JghD.__.~n__!~_Jf, 2836 Halverson St., stated he had surveyed everyone on the waterfront from 4th Street to Evergreen Park - everything from 4th Street to the Manette Bridge is multi- family except one exception; and the great majority of these properties are absentee owners. From Manette Bridge to Evergreen park there are a number of single residences but quite a few are rentals and some are absentee owners as far away as Hawaii. These people had been surveyed and asked to go to a public meeting, for a different purpose, but very few actually attended. There is no public access to the beach at the present time. He recently walked the beach area again and he had a difficult time getting down and back upland. Linda Baldwin, 946 Washington Avenue, expressed concern over the proposed view point at the end of !!th Street because it will infringe on parking in that neighborhood. She did support the idea of an erosion pathway. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read a letter into the record from Tom Proteau, 400 Washington Avenue, which stated he was in agreement with Alternative B proposal to the Waterfront Access Plan. A boardwalk at beach level was a better plan than the previously proposed public waterfront pathway at bluff edge. Ms._~_son stated in regard to comments about people being on the boardwalk/pathway at night, one thing that was not described was that when a pathway goes across private property the property owner has the right to construct a gate, which can be locked and required to keep it open only during daylight hours. She felt this would alleviate most of the problems. If it were public property, the public would have the right to put in gates that could be closed off also. There are design solutions that can be addressed and that is why the idea of the neighborhood meetings each time one is designed is the way to go because it is difficult to anticipate now what those problems will be. In the case of the ilth Street viewpoint, there will be some private parking eliminated on public right-of-way that has gone on for years. There may be a solution to the parking problem and the process to look for such an answer would be the neighborhood meeting and the Advisory Committee, if needed. In response to Mr. Harmon's comments, she felt there was some TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 35 of 39 confusion between the role of this plan and regulations. This Plan establishes policy and the regulations cannot be dealt with at this level. Adoption of this policy Plan will guide the City in interpreting the regulations that are already in effect. If there are things in the Plan that are not covered by the regulations, then the process would have to go back to the Planning Commission and start in developing what those regulations would be. When a Comprehensive Plan is developed the City is not required to notify individual property owners, nor is there staffing and funding resources to carry out such notification. There isn't anything a planner likes more than to work with a neighborhood to resolve any problems or concerns over issues that affect them before the issue is brought to a public hearing. Nothing is being built with this Plan, anything that is built will require a Shoreline Permit and if the Shoreline Amendment is adopted that is suggested, every Shoreline Permit will require a public hearing. In reference to Appendix K, a list of proposed Shoreline Amendments that would go back through the public hearing process - that would not be done until it is determined what will be adopted in the Waterfront Access Plan. Once that is accomplished, the list of Shoreline Plan Amendments will be taken to the Planning Commission for a public hearing; they are not adopted, as was previously stated. In reference to the indication that the Plan was not well thought out and only developed by a Committee of Park Board members, this is only partly true. The part that is true is there was a committee of Park Board members, however, many hours went into developing the Plan under a grant and many many more free hours went into it at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Waibel pointed out the Manette Neighborhood Association has for years dedicated most of their efforts to developing street ends in the Manette area because it was found that it does benefit those surrounding areas - improving and providing a clear access. Street ends have been well tested in the Manette area and so well received they are asking the Parks Department to make more streets into park areas then they can accomplish in any given time. Mr. Estes questioned if there had been any public hearings on this issue in the neighborhoods? Ms. Wilson stated no, the Planning commission held all their public hearings in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. Mr. Estes questioned if the public had notice of those public hearings? ~s. Wil~ stated she had previously described the notice procedure and she was TAPE #760 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August no 1990 Page 36 of 39 sure many people were not aware of the meetings, however, they reached as many people as possible considering the limitations of time and budget. M~_t._~ questioned if this was a fair process? M_s.. Wilson asked what is fair: 50%? or 100%?..they did exceed what is required by law. ~lt_E~_e~s_stated the only way he could support this plan would be to guarantee flexibility. Ms. Wilson stated the Plan does not have the force of law, it is guidance and the force of law will come later when they draft regulations for adoption. It is never too late to amend the Plan or change the regulations to suit what is desired. Mr. Colvin expressed concern over the notification process and ~'~i%n~ if councilmen whose districts would be affected were notified? Ms. Wilson stated notices were sent. out and she believed eve~'~"~%~'~ouncii member was on the mailing list. #2926 TAPE #761 M/S/C(Waibei/Collins) to approve Resolution #2315, adopting the Waterfront Access Plan as an amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan with the revisions to Attachment IV by Alternative B (the Zoning Map with new symbols), and with the recommended changes 1. (a)(b) and 2. on page 161 of the Agenda Packet, concerning security; and to "Be It Further Resolved": the change to say "Bremerton City Council", not "Bremerton c~ x Council" ~=.__~Qh~_o__n requested the maker of the motion to explain how the proposed revisions on the handout fit into the plan. Mr. Waibel explained on page 159 of the Council packet there ~'~h'~'&~""recommendations that did not include adding a map symbol for Major and Minor View Points and the Beach Access Easement symbol, but Alternative B includes recommendation 1, 2 and 3 (on page 159) plus the symbols for Major and Minor View Points and the beach access. Therefore, accepting all the recommended changes listed in the text plus the ones that were only listed on the symbol document. Mr. Estes stated he could not support this proposal until the ~'~~le neighborhood meetings are held and he hoped in the future this would be taken care of before it ever came to Council. Mr. Horninq questioned if the Plan is adopted as proposed are they adopting the entire Waterfront Access Plan and a major part of that is this Link One as proposed? ~_~1~ stated yes, it is one of three parts to the plan. Vote: In Favor: Waibel, Collins, Dawkins, Johnson, Opposed: Estes, Horning, Horton TAPE #76I City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 37 of 39 Abstain: Colvin 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS #0134 #0205 TH__E___B~ffi~gTON ZON~9_.gR__D_XN_A_.N~_E AN__D_OFFICIAL ZONING MAP THAT PERTAINS TO OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, #AB90-218 A number of proposed amendments to various off-street parking requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance were brought to the City Council for consideration with recommendations from the Planning Commission. The City Council conducted two Study Sessions and help public hearings on June 27 and August 8, 1990, to discuss the recommendations and to accept public comment. Following the public hearing on August 8, the City Council approved a package of parking-related Zoning amendments. Those amendments will be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance following adoption of the attached ordinance. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated there are four exhibits, Exhibit A is the amended Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with Parking; Exhibit B is a change to Land Use Tables of Chapter V; Exhibit C is Section 5 (Limited Parking Overlay District) amendment; Exhibit D is the amendment to the Limited Parking Overlay (LPO) District. ~[~_C__o}~i~~ stated he became aware of some things that concern the Parking Advisory Board and things that happened on this particular document and he would like to continue this issue for one week, but he would not oppose it. Mr. Horning requested Mr. Collins to state his concerns. Mr. Collins stated what he learned today made him not totally sure that the Plan is truly the will and recommendation of the Advisory Parking Committee, and he need time to look into it. M/S/F(Waibel/Dawkins) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, amending certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bremerton, Washington, and the Official Zoning Map, as they pertain to off-street parking. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Abstain: Motion Failed. Horning, Waibel, Dawkins Colvin, Johnson, Estes, Horton Collins M/S/C(Col!ins/Colvin) this item be continued for one week. Mr. HoUgh stated it was his understanding that the ordinance reflected what the Council approved three weeks ago and requested input as to what may need to be changed in order to TAPE #761 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 38 of 39 pass it the next time. M~__~9~3~ stated he would let me Hough know as soon as he looked into some things. ~.~_=_.~ questioned how much input did the Parking Committee have on the proposed Plan? Mr. Hough stated they met with the Parking Committee for 2+ months, amounting to 3-4 meetings and their input was primarily with the downtown CBD parking. The issue was whether or not to require parking downtown and their input was no, they did not want parking required downtown for any kind of new development, expansion, rehab, etc., and that is what Council approved. Mr. Estes stated at the last time he discussed parking with Mr. Hough, he asked that same question and Mr. Hough response was that they, the Parking .Advisory Committee, had no input. President Horton stated the Committee did meet on the text. Mr. Hough stated the Committee had input all along. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Abstain: Co!vin, Johnson, Estes, Waibei, Collins, Horton Horning Dawkins 7B - RESOLUTION #2313, FOR__MALLY ADOPTING THE FINAL VERSION OF THE KITSAP COUNTY MODERATE RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DATED DECEMBER 1989, #AB90-219 Kitsap County has distributed the final version of the Kitsap County Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan for adoption by the County and participating jurisdictions. Ordinance #4219 establishes the City of Bremerton as a participating jurisdiction with Kitsap County for solid waste management. Bremerton City Council Resolution #2185 provided concurrence for participation in the joint development of the Kitsap County Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan. The plan was developed under the direction of the Kitsap County Solid Waste Advisory Committee, which has a representative from the City of Bremerton. Public Comment - none TAPE ~761 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 22, 1990 Page 39 of ~ #0321 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve Resolution #2313, formally adopting the Final Version of the Kitsap County Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan dated December 1989. With no further business .eeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. EEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk LyNO~~OR~. ~L TON, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault