HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/90TA~ #744
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 27, 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, June 27, 1990 at 5:30 p.m., with
Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present
were Lon Overson, Wayne Estes, Spencer Horning, Hank Waibel, C. R.
"Tiny" Collins, Morris Dawkins, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson. Also
present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen
McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Horton and Invocation was given by Reverend Clayton Boner
of the Church Of the Nazarene.
CONSENT AGENDA - None
#0023
CLAIMS/CHECK 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(Waibel/Overson) On June 27, 1990 the Council does approve
for payment those checks included and further described as follows:
111952, 111953, 111954, 111955, 111964, 111965, 111968 through
112106 in the total amount of $419,842.99
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Estes stated on Monday he visited the Naval Museum, which he
feels is the #1 attraction in Bremerton. He noted they are running
out of space and suggested using the Admiral Theater for the museum
in the event the Admiral Theater Foundation does not. Last
Thursday evening he attended a Property Owners meeting where he was
questioned as to "what the City Council is doing to them". He
noted the truth was the City isn't doing anything to them but this
points out a real problem - communication between City government
and the citizens of the City. He suggested establishment of an
ombudsman position to help correct this communication problem. He
encouraged anyone with a concern to please contact their
Councilman. Also, he urged those in the community who want changes
made in City Government to step forward and put their name on the
ballot for election to one of the Council positions that will be up
for election this year.
Mr. Horning~ stated Mr. Estes is correct there is a difference in
~standing concerns and problems within the City when one sites
on the Council as an elected representative- On Thursday, during
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 2 of 20
the Vision 20/20 presentation he had the opportunity to spend two
hours with the cablevision TV crew and noted "Council needs to
sharpen up their performance on the podium" and he encouraged Jim
Brontoli to give Council a briefing session.
Mr, Waibel stated he seconded everything said by Councilman Johnson
during his presentation on Vision 20/20. ~I_Hg~ijg complimented
Councilman Johnson, noting particularly he was on point and by far
the most direct and best speaker at that meeting.
._Mr_,.JJ.hns_o_~ stated as the City's Solid Waste Committee gets
underway he requested the City Attorney review several things
before getting into rate discussions: (1) review current contact
section relating to the minimum charge per household ($1.75 per
month) and see if that rate should have had excellerating rate
increases added to that figure; (2) investigate instances where
residents had received letters from City Commissioners exempting
them from garbage pick up charges, (President Horton reported she
was one of those citizens, however, that exemption had been
withdrawn some time back). In reference to a Seattle PI news
article, TCI Cable Vision state-wide figured out that it was not
illegal to carry CBUT and has turned that around for King and
Pierce Counties. He believes that decision is something the TCI
subscribers in Bremerton have an opportunity to decide if they wish
to retain CBUT on their cable programming. He encouraged anyone
who wished to retain the Canadian channels to write or call TCI and
let their desire be known. or contacting Mr. Terry Hockinson,
State Manger for TCI (phone number: 747-9830). A number of weeks
ago the Department of Ecology sponsored a hearing in Bremerton
concerning the status of Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet - Mr.
Johnson received responses to the questions that were brought up by
the public at that meeting. If anyone would like a copy of those
responses, they can call the City Council Office - 478-5280. One
of the findings mentioned in Dr. Solomon's response was that
Sinclair and Dyes Inlets still have extremely high levels of fecal
coliform. He contacted Dr. Solomon and asked her how old her data
was, particularly in the Port Washington Narrows because that area
has the highest percentage of separated sewers; and he questioned
where would the contaminated sewer flow be coming from? Her
response what that she also did not know where the source was
coming from. Therefore, there must be some places that are still
putting sewage directly into the sound and they will be working
with the Health Department and Department of Ecology to determine
the sources for this high count of contaminate. Roosevelt Field -
he met with Dr. Connolly on Thursday, June 21, and he found that
the relations between the City and Olympic College are probably the
highest and best they have been since he has served on the Council.
The Roosevelt Field issue is on the table, however, in the past
there had been all kinds of mistrust. Even though there is
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 3 of 20
disagreement over Roosevelt Field right at this time, the desire on
the part of the College was very clear that they wanted to become
more in partnership with the City and vice-versa to work out
solutions that will help everyone. One thing they did agree on was
that the 1/2 million dollars should not go to attorneys fees but
should go to parks people and students. He also found out that the
appraisal made on Roosevelt Field has a number of assumptions,
which appear not to be what Council would like. He suggested that
Council review this appraisal via an agenda item, consider those
assumptions and if they don't like them then the appraisal can be
thrown out and if they do like them then the appraisal will stand.
And, Mr. Johnson requested Council President to direct the Planning
Manager to come back to Council with a recommendation how the
proper zoning for parks and open space zones should be shown on the
Comprehensive Plan Map and in the Comprehensive Plan~ so that when
situations like this come up (and he foresees one coming up with
the State of Washington with regards to Forest Ridge Park when the
new highway goes in) that the City gets fair value on properties
for the citizens of Bremerton. Mr. Waibel suggested that the Mayor
be directed to provide this process. Mr. Johnson stated he felt it
was a great break through when the suggestion was made to put two
softball fields on Hadden School property...the break through was
not the building of two softball fields, but it was the first time
in many months that there were new negotiations brought to the
table by Olympic College and the first time Mr. Johnson had seen
long- range plans of the College. He did not believe the location
of Haddon School property would lend itself to having lights and
increased traffic, however, it might lend itself to a PeeWee field
with a walking track and possibly a playground for small children.
Big lights and heavy traffic in the middle of a residential
neighborhood is not appropriate.
Mr. Colvin stated last Saturday he participated in the continuing
clean up of downtown Bremerton~ and he challenged his fellow
Council members to participate in that effort. He noted there is
an area on 2nd Street that no one in Bremerton would be proud of
due to the amount of litter/trash, and he would like to see this
eyesore cleaned up once and for all.
Mr. Dawkin__s announced Councilman A1 Colvin had concluded his
service as King Lion of the Bremerton Central Lions Club this past
year and complimented him for doing a "very nice job".
Mr. Collins stated he took the opportunity to look at the new
recreation pier on the waterfront and noted it is an engineering
marvel. In regard to Mr. Johnson's comments during the Vision
20/20 presentation, they were very good and were of the same
substance when he testified before the Senate and House Of
Representative Committees at the Association Of Washington Cities
#0549
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 4 of 20
Conference.
Mrs. Horton stated when she first applied for "garbage exemption"
it was 15 years ago and under the old form of government. She has
been an avid recycler long before it become fashionable and through
the years she has realized the benefit of recycling. Even though
she lost her exemption from the City, she has continued to recycle
and she encouraged everyone else to do so as well - it will help
save the environment. She did have the pleasure of sitting on the
panel for the Vision 20/20 program and she congratulated the
Silverdale Chamber Of Commerce, Bremerton Area Chamber Of Commerce
and Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce for their sponsorship of this
program. She noted the program was well attended and did offer the
opportunity for home viewing through the cable access presentation.
This particular program had the largest audience of any other
Vision 20/20 presentation within four counties. Mr. Johnson stated
after the Vision 20/20 program he thought back on what he had said
in regard to Options 3,4,5.. and it turns out that when watching
the slide presentation and following along on their handout (ballot
section) the names and the numbers change. So, if someone feels
strong about marking the ballot to send in, be careful that the one
you mark is the one you are really want to vote for.
Mr. Waibel stated in reference to the Heeter Rezone Public Hearing
agenda item, the applicant Mr. David Heeter, has requested an
extension to August 22 to continue this hearing-
M/S/C(Waibel/Colvin) that Council extend the Heeter Rezone Public
Hearing until August 22, 1990.
Vote: In Favor: Overson, Estes, Waibel, Horning, Horton, Collins,
Dawkins, Colvin
Abstain: Johnson
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Louis Mentor announced the Olive Leaf Restaurant is award the
"May Clean Up Award" for their contributions and clean up of the
community. And, the National Bank Of Bremerton received the "May
Clean Up Award For Clean Up Around a Business".
Mayor Louis Mentor read a Proclamation recognizing the United
States of America as the Land of Liberty, freedom and Opportunity.
And, its heritage of citizens is composed of all races, cultures,
nationalities and ethnic groups who joined together into a melting
pot known as Americans. As a way to recognize the commonalty of
kinship vested in the spirit and essence of being an American Mayor
Mentor proclaimed JULY AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH. C__aptain Kevin
McCook accepted the Proclamation on behalf of the employees of the
Naval Supply Center, who two years ago came up with the idea as a
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 5 of 20
part of the Equal Employment Opportunity Programs to recognize the
rich, plural diversity of their own work force. In the past two
years they have had very successful programs to virtually celebrate
the oneness of the community.
Mayor Mentor reported on Saturday, June 23, he attended an
organizational meeting of a new Hispanic group in the County. He
viewed this as a real plus in that they will be working with youth
within the communities. Also, in reference to a City Ombudsman,
effort is underway to develop a strength in this area for the City.
In regard to the proposed removal of Cherry trees along 5th Street
between Park and Naval Avenue, after reviewing the situation with
a number of knowledgeable people, such as Mr. Yamamoto, it has been
determined that the City will not do a mass removal but will be
more selective in taking care of the areas that present the worst
conditions. The possibility of root trimming and other
preventative measures have been discussed, however, there is no
easy solution to problems that exists.
Kathleen McCluskeX, City Clerk, read a letter into the record from
Jim Adrian, 621 Washington Avenue, which outlined the excellent
service and care he received from the Bremerton City Fire
Department and Paramedics after a lawn mowing accident he
experienced. In particular he commended Paramedic Mike Stead, who
did a first class job taking care of his injury,
Harold.Pickar~, 2307 8th Street, stated he would like to request
the City Council to continue a basic policy of beautifying 5th
Street from Park Avenue to Naval Avenue by replacing the dead and
missing trees, by repairing hazardous cement as needed. He offered
to personally pay for one of the replacement trees. He also
questioned who controls the existing trees planted on parking
strips? He expressed concern over who girdled and killed two trees
in the 1200 block from the south side. He suggested placing the
upkeep of the 61 trees on 5th Street under the guidance of a
qualified person, such as George Yamamota. He stated he knows of
other residents who will donate money to pay for trees to add to
the beautification of 5th Street. President Horton thanked Mr.
Pickard for his generous offer and suggested he in get in contact
with Vicki Vanneman, Director Of Parks and Recreation.
Del KnaU~., 139 Olympic Avenue, stated he attend Olympic College's
Board meeting and did not feel they had much to say that was
positive. He did not believe the City should be discussing any
possible trade of Roosevelt Field to the College because the
citizens of Bremerton stated, by ballot, what they wanted and that
was not to get rid of Roosevelt Field. He noted what Dr. Simpson
needs to be told to forget about Roosevelt Field.
#1278
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 6 of 20
6A - APPOINTMENT TO CITY SO~!~..WASTE.._A~_~yIS___O~X.._C__OMM_.~TTEE -HARRY E.
WILSON, #AB90-158
It is recommended that the third citizen member of the City Solid
Waste Advisory Committee be Harry E. Wilson
Mayor Me~t_o~stated it was his pleasure to recommend appointment of
Mr. Wilson to the Solid Waste Committee; and Mr. Wilson is
recognized for his contributions to the County Solid Waste
Committee.
M/S/C/U(johnson/Collins) to approve the appointment of Harry E.
Wilson to the City Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
Harry_Wilson stated his biggest effort will be to make sure the
City has a good recycling program.
announced Item 6B had been pulled for one week.
#1398
6C - AUTHORIZ__M, STAFFINg_~_-___UT_~IES 1990 BUDGET, #AB90-160
The Utilities has a need to add and upgrade several positions in
the department in order to meet expanding regulatory requirements
and increased work load.
It is requested that four new positions be added to the Utilities'
authorized staffing levels to include: a Water Quality Manger and
Utility Field Superintendent, both exempt management positions and
an Accounting Senior and a Clerk-Dispatcher, both Civil Service
positions. Additionally, the Utilities is requesting deletion of
two unencumbered positions to include: Construction/Maintenance
Supervisor and Contract Compliance Administrator.
The additional staffing will not require budgetary adjustments to
the 1990 Utilities Budget as a result of unexpended funds for labor
due to the delay in refilling several positions.
Public comment invited - none received.
Mr. Johnson stated this item has been discussed during a number of
Study Sessions and he emphasized the need for increased staffing
due to increased, mandated State and Federal regulations .
Mr. Overson pointed out that water quality and sewage treatment are
amongst the biggest of the Nation's problems that have to be faced
and resolved in the decade to come, This City has a good program
towards that and he supports the proposal as presented.
M/S/C(Johnson/Colvin) authorize the four additional positions in
the 1990 Utility Budget to include: Utility Field Superintendent,
#1501
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 7 of 20
Water Quality Manager, Accounting Clerk Senior and Clerk/Dispatcher
and the deletion of two existing positions:
Construction/Maintenance Supervisor and Contract Compliance
Administrator.
Vote:
In Favor:
Opposed:
Johnson, Colvin, Dawkins, Horton, Horning, Estes,
Overson
Waibel, Collins
President Horton announced Item 7A and 7B would be heard in reverse
order.
7B - RESOLUTION ~2302, AMENDING THE' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SURPLUS
UTILITY LANDS LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTH OF WERNER ROAD AND WEST OF
THIRD STREET, ~AB90-162
The City's Water Utility requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to remove 236 acres of surplus Utility lands from the "Sensitive
Area" designation and place them in a mixed use designation for
future development.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this request
on May 15, 1990, and recommended City Council approval. The City
Council conducted a public hearing on June 6, 1990, considered the
Planning Commissions recommendation and findings, accepted public
comments, and agreed to (1) re-designate the 236 acre parcel "Mixed
Use - PUD" and (2) remove the "Sensitive Area" designation from an
adjacent City-owned 80 acreparcel. This Resolution completes this
Plan Amendment.
Ron Hoygh, Planning Manger, noted this is follow through on two
decisions that were previously made by Council.
Public Comment invited - none r~ceived.
M/S/C(Colvin/Waibel) to approve Resolution #2302, Comprehensive
Plan amendments for surplus Utility lands west of third street and
south of Werner Road.
Vote:
In Favor:
Opposed:
Overson, Horning, Waibel, Horton, Collins,
Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson
Estes
7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP FOR
A 236 ACRE PARCEL OF SURPLUS UTILITY LANDS SOUTH OF WEENER ROADAND
WEST OF THIRD STREET, ~_A~_90-161
The City's Water Utility requested a REZONE of a 236 acre parcel
located generally south of Werner Road and West of Third Street.
A mixed zoning designation was requested to replace the "Forest
Management (FM) zoning so that private development could occur in
#1540
#1645
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 8 of 20
the future.
The City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this
request on May 15, 1990, and recommended City Council approval.
The Council held a public hearing on June 6, 1990, considered the
Commission's recommendation and findings, accepted public comments,
and agreed to rezone the parcel to a mixed designation of "single-
family Residential (SF-2)", "Multi-Family Residential (MF)", and
"Industrial Park (IP)". This ordinance completes the change.
Public comment invited - none received.
Mr. Estes stated having heard the presentation of Vision 20/20,
which supports the lessening of urban sprawl and concentrate on
development of the City, now the City is considering action to do
just the opposite. This did not make any sense to him and he
believes efforts should be concentrated in redevelopment of the
downtown area and not destroying forest land to build houses.
M/S/C(Waibel/Dawkins) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, to
rezone 236 acre parcel of surplus Utility and direct the Mayor to
obtain an appraisal of the subject property under the just approved
new zoning; and open negotiations of reconsideration under
paragraph 4 of the trade agreement between Pope Resources and the
City of Bremerton as provided in paragraph 3 of said agreement.
Vote:
In Favor:
Opposed:
Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Horning,
Horton, Waibel, Collins
Estes
Mr. Johnson stated since it has been some time since the Property
Surplus Procedure was initially written, he suggested it be
reviewed and revisions recommended by Council's Fiscal and Budget
Committee.
Mr. Horning requested Fiscal and Budget Committee 'members. to
comment on this requested task. Mr. Overson, Chairman of the
Fiscal and Budget Committee, stated the Committee would look into
the matter.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) that the Fiscal and Budget Committee make
a review of the present City Property Surplus Procedure with staff
and come back to Council with recommended revisions by September 1,
1990.
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - REZONE AND REZONE ORDINANCE (FIRST READING)
TO CONSIDER A CITY-INITIATED REZONE TO CORRECT THE ZONING OF
JACKSON PARK SCHOOL TO "PARKS 7 SCHOOLS (PS), #AB90-163
During a recent staff review of a building permit application for
a library addition to Jackson Park Elementary School, it was
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 9 of 20
discovered that the school site is in the "Multi-family (MF) zoning
district and the school is a nonconformity in that zone. Staff
determined that an error had been made and a Rezone was initiated
to correct that error and properly zone the school "Parks & Schools
(PS)" as originally intended.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on june 19,
1990, agreed that an error had occurred and recommended City
Council approval of the rezone to "PS". Rezones require a City
Council hearing and, if approved, the Official Zoning Map is
changed by Ordinance. An ordinance approving this rezone is
included for Council's consideration.
President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Ron Houah, Planning Manager, provided a view graph showing the
location - adjacent to the Navy Hospital and the Jackson Park Navy
housing community. That entire area was included in the "Multiple-
family (MF)" zoning district. Maps available at that time didn't
show the school to be on a separate parcel and it was thought that
it was on Federally owned lands.
Recently Central Kitsap School District inquired about building
permits for an addition to the school's library. At that time a
new map was obtained from the County Assessor's Office, which
showed the school to be on a separate 12.6 acre parcel of School
District property. It was also discovered tat that time that the
school is currently a nonconformity in the "Multi-family (MF)"
zone.
In order to construct the library addition, the school needs to be
in the "Parks & Schools (PS)" zoning district where it is an
allowed use.
The Department of Community Development feels that this school was
erroneously placed in the "MF" zone and that it should have been
zoned "PS".
The Rezone is substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan Map, which was adopted in 1986, shows a
Public/Quasi Public designation in the general location of this
school and indicates a hospital in the same general area. The
surrounding area is shown as medium density residential, consistent
with the Jackson Park neighborhood. The school's location is also
consistent with Plan policies pertaining to provision of adequate
public services and facilities and specifically to Community
Facilities Policy 26, which is to "encourage the location of
neighborhood schools in residential areas".
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 10 of 20
The rezone isnecessaFX._t__o,,correct an errorS,
The intent of the City new Zoning Ordinance and Map was to include
all major public parks and schools within the new "Parks & Schools
(PS)" zoning district. The Jackson Park School was overlooked in
in that process and erroneously included in the surrounding
"Multiple-family Residential" zone.
The rezone would not result in adverse environmental conseql~.~ce~
The school already exists and the purpose of the rezone is to place
it in its proper zone, which will remove its "nonconformity" status
and will allow it to change and expand within the parameters of the
"PS" zone. An environmental checklist was prepared for this
rezone, was reviewed by the Department Of Community Development and
a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on May 24,
1990.
The Bremerton Planning commission conducted a public hearing on
June 19, no one testified at that hearing and the Commission
unanimously voted to recommend City Council approval of this rezone
of Jackson Park School to "PS".
President Horton called for public input - none received.
#1879
Mrs. H~rn~ng stated he would support the proposal, however, from
previous discussion what the City has is a Parks & Schools zone but
complexities can develop for out years for those properties. He
felt there ought to be in zones like this a secondary zone...a
future or intended zone that may or may not comply with where they
are in the Comprehensive Plan. And, he felt it would give the
Bremerton School District a much easier task for knowing the values
of properties as they turn over in use.
Mr. Johnson stated he supports the proposal, however, as he is
representing the residents in Jackson Park area he is always
looking for ways to involve them into the community and to feel
like Bremerton citizens as well as Navy personnel. He noted he was
not sure if it was appropriate for the school to be in the C.K.
School District. He felt it would be nice to have the students be
part of the Bremerton school system and really feel they were a
part of Bremerton.
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, to
rezone Jackson Park School to "Parks & Schools (PS)".
8B - PUBLIC HEARING,.-__.9[[-_STREET PARKING AMENDMENTSL__._T~O,.._~._NT_R_gD_U_C_E_
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO OFF-STREET PARKI~_G~.._,~E__OUIREMENTS OF._~U~
ZONING,__gR_DINAMC~...._AND___TQ.A_C_~,._C__O~TS~._.~AB9QT~.~
The provision of adequate off-street parking is a high priority in
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 11 of 20
Bremerton and review and revision of Zoning Ordinance sections
dealing with parking were first priority in the City's 1990 review
of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff prepared several amendments and
worked for two months with the Parking Committee. The Planning
Commission conducted public hearings on May 15 and June 5, 1990,
and has made a recommendation to the City Council.
This public hearing is to introduce the proposed amendments and
allow public comments. It is intended that the City Council will
conduct at least one study session before bringing the proposals
back for a final hearing and decision.
President Horton assured the public that this would be the first
hearing in a series of meeting that will be conducted on this
issue. Mr. Colli~ emphasized there will be no Council action on
this item at this time.
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated this is part of a regular
Zoning Ordinance review/revision and it is funded in part by a
grant; and their intent is to try and get any revisions through
Council by the end of August. There is a sense of urgency and that
is why the Parking issue was placed as the number one item on this
review and primarily because the U.S. Navy advertised the need for
350 parking spaces by September 10. It is desired to get the
changes through the process and have them adopted so people could
provide parking lots and commuter lots.
The objectives were to provide for somewhat reduced standards for
commuter parking lots, long-term parking lots and to provide some
flexibility in design standards due to some complaints received
about the City's requirements for parking lots making them more
like public parks with all the greenery and open space, trees and
landscaping required. The Zoning Ordinance requires:
(1) 15 foot average setback from the arterial street or 10 feet
from non-arterial street. All setbacks have to be landscaped plus
there is a 64 interior landscaping requirement. (As an example, Mr.
Hough provided a view graph showing a 20 space parking lot with the
requirement that two of those spaces would have to be taken away to
provide interior landscaping...ending up with an 18 space lot).
Parking providers are telling staff when landscaping is done and
they end up with 18 spaces, it is not economical to build a
parking lot. The City has many lots of 60 foot width so
consideration is being given to reduce those standards, making it
easier and more economically feasible to provide parking on the
lots in the City.
Mr. HoUgh provided a view graph of a "Basic Table" that guides
designers of parking lots as far as space, width, stall depth and
isle width. The commuter parking lot standards are a little
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 12 of 20
reduced (narrower). Parking lots that are classified as A,B,C for
different applications: Class A is primary parking lot that would
normally be required for commercial development and new high
density residential apartments. This also has a slightly reduced
landscaping requirement and slightly reduced setback requirement.
In this case one could have either a five foot landscaped setback
along the side or if pinched for space and preferred to not
landscape at that point there is an option to have a solid wall or
fence. The reason both are not being required is that when both
are provided the landscaping tends to disappear. The emphasis is
on the frontage landscaping - still requiring street trees, some
interior landscaping but it is not based on a total percentage of
the interior area, and is based on 10 square feet per interior
parking space. This comes out to be less but it still is a fair
amount of landscaping and still requires some trees on the interior
parking lot.
A Class B lot is designed for application in the central business
district. This would be an optional type parking lot if approved
the way Planning Commission is recommending, however, if someone
wanted to build a parking lot downtown voluntarily, they would be
required to build it according to minimum standards. And, those
minimum standards downtown do not require side yard setbacks or
landscaping - they do require a five foot wide landscaped setback
in the front. This is what is being recommended for the central
business district.
A Class C lot is a commuter lot, which is totally new. Staff has
received a lot of requests for commuter lots that are not
paved...pavement tends to cost money and some of the providers of
parking don't what that expense, especially if it is in an area of
transition, such as the west end of PSNS where it may not be a
parking lot for more than 2-5 years, or in a residential area where
old dilapidated homes are being removed and they may want to put in
a temporary lot until such time they have assembled enough lots to
build a larger development. These are allowed by the limited
parking overlay zone which can be overlayed certain residential
areas.
As well as the basic standards changes there are a few minor
additions and changes within the text - one is Vehicle Overhang,
which was not allowed for before. A 2 1/2 foot overhang is being
considered over landscaping or sidewalks provided at least a 3-foot
pedestrian minimum is retained. These would for areas such as
inside shopping centers or inside high density apartments (PUD's).
What is required now the City requires the parking space but there
is no allowance for vehicle overhang, but they overhand anyway.
The proposed change is recognizing that fact. In the Table
provided it allows for a 5-foot minimum from an adjoining property
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 13 of 20
with no setback required from the alley and also no setback
required if a fence or wall is provided from the side property
line.
Impact of proposed changes: Mr. Hough provided a view graph
showing a current typical parking lot requiring 24 ft, aisle width,
19 ft. wide parking space on each side, 5 ft. landscaped buffer
strip and if it is next to a residential zone it also requires a
fence or wall. The changes proposed would reduce the isle width by
I 1/2 foot to 22'6" reduce the parking space length about I foot -
from 19 ft. to 1~'11", but with a 2 1/2' overhang it is reduced
even more. When these measurements are combined it reduces the
total width of the parking lot to 72 feet to 58 ft. 4 inches (total
reduction of 13 ft. 8 inches, which is fairly significant).
Minor changes to buffering and screening: screening could be a
wall, berm, solid hedge. Also, Mr. Hough provided an illustration
of a clear area for landscaping from 3 ft. to 8 ft., the same clear
areas as in the Landscape Section and Sign section of the
Ordinance.
Downtown Special Parking District - in the current Zoning Ordinance
there is no parking requirements in this area. Their original
proposal went to the Parking Committee and Planning Commission and
was to require some parking but not total. First of all, they were
recommending 30~ of the required parking that was required in other
parts of the City, however, that did not meet with approval with
the Parking Committee or Planning Commission; and resulted in the
recommendation to Council that there continues to be no parking
requirements in the downtown area. The way it would be drafted
would be if someone wanted to put in a new building they would not
be required to include parking along with the proposal. However,
if they want to voluntarily put in parking then they would have to
at least build it to minimum standards of Class B lots.
Another section being proposed for revision is the Land Use Table
Section of Table 5. This would make it easier to understand where
certain types of parking lots go and to expand the opportunities
primarily for parking structures, which are only allowed in a
couple zones, two or three commercial zones and some of those by
special Use Permit. What is being suggested is that parking
structures be allowed outright in most of the commercial zones and
all the Industrial Zones to try to encourage people to build such
structures.
Another area under consideration is Limited Parking Overlay
District, which is now included in the Zoning Ordinance and which
is being amended to include commuter lots. A decision also needs
to be made as to where commuter lots will be allowed, actually that
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 14 of 20
does not have to be done but it was felt it was a good idea to
identify the LPL zone somewhere. They did have that zoning
district when the Zoning Map was adopted but it went away through
rezones. Some of the areas that were overlayed residential areas
since have been changed to Commercial, which allow parking lots.
There are a whole set of goals, objectives and things that tend to
protect the neighborhoods from encroachments of non-residential
uses and parking and transportation uses are among those non-
residential uses. There is also included in the Comprehensive Plan
a Single Family Conservation District, which is in the same general
area, south of 6th Street around Kiwanis Field and includes Gregory
Way, down to Naval Avenue and from Chester. This district also
has a whole set of goals and policies related to it to protect and
enhance the neighborhood, make it stronger, encourage home
ownership, rehabilitation, etc.
Review was made of the entire West Bremerton area zoning and with
the new revision parking lots, commercial or otherwise would be
included in almost all commercial districts, probably not in a
Neighborhood Business District since they are fairly small. When
overlayed with the Housing Rehab areas these fill in some of the
open spaces around PSNS. Effort was to made to stay away from the
residential areas initially and look outside to find areas most
suitable for application of the Limited Parking Overlay Zone. One
of these areas identified was near Smith Cove, north of 11th Street
and east of Park, which is an area of mixed, older residential
homes and an area which will probably be coming to Council for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment in the near future - maybe an
expansion of park or recreational opportunities. Another area that
would fall under this description would be around Olympic College,
both sides of Warren Avenue and between 13th and 11th past the High
School to High Avenue. Another area considered would be along
Marion, 4th of Arsenal to Sixth Street. There is also the
opportunity for anyone to come to the City and request through the
Rezone process the application of the LPL Zone on their property.
Two letters were included in the Staff Report, one from Diamond
Properties, requesting that Council consider the corner of 4th and
Chester for inclusion in the overlay zone, which would allow
parking lot development in that area.
Four major areas of the study area: (1) revision to the Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 7, which is most of the document relating to
parking; (2) minor amendments to the Land Use Tables; (3)
revisions of the Limited Parking Overlay to include the commuter
parking lots; (4) amendment to the Zoning Map to apply some Limited
Parking Overlay Districts.
The Planning Commission is recommending approval with the exception
of requiring parking downtown.
TAPE #744
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 15 of 20
Lawrence Soriano, 509 4th Street Room 16 - a resident of Bremerton,
local businessman and member of the City's Parking Committee,
stated he specifically wanted to address Paragraph 5B (Page 6 of
staff report) referencing Section 10-C-1 on page VII-20 of the
Ordinance, which is about the downtown parking requirement
provision. That section specifically points out that the Parking
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have recommended to
the City that portion of the Ordinance, which is proposing to
require a parking provision for new building or renovations be
deleted. He emphasized that recommendation did not arrived lightly
by either group. He strongly urged the Council to support the
recommendation to delete that particular section.
TAPE #745
Ross Hibler, 322 Pacific Avenue, downtown business owner, stated he
agreed with Mr. Soriano's position and he urged the Council to
consider the deletion of the requirement for parking for new
buildings or renovations in the downtown area.
Chuck Laubach, 215 6th Street, downtown business owner, stated he
would like to see the deletion of the section requiring parking for
new building or renovations in the downtown area.
Paul Schmid~, Bremerton resident and business owner, stated he is
totally opposed to the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and the Parking Committee. He feels that the parking problem in
Bremerton is a problem that every section of the community has to
share - can't blame the parking on the shipyard or downtown
property owners but it can't be forced on to the residential areas
- everyone must share in it. He has never been in favor of parking
requirements, but is in favor of some sort of parking fund or
contribution that the downtown property owners can make in the
future to providing more parking. There is going to be a fast
turnover in Bremerton and if parking is not addressed it will kill
the City today like it did 20 years ago. The parking problem has
to be addressed either by a LID or tax.
Lou Weir, downtown property owner/businessman, stated the City lost
a lot of opportunities and businesses 10 years or more ago because
of parking requirement. He acknowledged that there is a parking
problem in Bremerton, existing for many years, however, he believes
things are being done to resolve some of those problems. The City
needs to encourage property owners in downtown Bremerton to
remodel, renovate existing buildings, and to encourage new
investors to come into Bremerton from outside Kitsap County.
Placing requirements on parking will only discourage
investors/developers. He emphasized the fact that he would not
have been able to renovated the buildings on Washington Avenue had
he been required by the City to provide parking. He pointed out
TAPE #745
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 16 of 20
that there are other new developments in the downtown area that
would not have been undertaken had there been parking requirements,
one such project being the City's own Planning Department facility.
He emphasized the fact that whatever the reasons that were
identified 8-10 years ago to rescind that parking requirement those
reasons are still valid today.
Don Adkinso~, representing Bremerton Main Street Association,
brought out one point they made before the Parking Committee and
the Planning Commission was that the timing does not seem to be
right to be considering reimposing the 30~ parking requirement when
the College is just in the process of marketing about 80% of the
central business district property. It is their feeling that
parking will be dealt with adequately by subsequent development.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if he should step down due to the fact he is
a downtown business owner? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated what
is being considered is a City-wide ordinance change that affects
the whole community - not a particular site.
Mr. Waibel pointed out a possible misprint on Page VII-7, Parking
Lot Minimum Design Requirements - Commuter Parking Lots, and noted
either the width or dept of the stall needs to be changed because
normally a vehicle cannot be placed in a 7 1/2 ft. x 7 1/2 ft.
space. Mr. Hou~h stated 7 1/2 ft. wide spaces can be used for
parallel parking. Mr. Waibel questioned what would be the length
of such a parking space? Mr. Hou~ stated 20-22 ft.
Mr. Colvin stated he opposed parking requirements for the downtown
area 8 years ago and he opposes having parking where there is no
possible way to provide parking downtown.
Mr. Overson stated one of the comments made by Mr. Soriano was the
City needs to provide parking for commuters and not mess with this
plan - does the plan resolve the problem with commuter parking?
Mr. Hough stated the plan will not resolve the problem, what it
does do is loosens up regulations so the private sector, or maybe
public sector, could provide parking lots with less standards. Mr.
Overson questioned would there be a "grandfathering" of existing
parking lots such as those on 5th and Park, on Burwell across from
the Kitsap Federal Credit Union, which were nicely developed; and
would you also be grandfathering the two lots that were not as
nicely developed more recently in the same general area? Mr. Hou~_~h
stated yes, if they are located in the Central Business District
they are probably legal because there are no parking requirements
in this district. Right now someone can develop a vacant lot in
the downtown core by putting up a sign and collecting fees without
paving or stripping. Mr. Overson questioned what liability does
the City take on now that the parking spaces are being reduced in
TAPE #745
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 17 of 20
the event of damage to vehicles? Mr. Hough stated there are a
quite a few lots that are substandard right now in the downtown
area and even outside the downtown area and developed under the
previous Code. Most of the Parking Section of the Zoning Ordinance
was an assortment of three or four Parking Ordinances that were
adopted around 1985, that were brought together under this one
chapter. Therefore, there are an assortment of parking lots
developed...different isle widths, parking space widths, angles,
etc. The proposed standards are based on a study developed by a
firm in on the East coast (Walker Study) studying parking trends
and automotive sizes, parking space sizes to accommodate changes in
trends of vehicles. This study was conducted in 1982-83 and been
in operation since and continually testing the lots to make sure
they work. Mr. Overson questioned if any thing had been done to
coordinate this parking plan with the City's transportation plan,
one-way street grid, etc.? Mr. HO~h stated no, this is strictly
a Zoning Ordinance change and not related to the one-way street
system. Mr. Overson questioned if the business owners on Callow
and Kitsap Way, Wheaton Way, the same options as the business
owners in the downtown area? Mr. Hough stated no, that is not part
of the proposal - CBD parking area is the only area that is exempt
from parking requirements. If someone wanted to rehabilitate a
building on Callow or tear down a building and build a new one,
they would be required to provide parking or apply for a Variance,
which is also a possibility.
Mr. Estes requested clarification of the term "Parking Overlay".
Mr. Houg~h stated that is a term applied to an Overlay Zoning
District, which is really a zoning district for parking only. It
is defined as follows: Zoning Districts - areas of the City that
allow certain uses within the district, such as a Single Family
Residential zone. The Limited Parking Overlay District is also a
zoning district that can be applied on top of that Single Family
zone, so the Single Family zone does not go away but some parking
options are also allowed in that area. Mr. Estes questioned how
long is "temporary"? Mr. Ho~g~ stated everything is temporary -
one section requires a Special Use Permit for commuter parking lot
include a time frame of up to five years...anything less than five
years could be required. Mr. Estes questioned what percentages of
the Parking amendments was prepared by the Planning staff and
Parking Committee? Mr. Hough stated the Parking amendments booklet
was all prepared by the Planning staff. Mr. Estes questioned what
was the input by the Parking Committee? Mr__~_.~..Hg~g~ stated the
Parking Committee reviewed the proposal and the primary topics of
that committee was the application of the Overlay Districts and
parking in the downtown area. The major impacts of the committee
were recommendations to the Planning Commission primarily on the
downtown parking issue. Mr. Estes questioned if the offering of
tax credits for construction of underground parking by developers
TAPE #745
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 18 of 20
had been considered and is it legal in the State of Washington?
Mr. Hough stated that was not considered in these revisions and he
did not know if it was legal in the State or not.
stated he was not sure if this was available in this State.
Mr. Hornin~ stated Council needed to determine if they
philosophically want vehicles in the downtown area. And, he noted
under Section VII-21, Section E Bicycle Parking Standards, it is
easily determinable in certain scenarios where bicycles and
motorcycle parking would be required...from his experience it does
not work. There are lots of scenarios right now that fit this
requirement and he emphasized that there needs to be other
exemptions from this. And, in reference to Off-Street Parking
Requirements For Residential Uses the bed and breakfast concept had
certainly become a rage throughout the nation and is beginning to
find its way to Bremerton. He requested, under the land use
portion/motel/bed & breakfast establishment, to not require large
parking lots for houses in nice neighborhoods. What is being
proposed, is an accumulative effect - using a standard home turned
into bed/breakfast establishment in east Bremerton which has two
parking spaces as required for a residence, add one space for
manger, add three spaces for patron use (3-bedrooms to rent out),
an another three space per square footage for common use - making
a total of 9 parking stall required at this house.
Mr. Collins stated he was not against not requiring parking in the
downtown area, but there is going to be a requirement for parking
and questioned what has been done to ensure there will be parking?
.Mr t..I..._~ stated part of the train of thought of the Parking
Committee was that if someone came to the downtown area and was
serious about redeveloping or fixing up an old building for clients
and new tenants they would provide parking, otherwise they would
not be able to lease the building. Mr. Collins pointed out this is
just the opposite of the statement by Mr. Weir that he would not
have developed his property had there been parking requirements.
And, he questioned if there was a common denominator that could be
equated into some way of gaining parking, whether it is park-N-
rides, transit, etc.? __Mr_~..H_ou~ stated he did not believe there
had been enough thought or direction on this issue. The thought
had been toward land use regulations regarding off-street parking
requirements for primarily the private sector who want to develop
a parking lot. And, he noted what Mr. Collins was talking about
was a much larger scale transportation management program of some
sort that involves mass transit, bicyclist, ferry, transit, etc.
And, there are some things "on the back burner", one being the new
Arterial Access Plan, which addresses one-way street systems in the
downtown area. This does not provide more parking but deals with
getting in and out quicker. There are no plans for providing off-
street parking by the public sector.
TAPE #745
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 19 of 20
President Horton stated the parking overlay is not sufficient - a
more realistic approach needs to be taken and acknowledge vehicles
are coming into the City, the City can discourage vehicles coming
in but that will not stop them. There needs to be provided places
for the private sector to develop parking lots. When looking at
the new access into Bremerton it makes sense looking at the major
streets as transportation corridors as well as areas for parking.
Some of them go through residential conservancy zones but she feels
the City needs to look at the overall picture, overall
transportation issue and parking plays a part of that. There are
no guarantees that the City will get great development within the
downtown area and there has been the lack of standards in this
community long enough. She did not believe things should be etched
in iron, but allow room for negotiations, encourage park-n-ride
programs and if the parking requirement cannot be met on site then
have some sort of program that can be negotiated to provide
incentive into the transit area. She did not want to just say "no
parking requirements" would mean to continue living with what the
City has today.
Mr. Collins related a past experience when he served on the
Planning Commission involving Burger Kings attempt to locate
downtown and at that particular time he wholeheartedly agreed with
the thoughts of the Sorianos because they were not putting a
business there that required parking...people were moving through.
The City should be thinking of some way doing exactly what Mr.
Soriano did back in those days...he found an alternative - leasing
parking space for the employees.
Mr. Johnson questioned on fencing and landscaping - it bothered him
to loose the landscaping, however, when landscaping is replaced
with a solid fence does this include chain link fencing
(with/without slats)and he hoped he'd never see a slapped up
plywood fence allowed again? Mr. HoUgh stated the a plywood fence
would be allowed as there is no design review right now in most
part of the City, only the waterfront area. Chain link fencing is
not considered a solid fence - solid fence is solid wood, concrete
or masonry. Mr. Johnson stated he wanted something included that
does not allow junky fences, dirt parking lots, etc. He did
believe there is a need for a few larger parking lots, i.e., to
service pickup trucks, etc. He also believes it should be made
easier to allow some kind of commuter parking in some residential
areas, such as park-n-ride, collector buses, etc.. Looking to the
future, 10-15 years, he did not want to be known as "the Council
who did nothing about parking" once a major redevelopment of the
downtown area has been completed. Some how parking has to be
figures into the equation or the businessmen will be the first to
complain about lack of parking.
TAPE #745
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
June 27, 1990
Page 20 of 20
Mr. Colvin suggested if the City considers parking requirements, it
should be done on a case-by-case basis for remodeled buildings.
Mr. Collins requested Mr. Hough to do some background research on
this subject the next meeting, to find out if there is anything
like a PUD...showing what is required for a type of development,
and see if there are any precedents for that type of thing that
could be applied to parking. He outlined -under a PUD the
developer/Planning Dept., have a general criteria and then take a
particular project and establish mutually all the criteria for
that project. He questioned if there was anything Mr. Hough knew
of that the City could use the same technique for parking and is
there any place where something like this had been tried.
President Horton announced Council would be meeting to discuss this
issue on July 9, 1990, at a Council Study Session.
With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
APPROVED
~ORTON, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY C '~ERK