HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/90TAPE #751
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
#0026
#O050
JULY 25, 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 July 25, 1990
at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding.
Council members present were: Lon Overson, Wayne Estes,
Spencer Horning, Hank Waibel, Morris Dawkins, A1 Colvin, Russ
Johnson and C. R. "Tiny" Collins. Also present were City
Attorney Kelley 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 Chaplin Jenny
Geddes of Sub Base Bangor chapel.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes Of Meeting - July 11, 1990, #AB90-190
B. Bid Award Recommendation - Submersible Pumping Equipment,
Awarded to BW/IP International - $49,365.00, #AB90-191
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as
required by RCW 42.24,080, and those expense reimbursement
claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been
recorded on a listing which has been made available to the
council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Waibel) on July 25, 1990 the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: 113806 - 114040 in the total amount of
$283,252.74
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Overson commended City staff for getting the air
conditioning installed and running in the Council Chambers and
Council office areas.
Mr- Estes stated work on all the projects he's working on are
going smoothly.
Mr. Waibel reported his fishing trip last week was very
productive. He also has had the opportunity to enjoy the new
recreational pier several times and was pleased to see
increased Navy Shore Patrol in the downtown area. He noted
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 2 of 26
that some of the public are not aware that it is illegal to
drink acholic beverages in public and cautioned those using
the new pier that the drinking law will be enforced. He
showed off two trophies won by Bremerton's float, which has
participated in several parades and was the rec'p~~vel~ng...'~.~-~
Queen's Trophy from the Fathoms 'O' Fun Parade~he
Queen's Trophy can be kept only one year unless a float wins
in that category each year. This trophy is given as the "most
original float in the parade" To date the Bremerton float
has been seen by approximately one million people.
Mr. Johnson thanked the Police Department for continued
patrols on Kitsap Lake and their putting together a contract
allowing the Police Department to rent a Kitsap Lake
resident's boat to use for patrolling; helping to reduce noise
and improve safety on the lake. He reported the Parks
Department will be placing additional markers for the areas
designated as "no-wake" along the pier and swimming area. In
regarding to illegal drinking in public, people caught
drinking in the Kitsap Lake park will also be cited. There
have been some problems with rowdiness and drinking in this
area and the Police have been giving out citations. In the
area of open space, Congressman John Miller is sponsoring a
seminar on Open Space Conversation for cities, counties and
states on how to best preserve open space. This seminar will
be held Saturday, August 4, in Seattle at the Shoreline
District School Administration Bldg., 18560 First Avenue NE,
Seattle, and if someone is interested in attending this
meeting they can call Alta Kendall at 672-4224 or 1-800-422-
5521.
Mr. Colvin stated one of his concerns is parking - he met with
some senior citizens and they were not happy with the City's
new policy that someone will be ticketed if they park more
than one - 2/hour period within the same block area. He felt
the City should revisit this policy. He also met with a group
of golfers and they indicated to him that they have a proposal
to make to the City Council. He strongly urged
reconsideration of recent increased golf fees at Golf Mountain
Golf Course and to give the golfers the opportunity to present
their proposal. He commended the City's Street Department and
Police Department for their prompt response to some concerns
in District #1.
Mr. Dawkins reported on Monday he artended some of the Good
Will Games, seeing some of the sports and TV personalities,
like Carl Lewis. He noted it was nice - not only was the
stadium crowded but the runners seemed to enjoy the crowd and
after the races were over they would take an extra lap around
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 3 of 26
the track and stop and sign autographs, etc. He felt Seattle
was very fortunate to get the Goodwill Games.
Mr. Collins stated last Thursday, July 19, he and Carol
Dickinson, Community Services Manager, travelled to the City
of Spokane to make a presentation at the Washington State
Housing Finance Commission. The purpose of the presentation
was to have the a set aside of one million dollars of Revenue
Bond Program to assist first time home buyers. The City
prevailed and received a significant amount of funds through
this Commission. He thanked Great Northwest Savings and Loan
for their participation as the financial institution handling
the funds and some realtors who were involved with the program
and will be able to make about 16 homes available to people
(first time home buyers) in central west Bremerton. He
announced Olympic Avenue has finally been paved and it is his
understanding that the neighborhood is having a wetting down
party sometime after August 1. On Tuesday, July 24, the
Mayor, himself and the engineers from Parametrix met with
approximately 100 people from the area that will be impacted
by the new entrance into Bremerton. It was a very good
meeting, the engineers were well prepared and even though not
everyone got their questions answered the way they wanted to,
they were informed the intention is to bring a new entrance
into the city that will do the least amount of damage to the
neighborhood. Lastly, he invited everyone to a Block Party in
the 200 block of Lafayette on August 5, starting at 2:00 p.m.,
bring something to barbecue/grill, something to share hot or
cold, your own place setting/silver/own choice of beverage.
For information anyone may call Mr. Collins 373-2082 or
Dorothy 479-3275.
Mrs. Horton reported Ms. Dickinson informed her that the State
Housing Finance Committee members were impressed by the fact
that the City of Bremerton was represented by an elected
official; and Mrs. Horton extended Mr. Collins a "thank you"
for taking his own time to participate at that meeting. In
regard to parking, the free zone has been instituted from Park
Avenue to Washington Avenue on 4th Street and that will be
soon expanded to Pacific from First to Ninth Street. She
noted it was nice being able to drive downtown and not
worrying about needing a nickel or dime to put into a parking
meter. She did remind everyone it is a 2-hour free zone and
the intention is to encourage people to come to downtown
Bremerton. Lastly, Thursday evening, July 26, 7:00 P.M.,
Sheridan Park Recreational Center there will be a public
meeting sponsored by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency - they will be discussing the new rules and regulations
from the Federal government pertaining to the Clean Air Act.
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 4 of 26
PUBLIC RECOGNITION - None
6A - MEETING 10% NOTICE TO ANNEX - TO MEET WITH THE PROPERTY
OWNER WHO HAS REOUESTED ANNEXATION AND TO CONSIDER THE
PROPOSED "MT. ZION CHURCH ANNEXATION", #AB90-192
A Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings has been
received from Pastor Sam Rachal Jr. of Mr. Zion Baptist
Church. He is requesting the annexation of two church-owned
parcels located on the north side of Sylvan Way and adjacent
to the City limits of Bremerton. The lots total 2.4 acres and
also adjoin other church-owned property within the City. The
request includes a request for "Multiple-family Residential
(MF)" zoning of the property upon annexation.
This annexation is being processed in accordance with the 754
Petition Method. This initial meeting is to consider the
request, determine whether planning or zoning will be adopted,
and to determine whether the petitioner should assume the
City's indebtedness.
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, provided view graphs showing the
location of the subject Annexation area, consisting of: two
lots having combined Sylvan Way frontage of approximately 166
feet and a combined area of 2.4 acres. Both lots are vacant
and are bordered by the City of Bremerton on the east and
north. According to records of Kitsap County Assessor, these
two lots have a total assessed value of $54,000. And, what
initiated this annexation request was the desire of the Mt.
Zion Church to build a Planned Unit Development. The Church
has received approval for a Special Use Permit to develop a
church facility on the 2.4 acre site. The actual church
building would take up just a small portion of that land and
it is their plan to market the excess property. The
conceptual design being proposed is a senior residential
facility (multiple family facility at about 14-15 unites per
acre). In order to develop a project such as this, the owners
would need to have Multiple-Family zoning as well as annexing
that portion of the property that is located outside the City
limits.
The current Kitsap County zoning of the Annexation Area and
unincorporated lands to the west and south is "Residential-5",
a residential zone that allows a density of five dwellings per
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 5 of 26
acre. The zoning within the City to the north and east is
also "Single-family Residential"
Staff's recommendation is to approve the request for
annexation and to direct staff to proceed with the Annexation.
Public comment invited - none received.
#0689
M/S/C/U(Overson/Collins) to accept the Notice Of Intent and
direct staff to proceed with this annexation; require the
annexed properties to assume the City's current indebtedness
following annexation; and at a future public hearing, consider
the Planning Commission's recommendations pertaining to
Comprehensive Planning and zoning of the subject property.
6B - MEETING 10% NOTICE TO ANNEX - TO MEET WITH PROPERTY
OWNERS WHO HAVE FILED NOTICE OF INTENT, REOUESTING ANNEXATION
OF THEIR PROPERTIES, (HOSKINSON ANNEXATION), #AB90-193
The owners of three lots in the vicinity of Marion Avenue and
Arsenal Way have filed Notices Of Intent To Commence
Annexation Proceedings, requesting the annexation of their
properties to the City of Bremerton. Based on these requests,
a proposed Annexation Area has been delineated for the City
Council's consideration. The Area consists of a total of six
lots, an area of 6.23 acres, and a total assessed value of
$327,830.
This annexation is being processed in accordance with the 75~
Petition Method. This initial meeting is to consider the
request, determine whether planning or zoning will be adopted,
and to determine whether the petitioner should assume the
City's indebtedness.
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, provided a view graph showing the
general location of the proposed Annexation Area, near the
intersection of Arsenal and Marion. The area abuts the City
limits along its east side.
The original request for annexation came from the owner of
Parcels D and E, on the south side of Arsenal. Whenever a
notice is received requesting annexation a letter is sent to
surrounding property owners letting them know there is
interest in annexing and invite their comments or often the
opportunity to join in the annexation. A call was received
from the owner of Parcel A, on the north side, and since he
also had been thinking about annexation into the City, he also
submitted a 10~ Notice Of Intent. Therefore, those two
property owners and three parcels were used to put together
a proposed Annexation Area for Council's consideration. In
#0910
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 6 of 26
order to create an area that had a reasonable shape and was
not irregular, three additional smaller properties were
included in the area. The applicants' properties total 5.73
acres, or 88 percent of the total Annexation Area and 81
percent of the total assessed value.
The three properties whose owners did not consent to
annexation may be included in the annexation and, in this
case, are considered necessary to achieve the most reasonable
shape of the Annexation Area and minimize "irregular
boundaries". ~r. Hough recommended changing the annexation to
include to the west side of K Warner Connector rather than
the middle of that street.
Mr. Hough stated there is no particular zoning request at this
time.
Paul Hoskinson, proponent, 9919 Weslon Place, stated the long
term needs of his property are services that are adjacent to
the property in the City limits ... sanitary sewer, City water
serves the area and there is a stormwater detention basic
immediately adjacent to the property on the south side. It is
his feeling whether the property stays as a residential use,
commercial use or is included as part of the new proposed road
system, this could be impacted significantly by City services.
He believes the Annexation Area is a natural extension of
current City boundaries. His personal feeling is that a lot
of property in that particular area has benefit of the City,
not only for the utilities but Police and Fire protection and
feels they should be part of the City.
Public comment invited - none received.
Ian Siever_s, City Attorney, requested amending the proposal to
include amending the Annexation Area - taking the jog out of
the south west corner and have it follow the westerly boundary
of K Warner Connector, since the City cannot annex middle of
right-of-ways.
Mr. Waibel stated Mr. Hoskinson made one of the best
presentations he has ever heard from a citizens of this County
as to why there is a realistic reason for properties being
brought into the City. He thanked Mr. Hoskinson for his
presentation of this proposal.
M/S/C/U(Collins/Waibel) to accept the Notices Of Intent and
direct staff to proceed with the annexation, including the
recommended change in the Annexation Area to include "to the
west side of K Warner Connector"; require the annexed
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 7 of 26
properties to assume the City's current indebtedness following
annexation; and at a future public hearing, consider the
Planning Commission's recommendations pertaining to
Comprehensive Planning and zoning of the properties within the
Annexation Area.
6C (2) - PROPOSED ADMIRAL THEATER OPERATING AGREEMENT, #AB90-
187
This proposed Operating Agreement assigns management and
operation of the Admiral Theater facility to the Admiral
Theater Foundation in line with specifications approved by the
Council on July 2, 1990.
The principal obligation not resolved was the responsibility
for initial major renovation, with a range of costs for these
items in doubt. The Admiral Theater fund shall be the source
of funding for major structural and marquee maintenance, with
no City commitment beyond resources appropriated, assigned or
contributed to this fund.
Mayor Louis Mentor thanked everyone involved in development of
this agreement and pointed out the following highlights of the
proposal: (1) no obligation to the City for renovation or
repairs to the building. The Admiral Theater Foundation is
encouraged to come to the City and ask for funding and if such
funding is available and is a reasonable cause, then the City
can vote to forward funds to the Foundation for renovation
needs or other needs as identified; (2) the City is currently
limited to a 10 year contract and the City has agreed to go
forward to the voters of the City this fall and ask them to
extend that 10-year contract; (3) the City has agreed to
provide assistance as reasonable and possible to help in fund
raising. The City's grant writer will assist the Foundation
in seeking grants to help support the Foundation; (4) all
rental property around the outer parameter of the theater will
be under the control of the Foundation and all income will go
to the Admiral Foundation to provide an annual income, which
would go into operations and maintenance for the Admiral
Theater and the Foundation; (5) all Admission Taxes collected
from the Admiral Theater would be placed in the Admiral
Theater Fund to be used for operations and maintenance for the
theater. And, he stated this was a real step forward for the
City and he urged the Council to cast a unanimous vote in
favor of the proposal, joining him and representatives of the
Admiral Theater Foundation in the very best interest of the
City
Ike Parker, President of the Admiral Theater Foundation, noted
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 8 of 26
this process has been a long and hard struggle. He reported
the Foundation did hire an appraiser to inspect the building
and provide an estimate of what costs would be involved. From
this inspection they learned it would cost considerably more
for repair/refurbishment of the roof, walls, foundation, HVAC,
plumbing and electrical than they had previously thought.
Considering this higher cost estimate it was a concern that
the funds they had earmarked for repayment of City loans would
take forever to pay off. Therefore, they decided to drop that
request providing the Foundation could get a long term (50 -
year) lease, which would require the vote of the citizens of
Bremerton.
Ed Sheldon, Fund Raising Chairman Admiral Theater Foundation,
stated due to the added costs, funding raising efforts will be
seeking 1.2 - 1.2+ million. He stated he could not go to
people requesting money and tell them their investment is only
good for 10 - 20 years. He cited the overwhelming approval
given by the voters for the 50-year lease to the YMCA. He
believes this project is of a similar kind of quality for the
people who live in the City. It would not be primarily a
tourist attraction but primarily for the local residents. He
believes enthusiasm can be generated for this project in spite
of the fact that there is a current fund raising campaign
going on for the USS Turner Joy, which he supports; and the
fact that there may be some other organizations of different
types who are raising funds. He believes this project has the
kind of appeal to the public spirited financial donor and it
can be a successful campaign. There are no guarantees and
there will be a need for broad community support. Lastly, he
noted everyone gave up something in the compromise and urged
the City Council to cast a unanimous vote to approve the
agreement, which would send the right signal to the citizens.
Public comment invited - none.
President Morton stated she fully supports the proposal as
presented and believes the Foundation is a very hard working
group who have the best interest of the City at heart.
Mr. Waibel stated he was extremely happy to be wholeheartedly
in agreement with the final compromises in this agreement. It
reflects what he, as a Council member, felt the City would do
in December when the building was purchased. This is where
the City is not in the position to get into the
arts/entertainment business but the City needs
arts/entertainment and he is very much in support of seeing
this happen. He noted, for the public's benefit, that a
revised contract had been provided Council members prior to
#1470
#1518
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 9 of 26
the Council meeting and it does reflect those items mentioned
by Mayor Mentor and Mr. Parker; however, he did feel
there was an additional error that needed correcting and
requested the City Attorney address this point. Ian Sievers,
City Attorney, stated he was addressing the copy of the
agreement handed to Council prior to the meeting, in Section
3 - Compensation: second sentence should read "Admission
Taxes as defined by City Ordinance collected from the Admiral
Theater shall be paid monthly to the City Treasurer for
deposit in the City's Admiral Theater Fund .... ". Mr. Waibel
noted that particular change reflects comments he made at an
earlier meeting where he thought the Foundation did not want
to be tied into particular fees beyond the Admission fees.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horning) the City Council pass unanimously the
Admiral Theater Operating Agreement between the City of
Bremerton and the Admiral Theater Foundation, including
changes so stated by the City Attorney.
6C (3) - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ESTABLISHING ADMIRAL
THEATER FUND, #AB90-188
This proposed special purpose fund would receive and
distribute gifts, bequests, and City appropriations dedicated
to renovation, maintenance and improvements to the Admiral
Theater complex.
Public Comment invited - none received.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horning) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
creating a special revenue fund of the City of Bremerton to be
called the Admiral Theater Fund and designating the use
thereof.
6C (1) - ADMIRAL THEATER - RESOLUTION #2305, BREMERTON CITY
COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ITS LONG TERM SUPPORT OF THE PERFORMING
ARTS, EDUCATION PURSUITS AND OTHER ENTERTAINMENT EFFORTS OF
THE ADMIRAL THEATER FOUNDATION, #AB90-187
The City of Bremerton and the Admiral Theater Foundation are
completing negotiations for an operating agreement for an
arts, entertainment and education facility in downtown
Bremerton. This Resolution further enhances the cooperative
relationship between the City and the Foundation.
Public comment invited - none received.
Russ Johnson requested the City Clerk read the proposed
Resolution into the record. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk,
read Resolution #2305 into the record in its entirety. Mr.
Johnson stated in terms of the contract and going to the
#1728
#1845
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 10 of 26
voters for a longer lease term, he easily supported asking for
50 years and letting the citizens decide. He felt strongly
that efforts should be made to make this a first class
facility through proper funding and fund raising.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horning) to approve Resolution #2305, a
Resolution of the City Council establishing long term support
of the performing arts, education pursuits and other
entertainment efforts of the Admiral Theater Foundation.
Ike Parker thanked the City Council for their support on this
project.
7A - RESOLUTION #2306, FORMALLY ADOPTING THE FINAL VERSION OF
THE KITSAP COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
DATED MAY 1990.
The Washington State Department Of Ecology has approved the
May 1990 version of the Kitsap County Comprehensive Solid
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. 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 invited - none received.
Russ Johnson stated the City owes it to Kitsap County to
formally adopt the final version of the Plan. The final draft
version has been reviewed, which includes a number of changes
requested by the City, giving the City maximum flexibility and
yet allowing the City to be a part of the County planning
process. Also, Kitsap County has indicated they will be of
help to the City in obtaining grant funds.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve Resolution #2306, formally
adopting the final version of the Kitsap County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan dated May 1990.
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD),
APPLICANT JOHNSTANLEY, CEDAR GLEN PARTNERSHIP; LOCATION: 2511
MAGNUSON WAY, #AB90-195
On Jun 19, 1990, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to
recommend approval of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development
(PUD). The application requests approval of the construction
of three multi-family structures with 34 dwelling units.
Chapter VI, P_!anned Unit_Development empowers the Council to
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 11 of 26
approve, deny, or approve with conditions, the Preliminary
Plan.
President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict OF
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Jack Allingham, Current Planning Division, stated the
application is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct
34 additional apartment units in three additional buildings
and associated parking for 59 vehicles at a site located at
2511 Magnuson Court.
A view graph was used to show a vicinity map of the subject
project showing surrounding uses. The history of the site
began about 1984 when the applicant applied to the City
Council for a rezone. At that time the property was zoned R-
2, which allowed considerably higher density. Since then, the
applicant vacated a small portion of Magnuson Court adding to
the site and three apartment buildings were constructed on
that site. Since that time, the City of Bremerton adopted a
new Land Use Zoning Ordinance, which now has a Multi-family
(MF) zoning designation on it. Bremerton Zoning Ordinance
requires the Planning Commission to consider projects of one
acre or larger as a PUD.
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is
Residential, 15-30 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
project essentially will have access from Magnuson Court with
a proposed 20 foot perimeter setback from the adjoining
property line and has provisions for passive and active
recreation open space areas, i.e., tot lot and community
barbecue area.
The Planning Commission, when it reviews the application for
PUD, reviews it under five criteria stated in the Zoning
Ordinance. The Planning commission finds this application is
consistent with the criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance
and recommends approval to the City Council.
The City Council's action, if approved, will be a direction to
the staff to review the final Planned Unit Development for
Building Permit applications. This application meets all the
criteria and zoning requirements. Mr. Allingham noted the
Planning Commission is forwarding a revised Planned Unit
Development Section of the Zoning Ordinance to the City
Council for review later this year, which would make this
request unnecessary as this application does meet all the
zoning requirements, including density.
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 12 of 26
John Stanley, representing Cedar Glen Group, stated Mr.
Allingham presented the proposal very well and he had nothing
to add at this time but would standby for any questions
Council may have.
Darre11 McDorman, 2641 Fir Avenue, expressed concern about
current parking problems on Fir Avenue and did not feel the
area could handle additional traffic and that the proposed
project would generate more traffic thereby creating a traffic
hazard.
Mr. Waibel stated he hoped to see more Planned Unit
Developments in the City in the next few years. He pointed
out it is through the PUD process that the City can develop
areas with special amenities and tie areas together. He
questioned if the parking requirements for this type of
development had been incorporated into this application? Mr.
Allin~ham stated yes, the parking requirement is 1.75 spaces
per dwelling unit for two bedroom apartment units.
Mr. Estes stated he reviewed the site and found nothing
unfavorable except the narrowness of Fir Avenue and questioned
if there was the possibility of widening this street to
prevent future problems? Mr. Allin~ham stated it was his
understanding to widen Fir Avenue would require possibly
giving up some of the adjacent property unless there is
sufficient right-of-way width. Fir Avenue is narrow and the
policy is to densify that neighborhood and the street pattern
was developed under a previous zoning pattern and zoning
density.
Mr. Johnson questioned if all utilities would be placed
underground? Mr. Stanley stated yes. Mr. Johnson questioned
if there would be an oil/water separation system for all the
run off from the parking lot areas? Mr. Allingham stated the
scope of the preliminary PUD is basically the design and
layout, which enables the proponent to get approval before
they go into design features of the project, but the
Environmental Check List did address separation of oil/water.
Mr. Johnson questioned if there was any playground facilities
planned for the project? Mr. Allingham stated between the
Planning Commission's hearing and their recommendation to
Council, the applicant submitted an "Open Space" plan with
passive and active open recreational areas that the Director
Of Community Development has reviewed. Mr. Johnson questioned
if any provision had been made for recycling facilities within
the project, since the City will be addressing this issue in
the near future? Mr. Stanley stated there are areas set
aside for the dumpster site, which will be enclosed; and
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 13 of 26
whether these will be adequate to handle what will be required
for recycling in the future he was not sure. Mr. Johnson
brought up the issue of "developer impact fee", which was
approved by the Legislature last year, and questioned if this
proposal would come under that law and could the City keep
their rights to implement this when it is determined what the
City could do? Mr. Pratt, Director of Community Development,
stated the impact fees that were adopted by the State
Legislature, giving the City authority to enact impact fees
would not be applicable to this project once a building permit
is issued and the City is not close to even proposing an
impact fee schedule in addition to the Comprehensive Plan for
two years from now. Mr. Johnson stated he felt this was an
excellent development, which falls into line with the Vision
20/20 and implementation of high density areas with the City.
Mr. Overson pointed out some of the amenities include building
sprinklers, well layout grounds, over 60 parking spaces and
open spaces, etc.
Mr. Colvin questioned the width of the right-of-way on Fir
Avenue? Mr. Allingham stated Fir Avenue has a 40 foot right-
of-way width. President Horton noted there are City
ordinances addressing parking and use of City streets and
maybe enforcement of those ordinances need to be increased.
And, she requested Ms. McCluskey to pass that word on to
Traffic Enforcement and parking regulators.
#2442
M/S/C/U(Horning/Waibel) to approve the Cedar Glen Preliminary
Planned Unit Development.
8B - PUBLIC HEARING - WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN - ADOPT PLAN AS
AMENDMENT TO BREMERTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, #AB90-196
The Bremerton Planning Commission is recommending adoption of
the Waterfront Access Plan as an amendment to the Bremerton
Comprehensive 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.
Kay Wilson, Department Of Community Development, stated the
Waterfront Access Plan has been in the works for about three
years, starting with a grant from the State of Washington
Department of Ecology. Staff worked with a subcommittee of
the Parks Board to develop the first draft. The Parks Board
itself recommended adoption of that draft and it then went on
to the Planning Commission, who held study meetings for a
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 14 of 26
period of over one year and several public hearings. The Plan
being proposed at this time is the recommendation that has
come out of the process just described.
The plan consists of three Major parts: (1) General Waterfront
Access Plan, which will apply city-wide. One of the features
of the first part of the plan is Goals, Policies and
Objectives. These are in Comprehensive Plan format because it
is an amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan does provide general support for waterfront
access and these policies will make the City's Comprehensive
Plan much more specific; (2) Design Guidelines And Standards -
this is to achieve consistency so when a section of the
pathway or waterfront access point is installed they will have
some design consistency. The kinds of design guidelines that
are included are: typical signage for pathway routes, typical
trees, typical boardwalk or constructed pathway construction
along the beach, a nautical theme, which would include the use
of the "Bremerton Green" color. This color would be used
along the pathway on such things as light fixtures, benches,
possibly artist tiles, etc.; (3) Link One Plan - covers the
area from the Ferry Terminal to the High School/College area
at Ohio Street.
Following are highlights of each of the areas, which are being
called segments:
Segment A - starting at the Ferry dock, a boardwalk is
proposed consistent with current plans along the downtown.
waterfront and a pathway is proposed along the top of the
bluff, consistent with the adopted Urban Renewal Plan, and it
would include a park. The pathway starts in the vicinity of
the Ferry Terminal at the corner of 1st and Washington where
a small landscaped area has been named Gateway Park. It would
be a place where pathway signs could be placed so people
walking by could be made aware of the possibility of following
a pathway along the shoreline as they come off the Ferry.
Little connector pathways would connect from the shoreline to
the street at intervals. The exact location of the small
connectors would be determined when a construction project was
considered through a Shoreline Permit. The pathway would
continue along the shoreline as it is redeveloped. Ms. Wilson
emphasized right now the City's Shoreline regulations include
provisions that any commercial development or any multi-family
development of 5-units or more are required to install
"improved public access", i.e., this could be a pathway or
boardwalk and the improved public access must go from the
street to the shoreline and long the length of the shoreline
of the property. This is a requirement that is now in place,
not a change being proposed.
TAPE #751
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 15 of 26
Some of the features of the plan include a stairway access
that could connect Fourth Street down a steep bank to the
water. There is a very high bank area near the Manerrs Bridge
where erosion is a particular concern and there is evidence
that 20+ feet of land has been lost since some old bulkheads
that are still standing on the beach may have been built some
years ago. There is question whether or not a pathway could
be built in combination with some kind of erosion control.
The Planning Commission looked at the possibility of
recommending a boardwalk along the entire shoreline. They
felt it probably should be considered on a case-by-case basis
and they wanted to send a practical proposal to Council. The
Parks Board really wanted to recommend a boardwalk all the way
from the downtown area around the shoreline to Olympic
College. The Planning Commission considered that
recommendation and felt it was their job to present a
practical, feasible proposal - feeling that a boardwalk was
far too expensive along the entire length of the shoreline.
The Planning Commissions recommendation is general - to make
the decision on a case-by-case basis as each developer comes
in for their Shoreline Permit. The advantage to that course
is that it is more flexible and the disadvantage is that
whoever builds first would be setting the precedent. North of
the Manerrs Bridge the Planning Commission is recommending an
erosion control pathway, if at such time it is considered
feasible to build a pathway. Their thoughts were that
possibly Corps Of Engineers' money can become available where
there is sever erosion. Funding is not available where it is
thought there might be erosion .... only available after the
disaster occurs. One recommendation that is included in the
plan would be to cover the bluff with a type of wire netting
and grow vegetation under/around it, holding the bank in
place.
TAPE #752
At 11th Place the Plan proposes a view point, which is in a
residential area of single family homes and small apartments.
At some point in the future, the Planning Commission feels the
street end area should be cleared off and made available to
the public for a view point. The pathway would then continue
down around Smith Cove, along the sidewalks and a shoreline
pathway would take off around Smith Cove and into Evergreen
Park. The Planning Commission felt very strongly it would be
in the public interest to acquire the total ownership around
the cove, if at all possible, and provide some kind of park
access area. They realized this would be a big project but
felt it was an important idea to have in the Plan. If Council
does approve this idea, staff would come back with a
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. If Council gave its
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 16 of 26
approval on this idea, then it would go through as an idea to
pursue and possibly adopt on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Even
if this land were developed privately or by other public
agencies, such as the Port of Bremerton, the concept of the
shoreline pathway could still be developed. There would also
be a proposal for a crossing of Smith Cove at some point in
the area. One of the erosion control and beach improvement
suggestions in the Plan is that Smith Cove be enhanced with a
gravel beach. This is a proposal of Wolf Baurer, P.E., Shore
Resource Consultant to the Planning Commission, who suggested
even if there is something leaking oil in the cove that some
kind of impervious membrane could be put down on the bottom
and covered with gravel, sealing that area off in a
satisfactory manner. Another proposal made by Mr. Bauer was
to establish a pocket beach in Evergreen Park. Currently, the
area for such a pocket beach is covered blacktop that is
eroding very badly and the Parks Department is very concerned
about erosion control and was considering a bulkhead until
they were aware of Bauer's recommendation. All that would be
needed to create such a pocket park would be to remove the
blacktop, use the rubble to help build up some promontories on
each side and this would give direct access for the public to
the beach.
There would be sidewalk routes marked along Park Avenue, 17th
and Elizabeth and crossing Warren Avenue. One of the
proposals is that the piece of property owned by Puget Power
might have some potential for view access, if Puget Power were
willing to do some kind of cooperative project. People are
already using the shore line in this area. The Plan suggests
one way of getting under the Warren Avenue Bridge would be a
suspended ramp or cantilevered ramp under the bridge, which
could also include a suspended fishing ramp.
Passing the Warren Avenue Bridge the next area is Olympic
College campus, crossing Warren Avenue at 16th Street and
follow Chester - placing a view point at the end of Chester,
and continue through the campus and connect with Ohio and the
High School area. A little spur pathway would run along Ohio
to the street end. Due to limited parking available at this
point, there would not be a major pathway/access to the beach.
Finally the Link One Plan has specific recommendations for all
of these sites in terms of beach access, view points,
boardwalk, fishing, boat moorage, etc.
The Plan recommends priorities for the order in which these
projects would be accomplished:
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 17 of 26
1. During the first 3-5 years the construction projects would
focus on the Ferry Terminal Gateway Park, downtown waterfront
recreational pier, downtown waterfront pathway/park boardwalk,
First Street to USS Turner Joy, and painting the City's
parking garage (note: a view point on top of the parking
garage is recommended).
2. Phase II would be over the next 5-10 years, which would
include other improvements in the downtown and Evergreen
Park/Smith Cove area.
3. Phase III 10-30-50-100 years would include a number of
projects to be implemented. The street- end parks at Park
Avenue, llth Place, Elizabeth Avenue, Ohio Avenue and Chester
Avenue would be very low on the list. The Planning Commission
felt they would benefit fewer people, while they should be
done as soon as they could be, they should not be done instead
of projects at the top of the list that would benefit a larger
number of people.
Art Anderson, 1712 Ohio Avenue, stated his remarks would be
focused on the Ohio/Chester Avenue areas. A pathway or
boardwalk following the shoreline would be complimentary to
any commercial or industrial area. He expressed concern as to
privacy and security for property owners if such a
pathway/boardwalk was located along the waterside of such
properties. He cited difficulties encountered when a fishing
pier was constructed near the Park Avenue Condominiums, which
included littering, thefts, destruction of private property,
etc. He referenced two summary revisions to the Plan (F)(G)
that relate to Ohio and the fact that he supports their
direction: (F) end shoreline pathway at west landing of Warren
Avenue Bridge or Chester. Do not develop until security and
privacy needs can be met; (G) route upland pathway to High
School via Olympic College campus, bypass Ohio Avenue. He
believes the very intelligent observations by the Planning
Commission have been ignored by staff. He expressed serious
concern over the proposal to develop a low-key beach at the
end of Ohio Avenue by removing the existing stairway and
provide a safe stairway ramp to the beach, trim shrubbery for
safety and water view and limit parking to service vehicles
and handicap vehicle use only, provide signing to direct other
vehicles to desired parking locations and discourage
congestion. Currently, the residents have such limited
parking that they are restricted as far as visitor parking and
they are impacted by both the High School and College students
during the school year. He requested a response as to whether
or not a walkway is planned between Chester and Ohio Avenue or
will there only be limited access at the end of Ohio Avenue.
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 18 of 26
He felt once the route reached Chester Avenue it would have
reached its objective...the center of Olympic College. And,
he pointed out if the sewer has to be worked on any where from
Pennsylvania Avenue past Chester Street, the end of Ohio is
the only access for the Utility to reach the beach area.
There are two sewer pump stations that have electrical boxes.
which would be impacted if this area was turned over to
public access. If this proposal will affect a lot of people,
he felt an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
He stressed the importance of a safety program, such as that
used by the City of Seattle in park areas, in order to offer
some type of protection in the isolated areas of the proposed
plan. He requested Council to accept the professional staff's
recommendation on the first draft of the Plan and to stop the
pathway at Chester Avenue.
Steven Schultz, 1804 Chester Avenue, stated his encouragement
on certain areas of the Plan, particularly in the downtown
area. However, his home is located on the waterfront section
where the proposed view point is planned at the end of Chester
Avenue. He has come before Council a number of times to talk
about problems in that area, which include: Olympic College
student parking, littering, theft and vandalism. He expressed
concern over the isolation of the area and impending threat to
not only residents but the public who might be using the
proposed pathway. He also cited the fishing pier near the
Park Avenue Condominiums and the difficulties experienced by
the residents.
Charlie Foster, 1208 18th Street, stated some of the residents
had either taken out their stairway access to the beach or
just let it deteriorate in order to provide some protection
from the public who have already been using the beaches. He
agreed that the fishing pier near the Park Avenue Condominiums
turned out to be a failure and felt the proposal to place a
boardwalk across private properties would just increase the
unlivable areas.
Elizabeth Buell, 1722 High Avenue, stated the Plan is a great
i'~ea but she did not support going as far as Ohio Avenue. She
felt the pathway plan should end at either Evergreen Park or
Warren Avenue Bridge. Also, she felt it would take away and
be detrimental to wild life in that area. She questioned what
was the City going to do about the liability and where will
funding come to build the project as planned? She supported
the idea of starting with a smaller idea and going to a City
park.
Geofry Hose~, 1544 Elizabeth Street, stated he was excited
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 19 of 26
about the new City park planned for the downtown waterfront
and felt the pathway would be a very good link to that park.
However, he felt that the plan should stop at Evergreen Park
and not involve existing residents past that point.
Forrest Steels, 1735 Ohio Avenue, described a park area in
Mississippi, which was very similar to what is being proposed.
He noted this area was very open and easily patrolled by
Police. He felt the proposed plan would be built in an area
that would not be visible from the street by a Patrol Officer
in a vehicle and did not support building in an area that
could not be controlled and completely visible.
Terry Rene' 1610 Park Avenue - C3, stated she was
predominately in favor of the planning Commission's proposal
for the Waterfront Access Plan. She felt it would enhance the
quality of life of Bremerton residents, promote environmental
awareness and make City resources more available for the
public's enjoyment. She is a private waterfront owner and she
was concerned with the waterfront pathway shown in Segment D
of the Plan because it would cut directly across her front
yard. The Link One report states that Bond Development
granted a public access easement to the City in order to
obtain the Shoreline Permit required for construction of the
1610 Park Avenue Condominiums. She noted there is no mention
of such an easement in her Deed to the property, the
Condominium Declaration, Shoreline Permit, or her Title
Insurance Policy. She felt the value of her property would be
negatively impacted if the proposed plan is implemented and
she did not personally receive any compensation for an
easement. The Condominium Homeowners Association cannot not
cover the liability of possible personal injury to the public
or destruction of the property by the public using such an
easement. The proposed plan would increase noise, littering,
trespassing on her property, plundering of her beaches natural
resources and increase security risks. She felt using the
sidewalks to reach a view point at the end of Park Avenue
would be more feasible and less of an impact on private
residences. She requested that Link One be amended to avoid
conflicts with private property owners.
Bill Simpson,, corner 17th and Ohio Avenue, stated he was
opposed to the plan going to Ohio because of current traffic
usage and hazards evident in that area. He cited the
littering problem during High School activities and felt that
encouraging the public to use the beach areas would only
increase the litter problem. As a scuba diver, he accesses
the water at the end of Elizabeth by climbing down a bank and
has seen much evidence that transients are sleeping in that
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 20 of 26
area already and if the City opens that area even more he
believed it would encourage more use by transients.
Ron Harmon, owner of property at end of 6th Avenue, stated the
original concept of the pathway/boardwalk is unsound and is
evidenced by the property owners who have testified on this
issue. In 14 years as a property owner on the waterfront, he
has never received a phone call or been contacted by the
Planning Department to give input, as a property owner, into
this issue. He felt the private property owner should have
some say in the issue. Under the proposal it is proposed to
have beach access from every piece of property identified in
the plan. He believed there were inequities in the plan and
he did not understand the hidden agenda in forcing this issue
onto the private property owners. He expressed concern that
this proposal would open opportunities for more crime to be
committed. The Planning Commission has stated they would like
to have condominiums built on the downtown waterfront area.
To create a condominium that will sell on the market place
today there cannot be transients running through front yards.
He emphasized this proposal is detrimental from a development
point of view, is unenforceable from a crime point of view and
he did not know why the Planning Department is intent on this
total access along the beach.
Tom Proteau, property owner at 400 Washington Avenue, stated
he agreed with most of the comments that were already made
during this hearing. He has experienced most everything
described joe, litter, theft, vandalism, transients, etc.,
behind his office building, in the parking lot and along the
shoreline. He noted putting the pathway from the new park on
the waterfront to Evergreen Park makes a lot of sense from the
standpoint of tieing in two scenic areas. He felt isolation
of the proposed boardwalk would take a great deal of
patrolling to prevent the kinds of things already happening.
Sherry Glover, represented her parents who live on Bridgeview
Lane, stated her parents home and two other residences are
located right behind the Sons Of Norway building. She
emphasized three concerns of her parents: (1) security needs
of this new pathway plan; (2) privacy - how would this be
protected if opened to the public; (3) privately owned dock -
how will this privately owned dock and tidelands be protected
from public use? She noted there have been complaints made to
and filed with the Police Department about the security issue
in this area. Her parents are supportive of the existing
boardwalk as planned for the downtown area, however, when it
reaches out into the private areas west of the Warren Avenue
Bridge it is a major concern of the major private residences
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 21 of 26
in that area. She questioned if such a boardwalk is built
would the steepest portion of the boardwalk be elevated up to
the existing land structure, would it be lighted for security
reasons and would the lighted areas be shinning into the
private residences and flooding their home life? She agreed
with previous speakers who requested that the City meet with
private homeowners and feel out their concerns.
Robert McConkey, 1800 Elizabeth, expressed concern over
traffic, parking where it is already a problem and rights of
private property owners. He believed the resources of the
City might be better utilized by bringing some of the parks
and public access now available up to a better condition
rather than spreading the City's resources so thin.
David Grateen, 956 Washington Avenue, stated he is in favor of
some portions of the proposed boardwalk. He echoed some of
the concerns shared by previous speakers involving security,
privacy, noise, etc. The point he specifically wanted to
bring up was a more one-on-one dialogue with private
waterfront owners on the impact of this plan. He desired to
have more opportunity to express his concern as a property
owner on this proposal.
John Stanely, 2036 Halverson Street, stated he serves on the
Waterfront Committee of the Flagship Task Force and desired to
make some comments from this group's observations. They
started looking into improvement of the downtown area about
two years ago and at that time one of the Port of Bremerton
Commissioners, Dick Feeke, and he took a boat ride along
Bremerton' waterfront. They were amazed at the lack of use of
the waterfront - one or two people were visible. Later, he
had occasion to walk the waterfront because he was very
interested in the possibilities of a boardwalk/pathway type
project and at that time he did not encounter any walkers
along the way. Many of the comments already given about the
area are pertinent - the waterfront area from 4th Street to
the Manette Bridge is mostly grown up in blackberries, etc.,
and he felt anything done along that area would be an
improvement.
From the Manette Bridge to near Evergreen Park it is a high
bank waterfront and would lend itself to building a boardwalk
on top of riprap, which would prevent erosion. He observed
the area around Warren Avenue Bridge and at the present time
there is almost no access to the beach. He urged that the
project be favorably considered and to go at least as far as
the Warren Avenue Bridge. In the Task Force's attempt to
improve the downtown area, all of the property owners received
an invitation to get together to discuss improving the
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 22 of 26
downtown. Almost all of the structures from about 6th Street
to close to Evergreen Park are rentals and many of the owners
live out-of-town. He felt part of the problems relating to
security is the fact that many of the rentals are low class
rentals and until improvements are made to the housing this
situation will not improve. It is his personal belief that a
well lighted walkway may actually improve the situation and
not be adverse to the neighborhood. Something else he
discovered during his research was the fact that buildings
cannot be constructed within 15 feet of a bank area. So,
there is little area free for development and would be an
advantage to some of the larger units. He noted the Task
Force Committee was in favor of the proposed Plan.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record letters
received from the following individuals, along with their
specific concerns: Mable Eliason, 1308 18th (near Ohio) -
objected to extending the walkway beyond Chester. Ohio is
already a public use access for cars, bicycles and pedestrians
and receives a wide use; Billie and Marsha Barner, 1711
Chester Avenue - it will ruin the beauty of natural shoreline
and discourage birds and water fowl, it will ruin sandy
beaches between downtown and Anderson Cove, is now used by
families for picnics and children playing, as well as
fishermen. They questioned if the boardwalk would be lighted,
kept clean and patrolled constantly. They felt the money
should be used to further enhance the City's downtown
waterfront development, which is a great project; Mr. & Mrs.
Earls Benskin, 1731 Ohio Avenue - opposed to the present
walkway plans and believe it will ruin a nice residential
area. They cited existing traffic problems generated by
Olympic College and suggested ending the walkway at Chester
Avenue; Reverend Richard C. Axmann, 1702 Ohio, - opposed using
Ohio Avenue as an access to beach area due to parking
limitations that exist at the present time and would only
become more aggravated if this plan were developed to Ohio
Avenue.
Mr. Collins questioned why do have and why is Bremerton
~quired to have a Bremerton Water Access Plan? Ms. Wilson
stated the City does not have a Waterfront Access plan now,
the does not need a plan and can continue without one. There
is a regulation which will require public access of every
development of commercial or multi- family of 5 units or more.
It does not take a plan to develop a walkway to the water and
along the shoreline as each parcel develops in the future.
However, there has been identified a need for a plan because
no one is sure what would make sense for one parcel if there
is not an overall picture. There have been a couple of
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 23 of 26
Shoreline Permits recently, one at Bremerton Gardens and a
Wycoff area and in both cases public access was a
consideration, however, there was no context for determining
what was appropriate public access, because there is no vision
of where that public access would be in the future. Mr.
Collins emphasized the fact that there is a law that requires
public access to beach areas. Ms. Wilson stated the State's
Shoreline Management Act regulations does require access and
is very general, however, what is lacking is a vision how all
this public access links up...that is what this proposal Plan
will do.
Mr. Colvin stated for clarification that there was no law
requiring public access over private property to the
waterfront? Ms. Wilson stated that was correct - the State
Shoreline law is very general and does not say whether access
should go over private property or not. What it does say is
that developments on the water that are not water dependent
need to provide public access. Mr. Colvin questioned if the
City could force public access to the water over private
property? Ms. Wilson stated yes, only if a property owner
needs a Shoreline Permit and they are developing a non-water
use then the City can require public water access.
President Horton stated she is a waterfront property owner and
is very much aware of the pitfalls described - when a
pathway/boardwalk is built it encourages the public to use it,
but what happens is that the private homeowners have their
properties act as thoroughfares and the City has made their
properties public access. She did not want to encourage
behavior of the public in areas that probably should not have
that kind of activity, i.e., residential areas. She did
support having public access in wisely chosen and controlled
areas. If a Public Access Plan is to be implemented, it needs
to contain a Police check list identifying specific trouble
spots. She felt some of the street end vistas planned cry out
problems. Additionally, she felt the property owners needed
to have the opportunity to give their input on such a plan.
Council is trying to encourage development in the downtown
area, not discourage it and she would hope by mandating public
access through those areas that we in fact end up discouraging
development...that is not the City's goal. There are plenty
of opportunities along the waterfront where public access can
be developed wisely and to the benefit of everyone.
Mr. Johnson stated he did not agree that accesses would
discourage development - so far there has not been any
development and any improvement would be an enhancement to the
areas. In the Amenities Section he stated he would like to
TAPE #753
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 24 of 26
see something included for the following items: (1) make it
impossible to skateboard; (2) set standards for street type
vendors; (3) liability issues - who is liable and how will it
be controlled; (4) need to protect the private property owner
and pursue routing to beach areas through the commercial
section.
Mr. Dawkins noted regulations in the new plan on Handicap
Accessibility may be so restrictive that from Washington
Avenue to Sixth Street to Evergreen Park the project could be
something that would be too costly to ever be built.
Mr. Estes requested Don Pratt, Director of Community
D'evelopment, to respond to the concerns of the citizens. Don
Pratt, Dir. Of Community Development, stated he is currently
permitting several projects on the water that require public
access to and along the water. He has no basis on which to
ask for that access to be developed other than what we come up
with on a case-by-case basis. A good case in point is the
testimony relating to the Park Avenue Condominium project and
the glitch in the process of transferring it on to the title.
That glitch occurs because there has not been enough time put
into developing a process to "nail them down". There are
other instances that are happening, under his term of office,
they might use some particular style of developing a pathway
and next month if someone else was in his position they might
use another style - but not providing anything to match up the
two. What is trying to be done is to present some uniformity
of requiring public access to and across the water. This
access is not being proposed to be developed by the City at
any place at this time. The access is being proposed only as
a condition of a Shoreline Use Permit. If the City did not
have public access in the Shoreline Master Plan, the Shoreline
Master Program would not be approved by the State of
Washington and the City could not permit any development on
the City's shorelines. He stated he would entertain the
thought that his horizon within the Planning trade may have
been to far out for the community's horizons - it was not an
invalid exercise if that was the case. Lastly, the question
who develops these accesses is very important. The Park
Avenue Condominium did have a public access but it did not
work and it wasn't safe. It was not closed because it did not
work or security reasons, it was closed because the
Condominium owners could not afford to take care of it and it
had structural problems. They approached the City and asked
if the City would be interested in repairing it, which they
were not and there is public access across Park Avenue Condos
- they voluntarily granted it and it is valid access, however,
the City did not require them to develop it because there was
TAPE #752
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 25 of 26
a question of "who should develop the access, to what
standards should it be developed and once it is developed
where is the liability". The proposed Plan attempts to get at
those questions and if nothing more is done with the Plan we
should be instructed as to what some of those issues are.
Mr. Estes questioned the time line of the Plan? Mr. Pratt
stated this plan is designed to be implemented when there is
a Shoreline Permit and direction is needed as to what kind of
public access the City requires. The only place where the
Council will approve Shoreline Permits for units of 5 or more
residential or for commercial construction are in those areas
of the City that are comprehensively planned and zoned for
those activities. There are none of those activities on the
west side of the Warren Avenue Bridge unless they develop road
end - this is not a plan to request funding to develop road
ends.
Mr. Waibel stated before going into the Link One Plan or any
subsequent segments or plans the City has to address the
concerns that were presented at this public hearing, in term
of security and assuring privacy for the residents and even
commercial development. This should be an integral part of
selling and proposing the Plan.
General discussion: originally staff requested this item be
continued to August 8. Mr. Homing questioned if staff would
be ready by August 8 considering the number of comments and
concerns given at this meeting? Mr. Pratt stated he knew of
two groups that had planned to attend the August 8 meeting to
comment on this Plan, one being the Flagship group that Dr.
Stanley serves on. Secondly, he explained that he had no more
hours in the budget to work on this Plan this year. He has
higher priority items and he is going to carry on with those
needs. Mr. Horning stated then it seemed to him the very best
Council could do to serve the public was to proceed with the
August 8 meeting and then to delay any action on the Plan
indefinitely - if there is no staff time to work on it then
there is no staff time to make it better. President Horton
stated the City has spent staff time and used up funds to this
point and did not support delaying the proposal indefinitely.
She suggested the Department Head get with Mayor Mentor and
try to figure out what can be done to bring this Plan to some
finality or at least to a point where Council can feel
comfortable that the public has been given the opportunity to
give input. Mr. Overson suggested staff figure out the
minimum required to meet the State law and do the maximum to
protect the private interest, which basically is to give
public access along the parks and other publicly owned areas
...keeping off private areas.
#0193
TAPE #753
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
July 25, 1990
Page 26 of 26
Mr. Johnson stated he did not known what projects the Planning
Director had that are more important but considering all the
dollars spent on this Plan will be a total loss unless the
proposal is completed. If the Mayor has a problem with
Council's direction to staff, then he needs to come back to
the Council and discuss the issue. Mr. Pratt stated this Plan
will be in next years budget and in addition there are two
other Links - drafts which are completed and are going to the
Planning Commission this year. The intent is to bring them
together next year. And, he has a number of items that need
to be completed that were not accomplished last year. The
State funded this project and staff fulfilled the grant
requirements - the State has seen the product and were happy
to receive it. Mr. Johnson exclaimed over the fact that the
State has the document before Council has given approval.
President Morton stated before further work is done on Link II
and III, staff time needs to be diverted from Link II and III
to finish Link I. However, this is an issue that needs to be
taken up with the Mayor and if it is a budgetary
concern then he needs to bring it back to this Council.
Mr. Morning stated he would not support the motion due to the
fact that he did not believe the Mayor or staff would be ready
to address this Plan by August 8 and he suggested moving the
continuation date to AugUst 22.
M/S/C/U(Collins/Waibel) to continue this public hearing on the
Waterfront Access Plan to August 22, 1990.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
L~HHOR/T~N,~~ncil
City of Bremerton
President
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault