HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/89 0CT25 '1989
TAPE ~68i UN'APPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 11~ 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, October 11, 1989 at 5:30 p.m.,
with Council President Spencer Horning. Council members present
were Lon Overson, Shirley Marry Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Hank Waibei,
Morrie Dawkins, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, A1 Colvin and Russ Johnson.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney Laura Anderson and City
Clerk Kathieen McCiuskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Horning and Invocation was Given by Chaplin Ben Belcher
of Harrison Memorial Hospital.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes Of Meeting - September 20, 1989, ~AB89-297
)018 M/S/C/U(Waibei/Crutcher) to approve Consent AGenda as presented.
CLAIMS/NARR~[NT 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.
)034 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on October ti 1989, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 100320. 100321.. 100431 through 100572, 10581, 100582,
100583, 100584 in the total amount of $234,488.71 and Regular
Payroll in the total amount o~ $341.163.08.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Overson reminded his re[flow Council members that the Councils
Coalition will meet on Tuesday, October 17~ 1989~ 6:30 p.m.. at
Myhres Restaurant.
Mr. Crutcher reported he attended the anniversary celebration of
the Ebenezer AME Church and enjoyed being a part of this
celebration. He expressed how much he enjoys attending churches
within the community.
Mr. Waibel reported the Budget Committee for Kitsap ~THealth
met today and attempted to reduce the requested increase of funds
from each of the entities to a minimum, however~ the City may still
end up with a $4-5,000 increase over last year.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Peggy Lesser, Risk Manager, briefly outlined activities undertaken
by two Electronics Division employees, Allan Jacobs and Bob Tulp,
helping to apprehend the individual who caused damages to a traffic
control device at 6th and Warren Avenue. They were called out to
repair the damage, which they discovered to be a costly repair
item. Since there was no one in the immediate area to which the
accident could be credited, Allan and Bob decided to search around
town and see if they could find the large vehicle which caused the
damage. Through their diligent effort the vehicle was located, the
driver of that vehicle was ci~arged and the City recouped $9~200.00
reimbursing the City for Gamages causea.'
Ken Brees, Streets Superintendent~ called Allan Jacobs and Bob Tuip
forward and presented them with safety equipment (rain gear~, vests,
etc.) which can be worn during their on duty time with the City.
And, Ken thanked them for their effort beyond the normal call of
TAPE #681
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 11, 1989
Page 2 of 1~
duty. Allan Jacobs thanked the City for the recognition and he
related they felt it was just part of their job and duty to do what
they can to help the City. Bob Tuip stated it is good to have an
employer recognize actions above and beyond efforts and they are
proud to be employees of the City of Bremerton.
Steve Olander,634 N. Montgomery $4, made a lengthy statement on
traffic conditions in Bremerton, the recklessness of drivers and
the infringement of threat and danger to those who follow speed
laws. He emphatically stated he would not be deterred from obeying
traffic laws by those who continue to disregard the safety and
welfare of other citizens. And, his goal is for a peaceful
commute.
Andy Parypa, 1122 Hayward Avenue, announced the Manette
Neighborhood Association is sponsoring a meeting on October 19,
7:00 p.m., at the Manette Community Church, and have invited the
two Mayoral candidates, Mr. Horning and Mr. Mentor, to respond to
questions from the audience.
6A - SURPLUS OF CITY VEHICLES~ ~AB89-288
The City has several vehicles which have reached the end of their
useful lives and which are surplus to present needs. A declaration
of surplus is necessary to allow disposal.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, requested the addition of a 1974 Dodge
Van $2224 to the~vehicle surplus list.
President Horninq questioned if a Wedge ConCrete Saw and a Chipper---
were considered vehicles? Mr. Hanna stated the Wedge Concrete Saw
is not - it is a piece of equipment for sawing through sidewalks
and concrete paving in the streets and has been used in the Street
Department. The Chipper is technically a vehicle in as much as it
does carry a license plate as a traiier~ which is normally towed
behind a truck from one job site to another.
Mr. Waihei questioned if The City would be replacing the chipper?
Mr. Hanna stated no~ it was determined that within the City limits
it is more bother than worth to chip the brush . The City does not
have the same capability as the County to chip the brush and leave
the shredded debris on the shoulder of the road.
)357 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Coivin) to declare vehicles No. 1446~ 1701, 1835,
i837, 1838~ 1839~ 1840, 3002, 3009, and the addition of S11134, -
a 1974 Dodge Van.
ORDINANCE ~4241 (SECOND READING) AMENDING ORDINANCE ~3887
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF WATER SEWER BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES,
~AB89-279
]629 M/S/C/U(Horton/Crutcner) to pass Ordinance #4241, on second
reading, relating to water and sewerage system of the City and
amending Ordinance #3887. as amended.
7B - ORDINANCE ~4242 ~SECOND READING) AMENDING THE CITY OF
BREMERTON 1989 BUDGET, ~AB89-280
)657 M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Overson) to pass Ordinance #4242, on second
reading, amending Ordinance #4213 relating to the budget of the
City of Bremerton for Fiscal Year 1989.
7C - ORDINANCE ~4243 (SECOND READING) ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 41
ACRES, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN~ AND ZONING THE AREA KNOWN
AS THE RICKEY ROAD ANNEXATION AREA~ ~AB89-281
Ron Hough, Annexation Coordinator, noted that Section 4 had been
inadvertently left out of the ordinance relating to assumption o~
City indebtedness.
TAPE %681
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 11, 1989
Page 3 of 15
1694 M/S/C/U(Waibei/Horton) to pass Ordinance #4243, on second reading,
annexing approximately 41 acres southwest of the intersection of
Pine Road and Sylvan Way, known as the Rickey Road Annexation,
amending the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning said property, and fixing
the effective date of annexation.
7D -ORDINANCE ~4244 (SECOND READING} ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 30.6
ACRES AND ZONING THE AREA KNOWN AS THE SOUTH AUTO CENTER
ANNEXATION, ~AB89-286
Ron Hough, Annexation Coordinator~ announced the Boundary Review
Board will hold a public hearing on this issue on November 2, 1989,
7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
~736 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to pass Ordinance ~4244, on second reading,
annexing approximately 30.6 acres in the vicinity of Auto Center
Way, Werner Road and SR-3, known as the South Auto Center
Annexation, rezoning said property, and fixing the effective date
of annexation
7E - RE~OLUTION ~2276~ REFERRING PARKS PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO Bm
PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE FEBRUARY 6, 1990 ELECTION', ~AB89-289
The citizens of Bremerton are very concerned about the
vulnerability of their parks and open space assets. This concern
was heightened by the manner in which the Roosevelt Field issue was
handled. The "Friends of Bremerton parks and Open Spaces", a
grassroots citizens group was formed to evaluate the need for
additional protection for our parks. This Committee has drafted
an ordinance~ which would establish procedures that would
accomplish this.
The Committee is requesting that the City Council take action to
place this ordinance on the Ballot for a vote of the people for the
February 6f 1990 school levy election. If adopted by the citizens
on the February 6 election, the ordinance would become a binding
policy placed on the Mayor and City Council and could only be
changed or repealed by a vote of the people. This ordinance would
in effect remove some of the authority of the City Council - the
authority would be transferred to your constituents, the citizens
of Bremerton.
Given the unique value of our parks assets to the Bremerton
community, the Committee considers this action necessary and
appropriate. Most of the provisions included in the ordinance are
already in place in the City, however, they can simply be revised
or repealed by a vote of any Council.
Mayor Gene Lobe stated he thought the proposed ordinance was far
from being ready to consider. Some o~ the parks listed are not the
same land ownership as other, for example some are City Utility
lands. He questioned the legality of Section 4 of the ordinance
relating to retroaction action on any parks land sold within one
year prior to the effective date of the ordinance. He recommended
putting this issue on the Council's Study Session scheduled for
November 6.
Andy Parypa, i122 Hayward Avenue, (Agenda Bill sponsor) commended
the many individuals who worked together to develop this ordinance.
He agreed with Mayor Lobe that two parks should be removed from the
ordinance - Otto Jarstad Park and Gold Mountain Golf Course, which
belong to the Utility. He emphasized the general public is very
interested in this initiative. He urged the Council to approve the
request, as written, with the amendment deleting the Utility owned
parks. He felt passage of the ordinance would bring back an open
and above board due process concerning control of the parks, open
space, sports fields and greenbeits, etc.
TAPE $681
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 1i, 1989
Page 4 of 13
Rick Smith,131 E. 31st (Agenda Bill sponsor) stated his support of
the Resolution and submission of the Parks Protection Ordinance to
the public as a ballot measure. He noted the current process is
not clear in selling parks land assets and the proposed ordinance
would set out a process which could be followed now and in years
to come. He urged the City Council to support this proposal as
submitted. He felt the political ramifications beyond the City is
important, and as a past Legislator he is aware of what has to be
done to get capital appropriations. And, to his understanding the
Community College Board declined to ask the Legislature for funds
to purchase residential properties near the college in order to
ease parking needs~ but rather looked to acquiring Roosevelt Field,
(unapproved property near the college), for that purpose. The
citizens of Bremerton are supportive of Olympic College but not to
the point of wanting to give up the crown jewel of the parks system
in order to solve parking problems at the college. He concluded
that this campaign is not motivated by nostalgia to return to the
good old day...this happens to be the only piece of flat land in
the City limits to accommodate a full sized baseball field. The
baseball community of Bremerton feels they have lost their
heritage, through no fault of anyone, over the years when Roosevelt
Field was torn down it became two softball fields. And Mr. Smith
noted Bremerton is the only City in Washington, of its size, that
does not have one full sized baseball field in order to host
American Legion Baseball Team tournaments. This type of
tournament play could mean a significant economic impact on the
business community.
Jim Adrian~ 621 Washington Avenue (Agenda Bill sponsor)~ provided
each Council member with an additional packet of information and
stated he would be speaking for the "Friends Of Bremerton Parks and
Open Spaces. Parks issues have been a major item on the public
agenda since the Mayor's proposal was made on July 19, 1989. About
10 weeks ago a number of citizens began meeting on a regular basis
to discuss the issue of Roosevelt Field and it became clear to
those citizens that the real fundamental issues revolving around
Roosevelt Field really should be dealt with in terms of general
questions relating to how we protect our parks, how we value the
parks as a community, who are the decision makers in respect to
parks and what processes are currently in place or should be in
place as they concern disposition of parks property. It was
concluded that the procedures to handle these types of matters
needed to be revised and significantly strengthened and a mechanism
provided where under certain circumstances citizens would have a
right to speak to significant park issues at the ballot box.
The City Attorney has advised the Council that by simply repealing
three Resolutions the City Council could eliminate the Parks
Commission as an advisory body to the City Council~ eliminate
property surpiusing procedures and eliminate a policy document that
is 30 years old and that three generations of elected officials
believed in good faith would provided protection for the City's
major parks asse~.
The sponsoring group is willing and ready to take this issue to the
public and pursue a door-to-door signature campaign in order to see
that this initiative is placed on the ballot, i~ the Council does
not support the proposal as presented.
Also, Mr. Adrian outlined several articles from other cities
relating to parks issues which brought out that park lands are a
valuable civic asset that should not be allowed to decline and
efforts are being undertaking via Parks Bond issues to expand parks
and open spaces.
Glenn Jarstad, Bremerton, stated he hoped the City Attorney had
reviewed the proposed ordinance to determine if it would be
beneficial to the City. He also related to recent news articles
TAPE #681
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 11, 1989
Page 5 of 13
in support of making new open spaces and maintaining established
parks. He felt it was unusual for a City, particularly Bremerton~
to consider disposing of open land within the city limits. He felt
the proposed ordinance would not be controversial in any way. It
also gives a pathway to the Parks and Recreation Commission and it
would relieve a lot of frustrations for long range planning in the
Parks department so they know there is a method people would have
to go through for discussion relating to disposition of any open
space that the City of Bremerton has acquired over the last years.
He urged the City Council to take positive action on the proposed
ordinance.
Del Knauss, 139 Olympic. Avenue, listed the following points why ~he
Council should support the Resolution, which are found in the
Comprehensive Plan: (1) provide a variety park open space and
recreation facilities throughout the community for all age groups
and those who may be handicapped: (2) promote the retention and
expansion of privately owned open space that has seen recreation
or environmental significance; (3) use open space to separate major
sectors of urbanized areas to discourage continuous urban sprawl
and preserve many of the natural features of the land; (4) protect
areas designated for open space and recreation purposes and
conversion to other land uses; (5) acquire properties that are
suitable for future open space~ park, recreation use even though
funding for development and maintenance may not be immediately
avaitable~ (6) strongly encourage organized private groups to
provide and or maintain parks, recreation and open space
facilities; (7) plan the function, location and size of parks~ open
space areas and recreation facilities consistent with the projected
population density of the area to .be surveyed and with the
transportation system; (8) retain open space between neighborhoods
and between residential and adjacent non-living areas. He pointed
out these pointed are a part of the City's own Comprehensive Plan -
it does not talk about selling recreational areas or open space~
rather acquiring and maintaining and keeping such properties.
Therefore~ this is the main reason why Council should support the
proposal as presented. Another thing that ties into this - Phase
I of the sports complex is estimated to cost $1,183,595. If IAC
(Interagency For Outdoor Recreation) funds of $150,000 plus,
$150,000 from Hotel/Motel tax plus $30,000 capital from players'
fees and another $200,000 already pledged in donations are
available that would leave a balance of $653,595. Expected
additional donations of $300,000 would leave a balance needed of
$353,595. To meet the $353~595 more funds could be taken from the
Hotel/Motel tax fund or General Obligations Bonds at a rate of 6.54
could be obtained.
Harry Wilson, 2120 N. Cattow~ stated he supported the ordinance but
questioned why all the parks are not listed? Jim Adrian explained
the Committee reviewed the Parks Comprehensive Plan and picked the
larger, more visible parks. There are a number of small parks and
the Committee felt there might be need for more flexibility in
dealing with them. However~ they felt the 19 major assets
identified need special protection.
Dusty Rhodes~ 2513 Reid~ stated he hoped the City Council would
approve the proposal which would bring it to the vote of the
citizens. And, during his door belling he had already encountered
200 people who indicated their desire to support such a measure and
only 3 individuals who were unaware of the issue at all. Mr.
Rhodes pointed the inequity of a recent request by Mr. Zeiiinsky
for the legislature to fund 70 parking spaces at the Kingston Ferry
for a total of $300,000 and the fact that the City is being asked
to sell Roosevelt field for $465,000 when Olympic College already
has 280+ parking spaces.
Mr. Johnson requested the City Clerk to read into the record the
TAPE ~681
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 11, 1989
Page 6 of 15
proposed Parks Protection Ordinance. Kathleen McCluske¥, City
Clerk, read in its entirety the proposed Parks Protection
Ordinance.
Mr. Johsson pointed out a correction to the ordinance by adding
the word "Park" after SR 3 (No.18) and exclusion of the Utility
lands. He also felt if a City park is sold it should be a decision
made by the City Council. However, if the City wants a good
Parking Protection Ordinance, which may or may not be challenged
sometime in the future, he thinks one passed by the citizens with
a large majority would provide weight to a Judge or jury if it was
contested. If the proposal does Go before the citizens~ he wants
to make sure that it is done right, that it is a good and
enforceable ordinance that the City can back up.
Mr. Colvin commended the committee members and citizens who
developed the proposed ordinance. He stated he would support the
proposal if the City Attorney stipulated it was proper and in
order.
Mr. Collins stated he felt Mr. Smith was a reputable attorney and
had no problem with the legal language in the ordinance. One of
the things that did come to light that he was impressed with is the
broad use of a unanimous vo~e by City Councils or Parks Boards to
sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of park lands. He urged the
Council members to approve the proposal at this time.
Mr. Waibel pointed out the proposal had been drafted by two
attorneys, it had been seen by the City Attorney and he was
disappointed Mr. Sievers was not available to defend his review.
The precedent for a unanimous vote on an item such as this is
established in RCW's for the State of Washington. His only problem
with the ordinance is that it may not go far enough. It does not
make provisions for future purchases of large parks to be afforded
that kind of protection. Then, the City would have to go back
through the initiative ordinance process to add any additional park
lands. He wished there was some way to make Section 2 allow for
the addition of those particular bodies...but it does not as it
would destroy the integrity of the system. He supported this
proposal being submitted to the public because then it could be
held up in Court. Mr. Waibel related his experience in California
where a Community College took approximately $460,000 to purchase
six blocks of residential properties over a six year period. They
adopted a plan to purchase properties when they became available,
renting them until a full block was purchased. It took moving some
of the homes, condemning some when necessary and it also
established a plan whereby people willed their residence to the
Community College and were allowed to live in the homes until their
death. So, Olympic College could be looking to other properties
and methods to obtain parking space rather than focusing on just
Roosevelt Field.
Mrs. Horton stated she believes in any community parks property
should be valued and she agreed that in an encroaching society
parks and open space are vital. She pointed out recent City
activity in either development or partial development of two new
major parks and very soon the start of construction on the
Bremerton Waterfront Park. Also, she believes the City will be
developing a multi-field complex on property that was not
previously park land, but another acquisition for the parks system.
However, when one looks at the population of Bremerton and the
revenue base of the City those figures might be going up somewhat
but they are Going up slowly. Most of the acquisitionf population
wise, has been through annexation and any increase to the revenue
base has been through annexation along with a few new businesses.
Therefore, she believes the City is turning the corner to becoming
a more thriving community. And, there may be park facilities that
'TAPE S681
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 11, 1989
Page 7 of 13
the City wants to sell or change the use of and turn them into
income generating properties so that the City can support the parks
system. The only other option is to dig deep into the pockets of
the community and come up with not only capital improvement bonds
but maybe maintenance and operation bonds. If this ordinance goes
to the vote of the people in February, she would like to challenge
the Friends Of The Parks And Open Spaces to put a companion Bond
Ordinance on the ballot. Bremerton does not have the history of
supporting parks and open spaces with dollars.
Mr. Crutcher stated he supports this issue going to the voters but
he feels the smaller parks are being short changed by not being
included. And, he stressed the importance of making it clear to
the citizens what they are voting on.
President Homing questioned if the Council approved the proposal
what happens if the Council wants to make changes to the proposed
ordinance as a part of the approval process? Laura Anderson,
Assistant City Attorney, stated if Council members are thinking of
changing the language of the ordinance, upon passage of the
ordinance it should be in substantive final form - that is not to
say minor changes cannot be made as to the form of the ordinance.
But, the substance of the ordinance should be in place at the time
the Resolution is passed. President Hornin~ questioned what would
happen if Council allowed it to go through the initiative process
with the inclusion of several things Council may not desire?. Ms.
Anderson stated the Council~ at that point in time, is not allowed
by City Charter to amend or modify that ordinance presented to the
Council by the people. So, what would happen would be the Council
would have the opportunity to reject or approve or not act on the
ordinance itself. The Council could approve it in any of those
three situations - the ordinance as presented by the people in the
petition will be that ordinance as presented on the ballot.
President Horning emphasized the importance of taking the time now
to take care of any parts o4 the ordinance that may be unacceptable
to the Council. Ms. Anderson pointed out if it goes through the
petition process, then the ordinance as presented by the
petitioners will be placed on the ballot. If Council acts on.~its
own initiative, then the Council can modify and amend!~!~he
ordinance. President Hornin~ questioned what about the signatures
that have already been collected on this issue - would they stand
as valid if substantial changes are made to the ordinance? Ms.
Anderson stated if it were a referendum issue and the ordinance was
substantively changed then they would not be any good. However,
citizens signatures are not required if Council acts on its own
initiative.
Mr. Adrian noted he agreed with Ms. Anderson's comments and pointed
out every provision in the ordinance is with precedent -
established somewhere within the City as part of policies and
procedures. The problem is that they are very soft policy
statements,i.e., resolutions. The Committee did look at a Charter
change, however, RCW mandates that it must be done at the time of
a General Election and the Committee did not have time to
accomplish it within the short time frame. In reference to
comments made that the ordinance did not go far enough...the
Committee's intent was not to tie the Council's hands but to
provide some latitude; and that latitude was measured by some
precedent setting parameters which already exist. In terms of why
they did not address all parks, the proposed ordinance can be an
initiative ordinance addressing the 19 properties, but the Council
can pass an identical ordinance addressing the smaller parks. The
only difference is that the proposed ordinance addresses that major
assets can only be changed by the people. There was no intention
to say that certain parks were of more value than others. Mr.
Adrian did not support the idea of putting a Parks Bond measure on
the same election as a School levy. There are people within the
TAPE #681
City Council Reg. ,~tg. Minutes
October 11, 1989
Page 8 of
community who will work very hard on a Parks Bond issue if the
timing is right. Also, Mr. Adrian stated he did not have detailed
discussions with Mr. Sievers, City Attorney. The Agenda Bill was
submitted with the request that it be reviewed by the City
Attorney. Mr. Sievers did request a couple minor changes that were
included prior to its being placed before the Council.
President Horninq questioned what happens if the Federal or State
governments repossesses property, for instance NAD Marine? Mr.
Adrian stated it was his understanding that City laws and State
laws do not subordinate the Federal law. Mr. Adrian explained the
Committee had tried to research any title encumbrances that may
have been attached to any of the listed properties and found it to
be unclear. Typically, what happens with park land when it is
decided to develop it for something other than a park or liquidate
you return to the source who gave it in the first place to get any
encumbrance champ. Mr. Waibel pointed out the ordinance only
covers surplus or sale of or change of use of park property and if
in fact someone repossesses the park land because the City has not
held up a covenant then it can be taken back by the granting
entity.
~PE #682
President Horninq questioned since there are some non-park uses
that have been allowed and accepted by the City, how does this
affect those at all, i.e., expansion, take away, etc.? Mr. Adrian
stated if the City were to take some park land and clear it and
pave it to be used as a parking lot this would constitute a
significant 'change in use that does not clearly compliment a
recreational activity. And, in his opinion it also advises that
if the City does something like this the Parks Board must be
involved. President Horninq questioned what if the City found an
opportunity to trade a portion of park land in order to expand some
other parks? Mr. Waibel pointed out the City could do that if it
had a unanimous vote of the City Council. Mr. Adrian added also
if there were no deed restrictions as well. President Homing.
raised the issue of requiring a unanimous vote of the City Council
and how one vote could block the process to possibly acquire or
trade lands which would benefit greatly other existing parks. Mr.
Adrian stated he could not speak for the Committee, however~ it
would be something to look at as a possible change. And, if the
Committee chooses not to make a change the City Council still
retains the power with a 3-vote to place an issue on an election
Ballot.
Mr. Waibel invited Mr. Parypa to speak. Mr. Parypa stated this
was a group made up of not only the four sponsors of the Agenda
item but many people as well. One of the reasons smaller park land
areas were not included - they are not essentially parks but
beautification areas. Some of these areas are on State right-of-
way, i.e. Rhode Vista Park. President Horninq questioned if the
City expanded Evergreen Park would that automatically hold then by
the same rules. Mr. ParYDa stated the City Council does have the
majority vote and can take action to expand a park. Mr. Waibel
stated for clarification if the City wanted to trade away all or
part of a park to expand other park land then the trade issue would
have to go to through the process as proposed by the ordinance.
Mr. Johnson stated that on the trade and expansion issue he would
want to see it come under the same unanimous vote provision. And,
he questioned what was meant by the City Attorney when he signed
off on the Agenda Bill and included the comment "as to form"?
Laura Anderson stated he was just signing it off as to the form of
the Resolution, Ordinance and possibly the procedure as to how it
was included on the Council Agenda. Even though Mr. Sievers may
agree with the substantive nature of the Resolution and Ordinance~
it says in fact he only signed of as to form.
TAPE 6S2 ~-~ ~-%
City Council Reg. ~g. Minutes
October 11, 1989
Page 9 of 13
Mr. Colvin stated he would like to have language included so that
the City can expand parks~ such as Lions Field, by acquiring the
land where the old sewer disposal plant was located. Mr. Smith
stated he agreed that Gold Mountain Golf Course and Jarstad Park
should not be included due to their being Utility properties. In
regard to retroactive, as stated in the ordinance, there is a
separation clause included and if there is any lack of legal
foundation for that particular paragraph it could be removed and
would not take away from any other part of the ordinance.
Mr. Colvin questioned if Gold Mountain Golf Course and Otto Jarstad
Park are removed from the ordinance would it invalidate the
ordinance as proposed? Mr. Smith stated in his opinion those who
submitted the proposal co%L'ld work with the City Council on changes
of that nature and he felt the Committee would be acceptable to
deletion of those two park areas. He felt the issue of a
"unanimous vote" would be something the Committee would hold fast
on its inclusion. He believed changes could be made to the
proposed ordinance as long as only one initiative is submitted to
the voters. Mr. Colvin noted that in his opinion the issue of
"retroactive action" is relating specifically to the possible sale
of Roosevelt Field. Mr. Smith explained the ordinance states that
the City will make what efforts they can to set aside the sale if
the ordinance is adopted; and the Committee did identify Roosevelt
Field in this instance. However, after hearing testimony given at
this time there may be other sales pending.
Mr. Waibel pointed out there have not been any sale of parks lands
since March so discussion should center on what might take place
between this date and when the ordinance would be actually passed
by the voters. And, a message is being sent to be very careful
about any sales being made between now and that point.
Mrs. Horton questioned if the City Council took this issue for
review at their November Study Session would it be agreeable to the
Committee? Mr. Adrian explained that would create a hardship for
the Committee due to the fact they need to take advantage of the
good weather to door bell for collection of signatures. By
November the daylight hours are less and the weather more
inclement.
Mr. Crutcher stated he would not support the proposal because he
thinks the small parks are just as important as the large park
lands.
President Horninq questioned if a one week delay would create a
hardship for the Committee? Mr. Adrian suggested that the
Committee members be a part of the discussion as to possible
changes. President Horninq stated a meeting time and date would
be established immediately following the Council meeting.
~784 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Crutcher) to table this issue for one week.
SA - PUBLIC HEA~ING - TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT AND TO CONSIDER
PLANNING COMMISSION KECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMEND~_~T AND REZONE OF PKOPERTY WEST OF GORST, ~AB89-290
On September 19, 1989, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing to accept public comments and to consider the
planning and zoning of two properties located immediately west of
the community of Gorst and on the south side of SR-3. One of those
properties is being considered for annexation. The other is within
the City and owned by the City's Water Utility. The Planning
Commission recommended (i) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
area, (2) a Rezone o~ the City property, and (3} Pre-annexation
zoning of the parcel being considered for annexation. This public
hearing is to consider the Plan Amendment and Rezone only. The
pre-annexation zoning will be considered at a later hearing along
City Council Reg.~"~.g. Minutes ~"%
October 11, 1989
Page 10 of ~3
with the question of annexation.
Ron ~ou~h, Annexation Coordinator, provided a view graph showing
the general location of the subject area.
Existing Land Uses - the nearest development of any kind is on the
opposite side of SR-3 to the north. The nearest structure is the
Full Gospel Assembly Church at the corner of Division Street and
SR-3. A residential neighborhood extends to the north and east of
the church. The nearest residential area on the south side of SR-
3 lies about 700 feet to the east of the subject property.
Immediately east of the property is the 10 acre parcel owned by
Puget Western, Inc. This is the location of an electrical sub-
station. All other lands to the east, south and west are either
vacant or forested and the property to the immediate west is owned
by the City.
The subject 20 acre parcel is mostly undeveloped, hilly, and
forested. Parish Creek passes through its western side and a 150
ft. wide Bonneville Power Administration utility right-of-way
crosses the property in a SSW to NNE direction. The only structure
on the site is a meeting hall, approximately 2,000 sq. ft. in size.
Existing Zoning - currently the property within the City limits is
zoned FM (Forest Management), which is the same as watershed
property north of the area, to the south is RU-1 Acre, which is
rural residential density in the County (1-Unit per acre). The
urban area of Gorst is zoned R-5MH (Residential "mobile home"
included) (5-units per acre).
The City's Water Utility owns the 20 acre parcel, which was not
considered to be an important part of the watershed and was
declared surplus. Puget Western was interested in acquiring the
property and entered into an agreement with the City to acquire it.
The present zoning, because it is Forest Management, does not allow
a lot of uses and does not have a high value for development or use
and because of that Puget Western would like to zoning changed to
something more usable. The original request was for Industrial
Park (IP). They wanted zoning which would allow expansion of their
faciiiny on to that property if they acquire it. At the same time
request was made for the 10 acre piece on the east side (which is
a separate zoning issue). The Comprehensive Plan Amendment takes
in both pieces but the zoning request relates to only the piece of
proper~y within the City's boundary.
A SEPA review and Environmental Check List have been prepared and
the DNS was issued on September 19~ 1989.
The Planning Commission held their hearing on the zoning and
Comprehensive Plan issues on September 19. They received a letter
from the County Department Of Community Development which asked the
City to consider other land use options that might maintain what
they identify as the urban concentration concept. One of those
options was to include the County in the PUD approval process for
this property. The Planning Commission felt this was not
appropriate and the County's other suggestion was to consider
Multi-Family Residential zoning on the property. The Planning
Commission listened to public testimony, who were generally opposed
to Industrial Park zoning due to traffic concerns, etc. The
Planning Commission determined the area was not suitable or
appropriate for Industrial Park zoning or Multi-Family Residential
due to the location, terrain, topography and types of soils, etc.~
and, passed Resolution 89-8, which recommends the Comprehensive
Plan be amended for a iow density Residential designation
(Residential 0-7 Units). After further reviewing the information,
they recommended the Single Family- 2 (SF-2) zone, which allows a
TAPE 682
TAPE 682
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 11, 1989
Page 11 of ~
density of about 4-units per acre and which is most compatible with
the County's zoning to the north and east which is about 5 units
per acre.
President Horninq asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Melinda Hanberg, 4681 W. Summit, Gorst, stated they were not
notified that this rezone was taking place and requested additionai
information. Currently they are experiencing water supply problems
and feel that if something designated as a residential area will
cause more problems. She owns a water pump in order to have water
supplied to her residence. Bremerton Water does not supply the
water pump - she must provide it. She questioned what affect would
this rezone do to the people who live at the higher elevation
regarding water and also traffic impact? Bill Dully, Utilities
Director, stated there are two concerns: (1) the rezone; (2) water
problem. The whole hillside south of Gorst has a water problem.
Some of the changes that are being made in the system will
aggravate that in the future and there are plans to add a reservoir
and booster station to serve that area within the next 24 months.
Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated in response
to the question of proper notification, the standard notice was
mailed to properties throughout the surrounding area, the property
was posted and 8-10 neighbors testified at the Planning Commission
hearing. The City is not obligated to notify everyone within miles
of the area. What the Council is being asked to do at this time
is a rezone, which is to a lesser density than the surrounding area
for the County. It is not a Building Permit application - if the
City were to issue a Building Permit for home construction on this
property, it could only happen after the property was subdivided
and subdivisions can only happen if there are more than 4 lots
through a process that the Council must approve. And, one of the
elements of that process is where are the roads, water and sewers?
However, properties can be short platted if it is created less than
4 lots and the City does not ask those same questions as hard.
There is another catch, in order to obtain a Building Permit it
must be demonstrated both in the City and County, that there are
sewer/water provisions to provide to the house being constructed.
This is the first step in the process and the question of traffic
congestion was looked at during the development of the Check List
and that review indicated that the roads in the area are not filled
to capacity, although there will be some increased vehicles on the
road but not to capacity use of the roads. Ms. Hanberg stated she
was one of the closest neighbors to the subject property and was
not notified. She expressed concern that even at 6:00 AM entering
the traffic flow is a problem.
Mr. Collins questioned density levels being recommended by the
County, particularly in Mr. Stricklin's letter of September 19 and
why the City's were almost 1/3 higher? Mr. Pratt stated the
proposed density is 4-Units per acre and he cautioned the Council
that the City and County do not operate zoning in a similar manner.
The County would prefer, before any property is zoned, the detail
on what is going to be developed and how. The City's policy is to
establish property that is zoned that meets certain development
standards that are already in place and not site engineer the
project. It was a little surprising to see the County's first
choice, Multi-Family (semi-rural zone) and that speaks to the
difficulty between how the two entities operate zoning.
Mrs. Horton questioned confusion between the letters received from
the County...one speaking against the Industrial Park zone and one
listing it as an option..which is being addressed? Mr. Pratt
stated the City is still trying to discuss, with the County, as to
what the different zoning categories mean between the City and
County. The City has been accused of not understanding their
system and the City agrees. The County is concerned that the
TAPE 682
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October ll, 1989
Page 12 of 13
property is former watershed Utility owned properties and they feel
they have been trying to protect these properties as resource areas
and now the City is in the position to surplus it and there needs
to be an Understanding what each entity is doing. The City's way
of coping with this concern is to bring in iow density residential
zoning.
Mr. Waibel noted some attempts of coordination for annexation and
zoning on the City's boundaries with the County are being made at
the Subregional Council level and one thing desired is to maintain
good communication. It appears the City surplused some land that
was zoned Forest Management not watershed, but this information was
not communicated to that Council at the time the property was
surplused. Effort should be made in the future to ensure that the
County is made aware of actions taking place on the City's border
that could affect the County in some way. Mr. Pratt stated the
original proposal for zoning was Industrial Park (IP), the County
did communicate their preferences that it not be IP and the
Planning Commission did not recommend Industrial Park...therefore
the County did have an affect as well as the City listening to
people who testified at that hearing.
Mr. Johnson noted it seems like the County is trying to paint a
picture that the City is not trying to deal with our neighbors when
annexing and rezoning and he believes it is just the opposite.
The County's letters talk about high density residential or
industrial and upon observation it appears that there is more of
a medium density/residential/commercial activity. The zones, as
proposed by the Planning Commission, blend in to what is already ·
there and as transition to the forest land.
President Homing stated he supported the SF-2 designation and felt
it would have little impact on the neighborhood, but he questioned
what happened that Ms. Hanberg did not receive notice? Mr. Pratt
stated they are located outside the 200 foot radius so they did not
receive the mailing. The option to the 200 ft. radius distance
is to mail to people within a 500 ft. radius, which has been
determined to not be cost effective. The property was posted and
the only other thing is the fact that the people in the audience
made it to this hearing, therefore they did become aware of the
issue.
Mr. Waibel questioned if there was any way to have a sliding scale
for the 500 ft. radius notification limit when different density
of zones are being discussed and still be cost effective? Mr.
Pratt stated they could, however, when they do post 200 feet out
from the parameter of the property as well as mailings sent out to
adjoin property owners. If properties are large, the posting can
get lost to populated areas. This is a situation which is somewhat
unique because the City does not do a lot of zoning operations in
areas like this.
:067 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Crutcher) to approve the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to "Residential, 07 Units Per Acre", as recommended in
Planning Commission Resolution %89-8 and its accompanying map.
085 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve the Rezone of the subject
property from the present zoning designation of "Forest Management
(FM) to "Single-family Residential (SF-2)", as recommended in
Planning Commission Resolution %89-9 and its accompany map.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
TAPE 682
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
October 11, 1989
Page 13 of ~
~ER HOR~~resident
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault