Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/89 MAP, 1 5 1989 TAPE 0611 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1989 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4Th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, February 22, 1989, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Spencer Horning presiding. Council members present were Lon Overson, Lynn Horton, Hank Waibel, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, A1 Colvin, and Russ Johnson. Councilmen Morrie Dawkins and Shirley Marty Crutcher were absent. Also present were C±ty Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Spencer Horning and Invocation was given by Reverend Jim Hill, of Neighborhood Christian Cent.er. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting Held - February 8, 1989, ~AB89-033 B. Bid Award Recommendation - Ductile Iron Pipe, ~AB89-034 ~0026 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Johnson) 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. ~0045 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) on February 22, 1989, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 41634 through 41752 in the total amount of $95,146.48 and Regular Payroll in the total amount of $325,030.16. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson reported the Audit Committee met on Tuesday, February 21, which was very productive. Mrs. Horton reported the Citizens' Parking Committee met on Tuesday, February 21, and areas of concern encompassing all of the City were identified, a list was developed and prioritized and discussion on enforcement will be on the agenda for the next meeting - February 28. She hoped the Committee will bring forth some good recommendations, perhaps even some ordinance changes~ Mr. Waibel reported Operations Committee met this date and were presented Chapter I of Standards For Right-Of-Way Work In Right- Of-Way for the City. Two more chapters of the Standards will be provided in the future. Also, he recently experienced a childhood past time, roller skating and survived. Mr. Johnson s~ated this week he was approached by a citizen who was doing some work for a charitable organization and was looking for ways to publicize it...he discovered she was not aware how accessible the Community Access Character Generator was to the public and he re-emphasized, for the general public, how to go about getting community messages on the access channel. Mr. Johnson noted the City of Everett is following the City's lead regarding the Remote Bulletin Board System as they are investigating the possibilities of instituting the program in their community. President Horning noted that two groups would be using the "Public Recognition" time on the Council agenda to promote local events. TAPE ~611 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 2 of 13 Mr. Colvin reported he spent a week in Alaska and noted the City of Anchorage is experiencing layoffs due to high costs of operation and reduction in revenues - due to less activity in the oil industry. While in Alaska he was invited to Elendorf Air Force Base to speak on "Black History" and his experience in the "all Black Air Force" during WWII. Mr. Colvin displayed two plaques he received during this visit and noted he was hosted very well. Mr. Collins announced the West Bremerton Neighborhood will hold an open meeting on February 23, 7:00 - 8:30 PM at Crown Hill School - the purpose of which was to inform the people of the City of Bremerton about the proposed Parking Plan. Mr. Collins offered assistance to anyone who might need transportation to this meeting 373-2082. Mr. Collins noted since last week he had received over 400 names on a petition in opposition to the Parking Plan as well as a number of letters from citizens voicing their opposition also. All Council members should have received copies of the petitions and letters as of this date. Mr. Horninq read a letter into the record which explained Legal Probono (people without funds to receive legal assistance) - The Kitsap County Probono Legal Referral Services Phone #377-6936 - they will commence taking calls on March 6 from 9 AM to 1:00 PM, but they will not be seeing individuals without an appointment until March 15. Funds to provide this service were received through a grant and their office is located at 611 Highland. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Gil JohnsoN, Deputy City Clerk, read a Proclamation proclaiming the month of February as "Black History" month. And, recognizing that the United States and State of Washington have benefitted significantly from the contributions of Black Americans and special significance given in fostering the spirit of cooperation between all segments of our multi-ethnic community. President Horninq presented the Proclamation to Councilman A1 Colvin. Councilman Colvin thanked Mayor Lobe and President Horning for the Proclamation and noted several important contributions made to mankind were accomplished by Black men: Dr. Richard Drew discovered blood plasma, Christian Adams, a free Black who died during the Boston Massacre (pre-revolutionary War time); and Mr. Colvin related his role in the all Black Air Force and the many Black men who served their Country as Americans. President Hornin~ stated we are certainly fortunate to live in a day when individuals can serve together and have public discussions and debates which are not based on race. Kay Schoneman, representing the Bremerton Concert Association, 1340 Jacobson Blvd., briefly outlined the purpose of the Association and their affiliation with Columbia Artist and Community Concerts Inc., of New York. Promotion for the local events is done locally, however, some of the finest artists in the country are available. The Association does not sell tickets for the events, however, memberships are available: Annual Membership Fee - $25.00 per person, $12.50 for students and $60.00 for family membership regardless of how many children are in the family under the age of 18. Tom Lonq, 2433 E. Phinney Bay, Representing Bremerton Rotary Club, formally announced the Mayor Of Bremerton Community Service Award, sponsored by the Bremerton Rotary Club. Copies of the application form and procedures form were handed out and Mr. Long briefly explained the purpose of the award...recognizing graduating Bremerton High School senior in recognition of TAPE #611 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 3 of 13 significant volunteer community service. Mr. Long reviewed the recognition plaques to be awarded, monetary award, qualifications to apply, composition of the Mayor Of Bremerton Community Service Award Committee, selection process. Mr. Long noted application forms will be available through Mayor Lobe's office. Elizabeth Buell, 1722 High, stated she received a letter from the City Attorney regarding the 4-way stop sign at 15th and High, however, she wanted to be reassured that the 15th and High intersection will have stop signs. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he saw no reason to hold up placing stop signs at the intersection. Mrs. Buell thanked the City Council for their action on this item. Lyle Baker, 2424 Snyder, stated he attended several meetings where the proposed Parking Plan was discussed and then decided to do some measuring of frontages of homes to see what would be workable. He expressed concern that there may be some legal problems due to shortage of frontages. President Horninq announced Item 6A was pulled for one week, Item 7B pulled for two weeks and Item 7C pulled for three weeks. 6B - BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION - MICROCOMPUTERS, #AB89-035 Calls for Bids were prepared, advertised, distributed and received in accordance with accepted Call For Bid procedures for a minimum of ten {10) to a maximum of twenty five (25) Microcomputers (P C's). This equipment is part of the computer enhancement program approved in November 1987. Bids were received from seven (7) firms and recorded as follows: GTSI (a) $2,324.50 EA. (b) $1,854.00" Logical Systems (a) $1,625.00" (b) $2,285.00" Trinity Technology (a) $1,568.00" (b) $1,714.00 " DATEC $1,710.00 " N C R $2,950.00 " Softiines $1,849.00" Applied Computer (a) $2,593.00" (b) 2,109/00" Bill Ele¥, Information Services Manager, briefly outlined past Council action starting in 1989 approving computer enhancement, including purchasing 30 PC's (vender proposed 44)...original 30 PC's have been distributed and the request covers the additional i0 PC's to continue the enhancement program. Mr. Waibel questioned why four of the seven bidding firms have two bid numbers? Mr. Eley stated in the request of proposals minimum requirements were stated and several of the responding companies included alternates - not necessarily going from low to nigh or high to low. In each case the firm specified what they were bldding and the price. TAPE #611 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page ~ of 13 ~1162 M/S/C/U(Waibei/Horton) to approve the contract providing a minimum of ten (10) and a maximum of twenty five (25) microcomputers be awarded to Trinity Technology in the amount of $1,568.00 each plus tax as to specifications and low bid received. Vote: In Favor: Horton, Horning, Waibel, Collins, Colvin, Johnson Abstain: Overson 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING CHARITABLE SOLICITORS LICENSE REGULATIONS, ~AB89-037 Following amendment of the Charitable Solicitation License Ordinance in June of last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar North Carolina charitable solicitation law was unconstitutional by limiting solicitor's fees to a certain percentage of funds raised to guarantee a reasonable return to the charitable sponsor. The Court observed that solicitation is free speech, not merely an economic relationship, and government regulation must be minimal and well justified. Our present ordinance has a presumption that solicitation costs of 854 or more are unreasonable. The North Carolina scheme that was struck down was similar. Although less efficient, the Court did allow public disclosure requirements as a permissible means of curtailing fraud. Our ordinance retains this approach. From discussion with staff it was also decided that the license fee should be reduced to $500 from $1,000. This fee will be more readily defensible as an approximation of administrative cost rather than as a penalty to discourage professional solicitors. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated in the opinion of the Court the public policy objectives of Carolina legislature were similar to the Council's...to prevent consumer fraud and to try to assist charities in obtaining a larger percentage of the proceeds. The Court basically found that the percentage formula was not narrowly enough drawn in the area of free speech, that there were Fraud Laws available. As far as assisting the charities, it was found to be a little paternalistic and that charities should be able to contract in their best interest. Also noted all of the charities that presented a position in the lawsuit (60 charities) all were against the Carolina scheme. Mr. Sievers noted a number of cities have tried different approaches to this same problem, ail have proven unsuccessful and there are some dissenting members of the Supreme Court that also found frustration with the majority opinion. Mr. Johnson suggested changing the maximum time limit of the license to 60 days. Mr. Sievers stated one of the underlying problems throughout the Court's opinion was they were very wary of putting too much of a burden on professional solicitors and the reason for that is that very unpopular causes, who use solicitation as a means of disseminating information or raising money, have to expend a lot of money to promote their cause. So again, reducing the fee and having a shorter turn over is on a continuum and you need to be careful not to penalize professional solicitors who need to make long runs to disseminate information or to run a campaign. If a shorter time period is used it may require a second license which would shoot the license fee up to $1,000. Mr. Collins questioned if the ordinance requires a license at the time of planning or at the time actual soliciting is started? Mr. Sievers stated the business of soliciting is when asking for TAPE #611 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 5 of 13 money not planning or preparation stages. Mr. Waibel stated when an organization is spending 85~ of the funds to solicit they are actually advertising...not soliciting. He did not understand how this is a restriction on "free speech". Mrs. Horton questioned wording in the ordinance in Section 5.17.080 includes mention of the limitation of an 85~ solicitation fee? Mr. Sievers explained that section should be repealed by Section 2 of the proposed ordinance. Mrs. Horton pointed out that at the end of the "boiler room" operations some close in the middle of the night and vanish - leaving the City with complaints that required City staff time to clean up the issues, such as unpaid bills and disgruntled people. She supported the $1,000 fee as a reasonable fee with the consideration of a possible 504 return a~ter the operations was concluded and she questioned if that would be feasible? Mr. Sievers stated it was more in the nature of a surety bond or deposit, being refundable...it would be less onerous but still requires up front money or a bond could be taken to insure certain things and could be included in the Ordinance. Staff felt they did not earn $1,000 and they felt it looked more like a penalty than a $500.00 fee. Mrs. Horton stated she would like something like a bond be included in the Ordinance. Mr. Johnson questioned if adding a section requiring a bond would be allowable at second reading of the ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated yes...the subject of the fee itself is being dealt with and would provide an option other than a higher license fee. Mr. Johnson stated, to clarify the record, the 60 days that he arrived at was not simply multiplying 500 times two and coming up with $1,000. He based his suggestion on previously held campaigns like United Way, Easter Seal, etc., and most of those do no~ last more than 45 days, however, the possible solicitation time may run longer and to be equal he felt 60 days would be fair. He felt if a solicitor carried a campaign longer, such as 120 days, they were soliciting for something other than a charity. ~1640 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, reducing the license fee for professional fund raisers, removing a limitation on cost of solicitation, and amending Chapter 5.17 of the Bremerton Municipal Code and change the minimum number of days for license to 60 and provide a provision at second reading for bonding of the applicant be included. 8a - PUBLIC HEARING - TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN THE TEST OF THE BREMERTON ZONING ORDINANCE, ~AB89-039 When the City Council adopted the City's new Zoning Ordinance on October 5, 1988, it also established a "Correction Of Errors" process and a three-member Zoning Review Committee to review requests by property owners and others who felt an error had occurred in the text of the Zoning Ordinance or in the application of zones to specific properties. The Zoning Review Committee has met on November 29 and January 31 to review suspected zoning errors and is now forwarding its recommendations to the City Council for public hearing and final decision. This first public hearing is to consider only recommendations pertaining to the text of the Zoning Ordinance and to accept public comments pertaining to those specific issues and recommendations. Ron Hough, Planning Manger, stated some of the errors and corrections were discovered by citizens and others were found by TAPE ~61i City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 6 of 13 members of the staff - ali were processed through the Zoning Review Committee. Mr. Hough provided a Staff Report listing 16 Issues for Councli's consideration to correct in the Zoning Ordinance. The Staff Report is attached to and made part of these minutes to clearly identify each of the 16 issues, which includes recommendations made by the Zoning Review Committee. Paul Schmitt, Manette, spoke to Group I, Item #7 - he supported staff's recommendation to allow parking lots in the MX Zone. ~APE #612 John McConnell, Manette, spoke to MX Zone - noted that there are only three MX Zone areas in Bremerton, two zoned Commercial and one zoned Mixed Use. He suggested that the MX Zone be applied more evenly by taking out the extra provisions. Mr. McConnell questioned who served on the Zoning Review Committee? Mr. Hough stated the Committee members included: City Council - Lon Overson: Planning Commission - Mary Fields; Neighborhood Organizations - Cecil McConneil. Mr. McConnei questioned if they over ruled the staff's recommendation on this item? President Horning explained that the Committee members made their recommendation to the Clty Council for their consideration. Mr. McConnell suggested that a deeper review be given to items. He felt that in the future the MX Zone will be more of a transitional use. Cecil McConnell, President of BACON, spoke to Group I, Item 7- noting the Special Use Permit requirement became about because some of the areas are transitional and the Review Committee felt there should be some City control over where and how the parking lots were developed. Under Group i, item #13 - Mr. McConneli noted backing up from any type of facility into traffic is dangerous. He felt smaller day care facliities in residential neighborhoods encounter less traffic and may have less danger in backing into street. However, larger facilities on busy streets presents added danger and should have requirements regulating exiting on to a street. Under Group 2, item #5 - Mr. McConnell stated he felt mt was misuse of a Special Use Permit for special purpose signs and considered it a Variance issue. Under Group 2, Item 2 - Mr. McConneii stated he felt it was a treatment of Public Parks...noting day care faciilties are allow in the schools if desired. Sue Matan, 13112 J Keyport Rd. NE, Pouisbo, spoke to Group 2, Item #2 - stating she was the person who initiated the recommendation to look at the possibility of including day care facilities and pre-schools under Public School Zoning. She pointed out that School Districts are currently leasing school properties for' other uses, such as Cable Company, looking to lease Olympic View School as professional office space. What she is asking is can they consider using some of the school land for the kids? She emphasized that Pefore and after school programs and pre-school, by their very nature, belong on school land. Under the current new Zoning Ordinance these type programs cannot De considered. Presently the only way a before or after school program will be allowed Ln a school is if it is run by the School District. A private contractor cannot come into a school and run a program. Ms. Matan noted the child program approved by the legislature is looking ~or ways to provlde pre-schools for chlidren, part!culariy for "at risk" children. The Headstart Program has proven to be a way to reduce the "drop out" rate at high school level. She strongly urged the City Council to include day care in the PS Zone as a possibiiity, elther as an accessory use to allow the School District to decide how they would like to provide betore and after school programs in the schools or give them an option to allow a private contractor to run a program through the school. TAPE #612 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 7 of 13 Mr. Overson briefly explained the process used by the Zoning Review Committee. Group I, ~tem 7 - he acknowledged that some developers would like to see everything between Burwell, Callow and Shipyard fence turned into parking without any amenities. However, personally he believed there should be limitations stipulated and the encourage park and rides to ease vehicle parking impacts. Mr. Overson questioned, relating to Group I, Item ~9, people who are currently parking on their front yard setback (many have poured concrete or asphalt) are they grandfathered in? Mr. Houqh stated anything that is currently established will be grandfathered in. Mr. Overson questioned if he observes a vehicle parked on a front lawn who should he call and report it to? Mr. Hough stated right now it is not illegal to park on front lawns so no one would need to be called. If the proposed change is approved then it would be a Zoning Ordinance violation and should be reported to the Building Department. President Horninq stated for clarification that those areas that are grandfathered in wou~d have had to been established legally, meeting City's standards. Mr. Houqh explained currently if someone is building a new house two parking spaces are required and they cannot be located in the front yard. Mr. Johnson spoke to the issue of through lots and the difficulty in trying to maintain properties ~hat are so designated. He suggested that exemption be given to those properties. Mr. Houqh stated through lots have frontage on two streets and any property that fronts a street is considered a front yard and front yard setbacks apply. Mr. Overson offered to take the through lot issue back to the Errors & Corrections Review Committee for further study. Mr. Johnson questioned, under Group I, item i2, the number of spaces required for transient moorage ... ~-20 slips (if we had 100 slips only 5 park±ng spaces would be required)? Mr. Houqh explained this level was adopted by the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Johnson stated his opposition to having day care centers in PS Zone but did support the School District providing such care even if it meant contracting the services out. Mr. Sievers stated that as it stands now the School District would have to operate such a program themselves. Mrs. Horton expressed concern that those vehicles allowed to park in front yard setbacks be operable vehicles and not disabled/junk cars and if it is determined that inoperable vehicles are being parked in that area that the variance be pulled. Mr. Hough stated item #9 works c~ose with Item ~8...to provide and continuously maintain required parking spaces. Mr. Collins expressed concern over what is meant by "operable vehicles", Item #9, and how this would affect someone who desires to recondition a vehicle which might be parked in a front yard. Mrs. Horton stated she was concerned with car hulks, some might be filled with garbage, that are just sitting. Mr. Sievers stated there is a definition under the Nuisance Section which addresses storage of nuik vehicles, listing five criteria and the Police Officers have a check list to work from. if it was determined that continuing work was going on, then the vehicle may be allowed in the front yard area. Mr. Overson pointed out that many auto rebuilders prefer working in a garage area. Mr. Collins questioned if Mr. Siever's definition of a hulk can be used opposed 5o "operable"? Mr. Sievers stated that definition leads off with inoperable but hulk could be used. Mr. Johnson questioned where do boats, RV trailers, etc., fit into the parking issue? Mr. Houqh explained a single family TAPE g612 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 8 of 13 home owner is required to have two off street parking spaces...anything may be parked on those two spaces. Right now there is nothing to prevent parking boats, RV trailers, etc., on front lawns. Mr. Collins pointed out that within the areas of Port Washington Narrows to Constitution Street, Shipyard to 15th Street, there has not been any new home construction in 25 years. And, these homes were built under existing standards at a time when vehicles were a luxury not a necessity, so now are you saying every single family dwelling requires two off-street parking places? Mr. Hough stated this standard is applied to new construction and if they do not currently have two spaces then they are not required. Mr. Collins questioned why the City is applying the two off- street parking requirement to homes built 25 years ago? Mr. Hough explained it is a City wide criteria. ~1219 M/S/C(Overson/Johnson) Group gl, Item g7, to accept Committee's recommendation (page 8 of attachment). Vote: In Favor: Colvin, Overson, Horton, Johnson, Horning Opposed: Waibel, Collins M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horton) Group I, ~tem ~8, to accept Review Committee's recommendation (page 9 of attachment). ~1266 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horton) Group i, Item g9, to accept Review Committee's recommendation (page 10 of attachment). Mr. Johnson questioned, under Item i0 (Section 6B), what is definition of "private building"? Mr. Houqh stated it pertained to industrial/commercial building. ~1280 ~/S/C/U(WaiDei/Horton) Group I, Item gl0, to accept Review Committee's recommendation (page 11 of attachment}. ~1335 M/S/C/U(Walbei/Horton) Group i, ~tem gli, to accept Review Committee's recommendation (page 13 o~ attachment). ~1350 M/S/C(Overson/WaiDel} Group I, Item gi2, to accept Review Committee's recommendation (page 14 of attachment). Vote: In Favor: Overson, Horton, Horning, Waibei, Collins Opposed: Colvin, Johnson Mr. Waibel questioned if the division between a small day care facility and a larger day care facility really addresses the safety problem that Item #13 is trying to address. He suggested referring this item back to the Review Committee. Mr. Overson questioned if there was a potential that could be handled through a Variance? Mr. Hough state~ not very likely, a Variance is a hardship situation and ne was not sure a hardship situation would exist in that case. Mr. Overson suggested the possibility of approaching access via an alleyway - and questioned if the no- backing came from a higher authority? Mr. Houqh stated the no backing requirement comes from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Overson questioned if the City would be liable if they allowed a perceptibly unsafe situatlon? Mr. Houqh noted that there are a number of small day care ~acliities in homes that do not have circular driveways and those existing would be grandfathered under the new ordinance. Mr. Johson stated he did not support requiring the small day care facility in a residential area to provide a circular driveway, which might discourage this type of enterprise as it is an advantage to keep chlldren w±t~in their own neighborhoods. Mr. Colvin questioned if the City would be liable if the City allowed backing up in certain areas? M~.~_ TAPE #612 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 9 of 13 Sievers stated no - the City is not entering into an area of regulation. ~1575 M/S/C(Waibei/Collins) Group I, Item #13, Council accept this item was in error and correction needs to be reviewed further by the Review Committee. Vote: In Favor: Colvin, Johnson, Horton, Horning, Waibei, Collins Opposed: Overson ~1602 M/S/C/U(Waibei/Horton) Group I, Item #14, to accept Review Committee's recommendation (page i6 of attachment). Mr. Johnson stated he was opposed to Item #i because of what it does - for example: if the City were to annex all the property between the Shipyard and Gorst, there is probably existing zoning that would allow motels, junk yards, etc.. If we did not want that same zoning in that area then there is no opportunity for the City to enter the Rezone application.., it would be automatic on the part of the landowner that he would get, at no cost, the Zone that he had or nigher. President Horninq questioned for clarification - they still enter into the pre-annexation zoning and if it is not accomplished then they would only nave a temporary zoning designation? Mr. Hough explained a temporary is given automatically, however, they may not select to use it. Mr. Sievers stated maybe the problem is pretty remote because most annexations are through the petition method and the Council, in accepting that petition, can require simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning that has gone through the Planning Commission and approved by Council before they do the annexation. Also, the property owner may want to require that zoning, making sure it is in place, and he approves it before he has the petition carried forward to be accepted by the City. This is a situation where it could speed up annexation where there is not a large concern either on the City's part or the property owner's part and would simply be a moratorium adopting a similar designation until it can be reviewed, in answer to Mr. Johnson's question - "is that initiated only by the property owner after 60 days"...that is not the way this proposal is to operate - it shall be reviewed within 60 days to the Planning Commission whether or not it is requested by the property owner. Mr. Johnson questioned who is the requester of the rezone? Mr. Sievers stated simply by adoption of the annexation with a default zoning will be reviewed through the normal process once it come into the City before 60 days expires. Mr. Johnson questioned whether the City could down-zone a property without a rezone application? Mr. Sievers stated yes. Mr. Hough stated that is the chance a person is Going to take if they want to hurry up annexation they will trust t~e City to do what is right on their property. In most cases they will want to know what the zoning is going to be before final annexation takes place. Mr. Collins questioned if there was something in Zoning Law that states the City cannot take away the individual owners right for the higher and best use of the property. Mr. Sievers stated if the property owner had a building permit submitted to the County and the property is brought into the City they would be able to invest in that use after annexation regardless of what the zoning became. Mr. Overson pointed out the City is not in the position to be that ultra selective - if a person is a landowner on the border of the City one would certainly want some kind of certification that the land has comparable value to what it currently had. Mr. Johnson stated either it is negotiated during the annexation process or do nothlng and tnen Go to the lowest Residential designation and climb up the ladder. As it is with the proposed changed it ends up in a never-never land. Mr. Overson questioned if the proposal Is voted down does the present process provide for negotiating TAPE #612 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 10 of 13 the zoning? Mr. Houqh stated yes, it just takes a little longer, having to go through the Planning Commission before coming before City Council. Mrs. Horton questioned if within the 60 day period the City could say that building permit applications cannot be filed. Mr. Sievers stated yes, that could be done because it is a shortened up moratorium thereby preventing use of the temporary zone. Then, all that should be said is that you do not adopt any land use designation for 60 days. ~1670 M/S/C(Waibei/Horton) Group %ii, Item %1, to accept Review Committee recommendation (page 2 of attachment). Vote: In Favor: Horton, Waibei, Horning, Collins, Colvin Opposed: Overson, Johnson Mr. Johnson emphasized, regarding Group II, Item %2, that the PS Zone references Parks, Schools, cemetery, libraries, etc .... not any type of commercial enterprize within those areas. If the proposal is turned down and day care is an accessory use to the school and tied directly into the school, a day care center will be allowed. President Horning stated for clarification the intent of action being requested...was there an error made at the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Mr. Waibel questioned how the word "involved" is used in the in reference to day care facilities and schools? Mr. Sievers stated involved would mean some kind of contractual arrangement, on the same premises, as the principle use (owned by the school and/or leased with the school), thereby being some kind of involvement with the principle use. Also, it must meet the other elements of "accessory use". Mr. Houqh stated the interpretation in tne draft referenced by Mr. Waibel was drafted by Don Pratt, Director of Community Development. This was discussed several times and "involves" means that the day care involved in some sort of way with the curriculum of the school or the operation of the school, not just involved through a contractual arrangement to lease property. Mr. Sievers stated he did not agree with that as a definition of "accessory use", it is actually more restrictive. It gets back to the business of typical definition and not require actual ownership or control, rather the two uses be related in a certain way incidentally subordinate to the principle use and on the same premises as the principle use. Mr. Waibel questioned if there would be a need to establish Council's interpretation of "involved" so that it may be utilized by the Planning Department since it appears there is a disagreement over their interpretation of "involved"? Mr. Sievers stated he felt it would be helpful to have a definition of "accessory use" in the Definition Section of the Zoning text slnce it is an unusual definition. Mr. Waibel questioned if this would be an error that needed corrected? Mr. $ievers stated yes, if the Council is going to be more restrictive in the Zoning text. Mr. Houqh stated for the record there is a definition for "accessory use"...use which is incidental and subordinate to a principle use and which is customarily found in connection with the principle use and located on the same lot. Mr. Overson questioned if ~ne interpretation of the draft was inappropriate. Mr. Sievers stated yes, that definition is the common definition and does not require that kind of active involvement by the school. Mr. Houqh explained the draft Council received prior to the meeting was drafted to help with discussions with the Review Committee only. Mr. Waibel noted the definition was not apparently clear to the people who have to apply it and they came up with an interpretation. TAPE #612 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 11 of 13 Cecil McConnell, member Review Committee, stated he continues to support the Committee's recommendation that there was no error committed, however, if the Council is having second thoughts on the PS Zoning designations then they should look at it from that perspective. Mr. Overson, also a Committee member, also concurred in the Committee's recommendation. Sue Matan, day care operator, stated the reason she brought this issue before the Errors and Corrections Committee was before the Zoning Ordinance was approved she brought this issue to the City Council and was told this was an issue that needed to go to the Errors and Corrections Committee. President Homing pointed out that two of the three Committee members believe no error was committed, maybe at some later point Council may revisit this whole issue. ~2122 M/S/C(Collins/Colvin), Group II, Item #2 - to accept the Review Committee's recommendation that no error occurred (page 3 of attachment) . Vote: In Favor: Johnson, Overson, Horton, Horning Opposed: Waibel, Collins, Colvin ~2945 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horton) Group II, Item #3 to accept Review Committee's recommendation (page 3 of attachment). ~2970 M/S/C/U (Waibel/Hor ton) Group II, Item #4 to accept Review Committee's recommendation (pages 4 and 5 of attachment). Mr. Waibel stated, regarding Group II, Item #5, he did not believe Special Use Permit was the proper way to resolve this issue, however, he did feel there was an error in not recognizing that the City might be blocking some signage that would be beneficial to the community. ~3046 M/S/C(Waibel/Colvin) Group II, Item #5 to take this item back to Review Committee. rAPE #613 Vote: In Favor: Horning, Collins, Colvin, Johnson, Waibel Opposed: Overson, Horton ~0030 M/S/C(Waibel/Coliins) Group II, Item #6, to accept the Review Committee's recommendation (page 6 of attachment). Vote: In Favor: Overson, Horton, Horning, Waibel, Collins, Colvin Opposed: Johnson ~0040 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horton) Group II, Item #15, to accept Review Committee's recommendation (page 16 of attachment). ~0050 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Johnson) Group II, Item #16, to accept Review Committee's recommendation (page 17 of attachment). 8B - PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER 754 PETITION TO ANNEX: MILLER ANNEXATION AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING), ~AB89-040 On February l, 1989, the City Council accepted a 10~ annexation petition, submitted by Jeff Miller for the annexation of two lots, having a total area of about 7.3 acres. The property is located adjacent to the City's western boundary and approximately 2,000 feet south of Kitsap Lake. SEPA requirements have been met, a DNS was issued on December 7, 1988, and the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider future zoning for the property at its January 17, 1989 meeting. The Commission's zoning recommendation is included with the staff report. TAPE #612 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 12 of 13 The next step in this process is the City Council public hearing to accept public comments and to consider the 754 petition for annexation. Ron Hough, Annexation Manager, provided a view graph showing the location of the property and surrounding property uses. The property consists of two lots, about 6 acres owned by Mr. Miller and an easement for a utility line owned by Kitap County. The County has been given notice of the annexation and it is being ieveraged in Jeff Miller's property consisting of at least 754 of those two property combined. As of this date no response had been received from the County. Mr. Hough stated the Planning Commission considered Mr. Miller's request for Single Family 2 zoning - he wants to create some single family lots on the property...minimum size lots w/septic system is 12,500 sq. ft., a Single Family 2 allows 9,600 sq. ft., and he is still limited to 12,500 sq. ft. To encourage other properties in this area to annex in the future the Planning Commission felt that some incentive be given that allows some development that is economically feasible. Mr. Miller's current zoning is one acre zoning under the County's jurisdiction. Mr. Hough reviewed comments from other City Departments: Water Department - no identifiable problems noted; Storm Water - no identifiable problems noted; Fire - if development takes place even single family dwellings the sections of the Fire Code with regard to access and fire flow will apply. The applicant is aware of the Fire Code requirements and City Ordinance requirements for public access and he is willing to dedicate public right-away for a street to have access to his property from the nearest road; City Attorney - property needs to be accessiDle by alley or street; Parks Department - annexation of properties at south end of lake will be good for the future; Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association - if annexed, this property should be annexed at "3" units per acre instead of "5"; Engineering, Police, School District, Building Department all had no problems and the Sanitary Sewer had same "stormwater" comments. Mr. Hough noted Resolution #89-2 from the Planning Commission was included in Council's Agenda packet which recommends the SF-2 Zoning, as well as a proposed ordinance which would be up for first reading and if approved would be the first step toward annexation of the property. Mr. Johnson voiced his displeasure that Council had not received the signed petition until just prior to the meeting. Mr. Hough explained that the petition was returned to Mr. Miller for a second signature which caused the delay. Mr. Johnson noted that future sewer expansion in the Kitsap Lake area would go north and west not south and east. He also did not like the innuendo that Council would support higher density annexation through the whole south end property, which is a fairly large piece of property, in fact, the traffic folks made zero comment as to how traffic will be moved out of the area and the only logical way is out Price Road which is where the 270+ Dockside residents will be exiting. If promises are being made to others interested in annexation, someone had better be designing new streets. #0511 M/S/C/U(Coilins/Colvin) to approve the application of the SF-2 zoning district to the subject area upon annexation. #0521 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Coliinst to accept the 754 petition and approve the annexation of the proposed area. TAPE #61~ City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 22, 1989 Page 13 of 13 ~0533 M/S/C/U(Overson/Horton) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, annexing approximately 7.3 acres south of Kitsap Lake into the City of Bremerton, requiring said property to be assessed and taxed at the same rate and basis as other property within said City, rezoning said property to Single Family Zone 2 and fixing the effective date of annexation. With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. KATHLEEN L. ~SP£NCER HORNINGCouncil President City of Bremerton KLM/SH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault