Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/89TAPE #616 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 8, 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, March 8, 1989 at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Spencer Horning presiding. Council members present were Shirley Marty Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Hank Waibel, Russ Johnson, Morrie Dawkins, A1 Colvin and C. R. "Tiny" Collins. Councilman Lon Overson was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge President Homing and Invocation Colvin. of Allegiance led by Council was given by Councilman A1 CONSENT AGENDA - None #0027 CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the required by RCW 42.24,080, and those claims certified as required by RCW recorded on a listing which has been council. auditing officer as expense reimbursement 42.24,090, have been made available to the M/S/C/U(Colvin/Crutcher) on March 8, 1989, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 41921, 41927 through 42051 in the total amount of $91,300 and Regular Payroll in the total amount of $311,793.14 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Crutcher reported he had artended a number of meetings this past week and wished to inform the public that he votes the conscious of his district...they elected him as their representative. Mrs. Horton reported the Operations Committee met this date - Mr. Baker, City Engineer, discussed the Road Jurisdiction Report which identifies two key highways the State desires to take over - a portion of Callow Avenue from Burwell to 6th Street and Kitsap Way. The Committee raised several points which they would like addressed by the Transportation Board or the legislature at the time this action would come into effect. Letters will be sent outlining City concerns on this issue. On Monday, March 13, a neighborhood meeting on the proposed parking plan will be held, commencing at 6:00 p.m., at Bremerton High School (Library). This meeting is open to the public. Mr. Johnson reported the cities of Mercer Island and Tacoma have shown interest in establishing the Bulletin Board Remote Computer system. Also, it appears that the contract with Bremerton Main Street Association has been reviewed by that organization and should be before City Council soon. Mr. Johnson received a letter from a constituent who was opposed to a recent annexation proposal, however, she was surprised that during the discussion the City Council was open, receptive to citizen input and would respond with additional information at a later date. Mr. Johnson invited Mayor Lobe to give an update status report on the possibility of locating a National Cemetery near the City of Bremerton. Mayor Gene Lobe reported the City has had some success with the letters and proposal which were submitted to the Veterans Administration. Two people from Washington D.C., will be coming out on March 22 to preview land sites. Mayor Lobe explained that not only will they be shown sites within the City's watershed land but all the areas the City of Bremerton TAPE #616 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 2 of 17 owns as well as some land owned by the Port Of Bremerton and Department Of Natural Resources. He did not think it was important that it specifically go on land owned by the City of Bremerton as it is to have it in this area. The first week in April there will six or seven individuals sent out from Washington D.C., to complete the last investigation. Mayor Lobe noted that this area is one of five areas being considered. Effort is being made to obtain a "Blackhawk" type helicopter to use for viewing the areas. Mr. Johnson pointed out Bremerton has the luxury of quite a bit of property plus we have the only other "Tomb Of The Unknown Soldier" and he felt Bremerton has a good chance to be considered. Mr. Colvin stated he received a suggestion from a establish a "time capsule" in commemoration of anniversary of the State of Washington. He felt this idea and would be following up on it. citizen to the 100th was a good Mr. Dawkins reported the just being installed late Council members of the Tuesday, March 14, 4:00 pm. stop sign at 15th and High Avenue was this afternoon. Also, he reminded "Pool Shoot" at the Senior Center, Mr. Horninu reported he had been in Bellevue for two days attending a symposium on "Transit - Public/Private Partnership". He noted work has been underway and hope to begin major planning for transit corridors if not this year then the first of next year. And, as parking becomes very scarce something has to be done to deal with the problem. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Louis Mentor, 2669 Marine Drive, announced Spring Clean Up will be April 15 through 23..."Clean Up Of The Century", which has been proclaimed by the State as part of the Centennial celebration. A planning meeting is scheduled for March 9, 5:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers and anyone interested is invited to attend. Mr. Mentor noted he would be heading up the climax of the clean up on Saturday, April 22...getting people out in the streets picking up litter with lunch provided for the participants at the Sheridan Recreation Center. This year the Boy Scouts will be involved along with other groups on the Saturday clean up. Jerry Soriano, 509 4th Street Room 16, expressed concern over the problem of skateboarders in the downtown area. He explained how 6-8 skateboarders riding on the entrance of the old Place Two's building and jumping on a bench which is located along the sidewalk. When this activity is going on it blocks the sidewalk for pedestrian traffic. He requested the City to enact some sort of ordinance that would stop the skateboarders using the sidewalks for their activities. Also, a week prior he observed a group of skateboards riding in front of the old Bremer building which has a covered area that protected them from the rain. Another time he observed skateboarders using a covered parking garage (off loading some devices) to use for their skateboarding. Mr. Soriano took it upon himself to ask the individuals to pick up their items and leave...he also escorted a lady into the parking garage as she was frightsned to go in alone because of the skateboard group gathered there. President Horninu noted the City does have a Skateboard Ordinance and requested Mr. Sievers to bring Mr. Soriano up-to-date on the enforcement. Mr. Soriano related how two Police vehicles drove by during skateboarding activities and did not stop or appear to have concern with their activity. President Hornina requested Mr. Sievers, City Attorney, to follow up on the enforcement issue with the Police TAPE #616 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 3 of 17 Department. Don Atkinson, 7835 Forest Ridge Lane NE, spoke on the Spring Clean Up and emphasized the important of good participation at the Planning Meeting scheduled for March 9. He brought up the possibility of competition during the clean up efforts between Council Districts and urged the Council members to pursue something of that nature. Mr. Atkinson recognized the past efforts of Mary Drouin and the Busy Hands Homemakers, Councilman A1 Colvin and Don Lingren of Brem-Air Disposal, Inc., and their continued concern in helping to beautify Bremerton. Thomas Triaas, 1625 Gregory Way, expressed concern over the news media reporting that there was a schism over the proposed Parking Plan. He spoke, on behalf of Districts 4, 5, and 7, that there should be no schismistic attitude in the City of Bremerton..there should be unity and no detractors. Howard Haaar, seattle, local property owner, stated his concern over parking in Bremerton and in particular was speaking for the owners of Ray and Mary's Hungry Hobo Restaurant. Ray and Mary would like to open their restaurant on Sundays, however, they have received complaints about people not finding parking near the restaurant. Mr. Hagar suggested that the City seriously consider to placing a 2-3 hour limit on Sunday parking as well. 6A - RMOUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION CITY'S FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN FLAGSHIP '89, #AB89-048 The 1988 Flagship Task Force, including more than 150 of Bremerton's citizens, have put forth recommendations to make the City a more viable and livable community. During 1989 action will be taken on those recommendations. In order to achieve their goal, Flagship will require the financial support of the City, other units of government, as well as private citizens MaYor Gene Lobe introduced Ed Sheldon and Chuck Hazelwood who have been leaders in the development and function of Flagship '89. He pointed out that the first years efforts of Flagship '88 was done on a strictly volunteer organization basis - headed by Ed Sheldon. Mayor Lobe displayed the document developed which outlined the work undertaken this past year by the Task Force groups, including the goals and objectives for Flagship '89. And, he emphasized now is action time and requested the City Council to authorize funding of $25,000 to support Flagship '89 for one year. He briefly reviewed the addendum attached to the contract which identified proposed projects to be undertaken by Flagship '89. He also noted not all the projects could be completed in one year, however, a time line will be provided for those projects not completed within that time frame. Mayor Lobe stressed the fact that all proposed projects will be coming before Council for approval before anything can be done. Ed Sheldon, 721 Woods Place NE, explained the Professional Services Contract and addendum outlines 28 tasks which will be sent out to 9 Task Forces. The players in this whole process included the City, being the most important single player, the County, Port Of Bremerton, free enterprise...most of major leaders in the free enterprise system (making up the largest body of 150 people involved). The work of Flagship '88 was research and recommendation, cataloging the assets of Bremerton. And, the projects proposed could be accomplished over the next ten years. Mr. Sheldon described the Flagship '88 report which will be distributed to each member of the Council, outlining the work undertaken during 1988. Flagship '89 primary action now is to move toward accomplishment, not limited to research. The concern that "something happen" on the waterfront is a viable TAPE #616 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 4 of 17 concern and he was pleased to report that the Marina project is anticipated to be completed by December '89. Contact has been made with the Bremer Trust and they are moving toward some viable possibilities for development. Each Council member will be invited to serve on one of the Task Forces so that as a composite group they will have first hand knowledge as to how the Task Forces are working. He noted that if Flagship '88 had a major flaw it was the flaw of relatively inadequate communications. Time was not taken to share with the Council, as a group, all the effort and activity undertaken by Flagship. Chuck Hazelwood, owner of Hazelwood Buick, stated he was thrilled to be part of Flagship as it has been the first time since he had been in Kitsap County that the County, Port of Bremerton and the City of Bremerton and business people are working together to accomplish something in downtown Bremerton. He stated that the property he owns in Navy Yard City will be annexed into Bremerton shortly. Mr. Collins questioned - because Flagship '89 is not a corporation but a group of individuals and is in essence a quasi governmental body will it be necessary for them to implement all of the requirements of the Open Meeting Act? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated not at this point and he did not believe so even if they become a Non-profit Corporation since they are not a public entity which is subject to the act. Mr. Collins questioned would this be so even if they receive only funding from money that were taxes? Mr. Sievers stated he was not sure of Flagship '89's total source of income. He noted the contract list four individuals who are jointly and separately liable for the contract. Mr. Collins felt this issue could have an affect upon the way Flagship will operate, which he personally has no problem with, but possibly being conceived as "government in the dark" or a governmental body operating. He felt there should be something in the contract to clarify this issue. Mr. Sievers explained the group would not have any governmental powers but would be producing some products that could lead to government actions by this Council or possibly some other government entities. Mayor Gene Lobe explained there will be some private money funding Flagship '89. He noted that Flagship cannot make a decision that affects City government - the City Council will make those decision. Also, Mayor Lobe explained that previous Flagship '88 meetings were attended by the news media, making them very open to those interested. Mr. Collins expressed concern that approval of the contract is being requested without first identifying the source of funding. Mayor Lobe explained that the $25,000 was not already earmarked because there was no Flagship '89 to come before council during the budget process, there is, however, some money that is unbudgeted - carryover money. And, the request for approval of the contract includes that this issue go before the Fiscal and Budget Committee to determine funding source. Mr. Waibel stated he had several concerns: (1) Council did not receive the contract until just prior to the meeting...not giving them sufficient time to study the document; (2) Section 1. Scope - the consultant needs to be reporting to someone specific not just generating a report. (3) Section 6b - it appears that Main Street, Chamber Of Commerce, Scalawag and number of other organizations in the city would be assignable under those conditions and he did not believe it was the intent to have that flexibility in it. Mr. Sievers stated yes that was true...the definition of which non-profit organizations can apply for assignment is broad and could include those groups. The intent here is to guarantee assignability of these funds for the operation of a non-profit to be set up. If the four individuals, TAPE #616 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 5 of 17 who are part of this contract, decide to assign funding to one of the eligible non-profit groups named, the Council would be ratifying that action through approval of this contract. Mr. Waibel expressed concern over using the General Fund as a funding source due to decline in available revenue in that fund and he preferred a funding source from funds that could not be spent on personnel. Mayor Lobe stated if everything was going great in the City of Bremerton - we were heading up hill and everything was like we would want it to be then he would agree with Mr. Waibel's position. This is not just an ordinary contract - what this contract is to do is the very thing in reverse of what is happening right now .... make the City grow so there does not have to be reduction in personnel. The downward spiral the City is taking needs to be stopped and the people and business people of Bremerton are willing to step forward and work toward that effort. Mrs. Horton stated, under the quarterly report, she would like specifically that the reports be given to Council and would prefer that it be done at a Council meeting. She was also uncomfortable with the "assignability" portion... she preferred having it state that funds could not be transferred until Flagship '89 becomes a Non-Profit Organization. Mayor Lobe stated he saw no problem making that amendment to the contract. Mr. Johnson stated the goals and work accomplished by Flagship '88 is great and he supports it. However, there is no severability clause in the contract, no statement that the funds would be subject to an audit by the City Auditor, if desired. There is no limit to the use of funds i.e., hosting, office administration. Funds Administrator - who would sign the checks? Mr. Sheldon explained up to this point funding has come from a small charitable organization..."Foundation For Bremerton", comprised of eight individuals who have contributed $1,000.00 per year and used to help Bremerton any way possible. Some funds did came in from Bremer's Inc., about two months. The Foundation For Bremerton works on the premise that one person signs the checks and a financial report is made at each meeting. Before spending the funds, the Foundation members agree on what it is to be spent on. Mr. Sheldon questioned when Council hires a consultant do they look for an end product or do they look at the mechanics producing the product? Mr. Johnson explained that when dealing with either a private organization, who might be asking for Block Grant funding or a private consultant who is part of a company...there is an established organization or corporation or there has been a proposal, or specific rules such as HUD regulations, which automatically come with it...in this case it does not. General Fund monies do have restrictions that must be followed and there is nothing in the proposed contract that specifically outlines what the funds will be spent on. Mr. Sievers stated he followed the same line of reason that Mr. Sheldon did, you hire a private consultant to produce a study, the money departs from City ownership when you pay and expect to get a product in the end. Mr. Johnson noted that what the City is to get is not a product but an effort, particularly an effort to promote Bremerton, etc., and it might be easy to get off track. Mr. Sievers stated he agreed and in this type of funding it is difficult to quantify the product in the end. Mr. Johnson suggested including some language stating how this money is to be spent. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that consideration of the contract is being brought before Council before the source of funding had been identified. He questioned if there was a large sum in the Carry Over Fund and if it was a #1 prior for expenditure of those funds? Mayor Lobe stated there is in excess of $100,000 in the Carry Over Fund and he hopes this becomes one of Council's #1 TAPE #617 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 6 of 17 priorities. Mr. Johnson noted that some of the things on Flagship's list of things to do are things that are already assigned to organizations within the City or City staff, such as developing a Parks and Open Space Plan that should be done in an open meeting manner with the Parks Board and the help of anyone's input. He did not want the Parks Commission bypassed and the citizens not that Flagship work with the Parks Board in developing the Plan and then have the recommendation come from the Parks Commission to the City Council. Mayor Lobe stated he could rest assured that City commission/board members and staff will be involved along with Flagship on these identified issues. Mr. Johnson pointed out Flagship is important but no more important than many other very important groups that are already existing. Mayor Lobe stated yes, that was correct, but recommendations will be brought to the City Council and if someone disagrees with that recommendation they will probably be available to state their position. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that wording in the list of tasks infer that City staff would be taking direction from Flagship and he did not support that intent. Mayor Lobe stated no - not direction, what is being asked is cooperation to work with Flagship Task Forces. Mr. Johnson raised question over Flagship undertaking as a task: "coordinate and integrate the CBDG Redevelopment Plan with the new City Zoning Plan and the Access Plan" - would this not be a Planning Commission function? Mayor Lobe explained probably what will happen is a Flagship group will study it and make sure there aren't any flaws with what already exists and then come to City Council as an action item. Flagship has no authority to change the Comprehensive Plan or Land Use Plan, etc., strictly a recommending body to the City Council. President Horninu emphasized that Flagship will be a consultant making recommendations and providing information to the City Council. President Hornina questioned the issue of severability and should it be included in the contract? Mr. Sievers stated severability is not included as a standard part of the standard contract and the reason being the Court has its own rules on severability it will always try to find the contract enforceable on the whole- they do not want to strike, void or nullify the parties agreement unless particular provision which is unenforceable strikes at the real essence of the bargain. Mr. Sievers suggested adding a provision speaking to getting the "full value" for the money spent, especially the way the tasks are described and that would be to include a "termination without cause by either party on 30 days notice" clause. That way the City is expressing good faith that the consult will use the money for the listed tasks and they in turn can show good faith that the City won't unreasonably withhold payment or terminate the contract. Also, the point on payment of checks Mr. Sievers suggested adding an amendment under the Notices section to read: "Any notices or payment required to be given by the City to Consultants .... ". This would simplify administration of the contract. Mayor Lobe requested an additional change to make the payments "quarterly" rather than monthly. President Hornina questioned if all non-profit organizations are auditable at the donor's request...can the City ask that the City Auditor be allowed to review their records? Mr. Sievers stated there are certain requirements through the status as a non-profit corporation ... the Secretary Of State's office does require certain auditing standards be met. However, if the City desires to have access by the City Auditor then it should be included in the contract. TAPE #617 TAPE #617 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 7 of 17 Mr. Collins questioned: "is this a contract agreement and were bids solicited? Mr. Sievers stated yes it is a contract and bids are e~e~ required for public work it is a Professional Services Contract which can be subject to negotiation with a particular party. Mr. Crutcher expressed concern that Council's response is somewhat hesitant - generally when a Study is solicited a group or company comes in, researches the issue, provides a product and leaves. Here, the City would be working with local leaders, citizens and business people over a period of one year and he felt the $25,000 was buying a lot more than other studies the City has funded. Mrs. Horton noted that when the City solicits firms to carry out audits or studies the requests includes a list of items developed by the City to be included in said audit/study. In this case, Flagship is presenting a list of tasks that they developed, not the City. Therefore, the City must be careful how money is spent. Secondly, there are a lot of organizations in Bremerton who are working hard trying to get Bremerton back on track and she felt there might be some fear of their loosing their autonomy with the Flagship group. Also, Mrs. Horton emphasized that the City Staff are employees of the City- not Flagship. President Hornina stated for clarification the raised during the discussion: following issues 1. Under Scope: Consultants shall submit a written and oral report given at a regular City Council meetings quarterly. 2. Under Compensation: Twenty Five Thousand installments. City shall pay Consultants the sum of Dollars ($25,000) in equal quarterly 3. To be auditable by some sort of process by the City. 4. Under General Conditions 6b: approve assignment. Assignability - Council to 5. Add Termination Section. 6. Mr. Johnson requested that something be included which specifically specifies what the funding can be spent on...not hosting, etc. Mayor Lobe explained there will be a monthly breakdown of all expenses as well as the opportunity to audit. President Hornina questioned if "typical administrative/office supplies" would clarify this point? Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, suggested using "Office Administration" to identify the use of funding. Mr. Sievers stated it should go under the Compensation section: Office Administration - operating expenses, supplies/materials and salaries. 7. Mr. Johnson "Guidelines". stated he felt Exhibit A should be entitled- #0435 M/S/C(Dawkins/Crutcher) to authorize the expenditure of $25,000 in support of Flagship City '89 and directing staff to present the Fiscal and Budget Committee with necessary budget amendment including the changes as outlined in items 1 through 7, directly preceding this motion. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Crutcher, Horton, Horning, Colvin, Dawkins, Johnson Collins, Waibel TAPE #617 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 8 of 17 Mr. Johnson requested City Attorney to provide a copy of the contract, as amended, within one week. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - PINE ROAD AREA ZONING REVIEW - TO CONSIDER A ZONING REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CORRECTION OF AN ERROR ON THE ZONING MAP, #AB89-054 Upon adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, the City Council established a "Correction Of Errors" process to find and correct errors that may have occurred in the text of the Zoning Ordinance or in the application of zoning to specific properties or areas. Ray Houchen and Ferne Hunt applied for Zoning Reviews and a Study Area was assembled to include their properties and others in a 19-1ot area. That area was reviewed by the Zoning Review Committee on January 31, 1989 and the Committee's recommendations are now being forwarded to the City Council for consideration and a public hearing. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the Zoning Map, as recommended by the Zoning Review Committee. This correction would change one parcel of Bayview East apartments from SF-3 to Multi-family (MF), consistent with the existing development of the property. Ron Houah, Planning Department, provided a view graph showing the location of the lots. The area included in the planning review consisted of: northeast corner of Sheridan Road on the south and Pine Road. When work was underway on adoption of the Zoning Ordinance several months ago Council suggested that this area be reviewed, on Pine Road, sometime in the future as a possible Comprehensive Plan amendment - to see if the uses are appropriate with the Zoning and Land Use designations. Since staff received this direction they took it upon themselves to include a Study Area at this time which included 19 parcels. The two largest lots (18 & 19) are part of the Bayview East Apartment Complex. This complex is large but is well secluded and buffeted by trees from surrounding properties. Access is from Sheridan Road. The remaining 17 parcels include three duplexes, 12 single-family homes, and three vacant lots. The neighborhood directly across Pine Road to the west is also mostly single-family homes until the apartment developments begin north of 31st Street. Mr. Houchen owns lot #1 and Mrs. Hunt owns Lot #9, #11, #12 (lots #11 and #12 are vacant. Mr. Houah noted an interesting fact, on the other side of Pine Road is zoned for duplexes. Mr. Houuh provided a view graph showing the Zoning designations of the area which went into effect upon adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance - Multi-family covers most of the Bayview East apartment complex but the complex goes all the way up into lot 19. Lot 19 was included in the Single Family 3 designation along with all the properties along the east side of Pine Road. On the opposite side of Pine Road is a Duplex Residential Zone, this district is on the south side and everything south of Sheridan Road is Duplex Residential. There is a small spot of Neighborhood Business where there is a convenient market. North of the area is also Multi-Family with some large apartment complexes as well as on the west side of Pine Road going north. Mr. Hough noted that in the staff report they suggested that Mrs. Hunt's two properties could be built on and provide a buffer district between whatever is built on these properties, assuming single family house since it is Single Family zone. Mrs. Hunt provided a map which shows a natural stream bed that flows through the top of the properties, along with an access easement road that goes through the central portion and the only place to develop these lots is on the south half adjacent to the duplexes. There, Mrs. Hunt suggested that the breaking point be the two vacant lots which are sandwiched between a Duplex District on the $1176 TAPE #617 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 9 of 17 west and Multi-family on the east and duplexes on the south. As part of Mrs. Hunt application, she included a group of photographs (identified as Exhibit I) of the area and which were provided to Council members to view. Mr. Houah provided a view graph showing a map which reflected the Zoning Review Committee's recommendation. There recommendation included that the only error incurred was on lot #19, because it was part of the Bayview East Apartment complex should be included in the Multi-family Zoning District and that the MF District be expanded to include this parcel. They felt Mr. Houchen's property, which currently has a single family one on it, should not be included in the Multi-family District at this time and not an obvious error. On the south part of the planning area Mrs. Hunt's property and properties to the south would remain as designated. President Hornin~ asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Randy Hunt, Lake Symington, speaking for Mrs. Hunt, stated Mrs. Hunt's contention that her lots be zoned Duplex Residential is not only in agreement but in addition is the fact she has lived there many years and had fought for Multi-family zoning. At the time Mrs. Hunt purchased the lots it was allowed for duplexes to be built on those properties - that being her intent when she originally purchased the lots. And, she feels she is being taken advantage of by having to turn around and request a rezone for something she had already. Mr. Hunt pointed out three duplexes already exist next to her property and the property sometimes used as a duplex was originally a church. The SF-3 zoning would allow Mrs. Hunt to place four houses on each lot but the property itself does not permit that...what it would permit is duplexes which would give a lower density than placement of four houses on each lot. President Hornina questioned when the designations were made- was a flat map used to view the site and determine the recommended Zone designation? Mr. Hough stated the basis was a land use inventory which was conducted city-wide, which included densities, character of neighborhood and they viewed the east side of Pine Road basically a Single Family neighborhood and just extended that zone all the way down to Sheridan. President Horninu pointed out that now that the Errors and Corrections Review Committee know something additional about the property- the road access and stream - making it different. Under the restrictions we are dealing with - determining what is error- could physical limitations be called an error? Mr. Hough stated those characteristics make it more suitable for a Duplex Zone or some other Zoning District to be considered as a possible basis for an error. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that the City may be opening the door to every existing duplex in an SF designation - that they may have some right as a Multi-family designation. However, he did support the reasoning that lots #11 and #12 had a change in circumstances which warranted an error correction. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) that Lot #19 be accepted as an error and be adjusted to Multi-Family, to accept the recommendation of the Zoning Review Committee for Lot #1 that it was not an error and will remain a Single Family designation and that due to new information concerning geographical barriers and easements on Lots #11, #12 constitute an error and is included in Duplex Residential designation. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING, BALODIS ZONING MAP REVIEW - TO CONSIDER A TAPE #617 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 10 of 17 ZONING REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CORRECTION OF AN ERROR ON THE ZONING MAP, #AB89-055 Upon adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, the City Council established a Correction Of Errors process to find and correct errors that may have occurred in the text of the Zoning Ordinance or in the application of zoning to specific properties or areas. Mr. and Mrs. Balodis suspected that an error may have occurred in the SF-3 zoning of their two lots on First Street and applied for a Zoning Review. The suspected error was reviewed by the Zoning Review Committee on January 31, 1989 and the Committee's recommendation is now being forwarded to the City Council for public hearing. If the Council agrees with the recommendation, the error will be corrected by ordinance. Ron Houah, Planning Department, provided a view graph showing the location of the property - south side of First Street, opposite Forest Ridge Park. Previous zoning designation was R-2 and surrounded by R-1. First Street is primarily single family residential along the south side, with the exception of a duplex on lot #7 and the applicant's duplex on lot #1. Along the north side of First is Forest Ridge Park and playgrounds related to former Marion Avenue School. One of the Balodis properties contains their home and second rental unit and the other, lot #2, is vacant. The terrain is very hilly and mostly forested where development has not yet occurred. When the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted the Balodis's lots did not appear to be related in any way to the two larger lots to the South. Other properties along First Street had historically been zoned R-1 and consisted primarily of single-family homes. The Balodis property contained a house and a vacant lot and were generally consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The thinking at that time favored the creation of cohesive "districts" and keeping those two lots in a multi-family zone may have appeared to be a "spot zone" for one property owner rather than a cohesive district of similar use. The primary effect on the Balodis properties is that the SF-3 zone allows only single-family homes. The applicants have stated that they are saving the property for future multi-family development which can't be accomplished in the SF-3 zone. From the City's point of view, the new zoning provides consistency along First Street, eliminates a small pocket of multi-family zoning, and is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. After the Review Committee reviewed the staff report and listened to comments from the applicant and their representative Anna Laurie, they felt that the applicants purchased the property because it was zoned R-2 at the time and their long-range plans included multi-family development. Because the properties are immediately adjacent to a Multi-family zone, there is no potential for a "spot zoning" issue if the property is included in that district. The Committee felt that this was an unjustified down-zoning of the Balodis properties and that the Zoning Map be amended to include the two Balodis lots in the Multi-family zone. President Hornina asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all members being seated. Anna Laurie, attorney and representative for Mr. and Mrs. Balodis, explained that upon her review of the Review criteria she noted that under "consistent with present land use", staff did not show that within 1/4 mile there are two other apartment complexes - multi-family uses - and several duplexes in the area. Secondly, if the property is kept in the SF-3 designation you immediately create a non-conformity, a legal one but the ability TAPE #617 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 11 of 17 to avoid a non-conformity is one of the things the Council should look at in the review criteria, and by making the lots Multi- family this would be avoided. The second issue is whether or not the SF3 designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan- the Plans density designation is 0-7 units per acre which is consistent with SF-3 but not Multi-family. However, looking at the Comprehensive Goals, Plans And Policies, she noted that it is a flexible document and is designed to be changed - it is not a Zoning Map and only guidelines. What retaining the Multi-family use will do will accomplish some of the housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan as set out. The third review criteria considered was the Zoning Districts - avoiding spot zoning- staff presented to the Review Committee that the Multi-family designation would create a spot zoning, however, she supports just the opposite...that the Multi-family designation would be a more cohesive district and historically more what it has been. Ms. Laurie questioned if this is a permissible down zone? If so there would be substantial reduction in value to the property without corresponding public benefit. Based upon the information presented, Ms. Laurie urged the City Council to accept the Review Committee's recommendation and retain the Multi-family designation. Mr. Waibel questioned whether the Zoning Review Committee's review of this item considered the flag lot which basically is a non-conforming use and currently a duplex. It looks kind of out-of-place next to Multi-family and being next door to two more lots designated as MF - did they consider it also in terms of whether or not zoning designation was accurate at the time zoning was adopted? Mr. Houah, stated the Zoning Review Committee looked at all the properties around the area and considered them as part of the review of the two Balodis properties. They did not consider including that property in the Multi-family zone because it had never been zoned Multi-family. The Balodis lots had been included in the R-2 zone during previous zoning. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated this item could not be considered as to whether or not it was an error during this meeting because the notice the property owners received was just limited to the adjacent two lots and it would need to be run back through the process if Council proposes that there was an error. #1744 M/S/C/U(Collins/Crutcher) to approve the correction to the Zoning Map as recommended by the Zoning Review Committee. The correction will change the zoning of two lots from the present SF-3 to MF (Multiple-family}. 6F - MEETING BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO CONSIDER 10~ NOTICES OF INTENT FOR ANNEXATION OF LILAC LANE AREA PROPERTIES TO THE CITY, #AB89-043 The owner of 19 properties within the same general area in the vicinity of Lilac Lane, have submitted Notices Of Intent requesting annexation of their properties. City staff has assembled these Notices and proposes annexation of an area which includes these as well as seven other properties. The next step in the annexation process is for the Council to meet and decide whether or not to (1) accept annexation of these parcels upon approval of a petition (75~) including these parcels as part of a larger parcel (designated "annexation area" on the attached map), (2) whether said petition shall require pre-annexation comprehensive planning and zoning of the area and (3) whether the said petition shall require annexed property to assume current City indebtedness. Ron Houah, Annexation Coordinator, provided a map showing the general location of the subject area - located along Lilac Lane #2361 #2467 TAPE #617 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 12 of 17 and Harlow Drive, west of Auto Center Way industrial area. The area is a small portion of an unincorporated County island, completely surrounded by the City of Bremerton. The proposed annexation area consists of 17.48 acres and has a total assessed value of $1,190,430. Within the area are 17 single family homes and 11 mobile homes, or a total of 28 dwellings. The proposed annexation area is located in an area that is designated as "URBAN" on the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan. The area is presently zoned R-SMH, which is a low density residential designation that allows mobile homes and densities up to five units per acre. the City's appropriate zoning within the Single Family or low density residential area is 0-7 would include Single Family zoning districts and the Duplex District. The Planning Commission has recommended that the zoning be Single Family 2, which is fairly comparable to the R-5 zoning that the County has but slightly less dense. People who live in the area generally feel that it is a rural or semi-rural and they do not want to see a lot of high density develop. So, the City SF-2 designation allows four units per acre, which is slightly less than currently allowed by the County and would help preserve the life style the people currently enjoy in that area. Mr. Johnson stated this area is somewhat confusing sees this proposal as a good idea but questioned why this was as far as they went? Mr. Houah explained the annexation area was based upon petitions received by the City (19) and based on the petitions they formulated an annexation area that had some reasonable and straight boundaries. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Johnson) to accept the 19 Notices of Intent for annexation and direct staff to coordinate the annexation of these parcels as part of the larger proposed annexation area. the pre- annexation zoning and assumption of the City's current indebtedness be conditions of any future petition for annexation of the proposed area. 6B - VACATION OF STREET BY OPERATION OF LAW, #AB89-049 Ballweg-Robinson-Carleson, the owners of Lots 21 through 28, Block A, Oyster Bay Addition, as recorded in Vol 2, Pg. 63 of Plats, Kitsap Co., Washington, except Kitsap Way are requesting that Charlotte Avenue abutting said property be vacated by Operation of Law. Said plat was platted during that period of time (1902) pursuant to the Laws of the State of Washington 1989-90, Chapter 19, Sec. 32, Page 603, said property should be automatically vacated. Mr. Collins expressed his feeling that the City is being asked to vacate existing right-of-way on Kitsap Way. Jan Stemkowski, Engineering Department, stated no, the City is being asked to vacate right-of-way that comes off of Kitsap Way and goes to what should have been Charlotte. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Horton) that subject right-of-way be vacated. 6C - PERMIT PROCESS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, #AB89-050 Prior to adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, the City Council discussed the possibility and need to include specific processing requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, which would apply to City staff. The requirements would include time lines for the processing of applications and responding to complaints and the proposal would be considered first by the Zoning Review Committee as a possible "omission". TAPE #617 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 13 of 17 The Zoning Review Committee has considered the proposed Administrative Policies and Procedures, did not recommend any changes to them and agreed with staff that these should NOT be integrated into the Zoning Ordinance. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated when the City Council adopted the Zoning Ordinance last November they had some discussion about whether or not to include sections in the Zoning Ordinance that would mandate periods of time under which actions would be responded to or actions to have taken place within the Zoning process. The decision, at that time, was to refer it to the Zoning Review Committee. The Design Review Committee, in their discussion as to whether as such items as requiring a complaint to be responded to within 5 days or an action brought before the Planning Commission within a certain number of days, etc., recommends that instead of including those procedures and time lines within the Zoning Ordinance that it be adopted as an Administrative Policy and Procedure and administered by the department in that form rather than ordinance form. Mr. Pratt read from the B.M.C. which addresses the rule making procedures within the City: "each agency of the City shall issue written rules detailing its method of implementing these ordinances or resolutions which it has been given the authority to administer. The purpose for adopting such rules of implementation is to foreclose either: (1) the possibility of an agency's modification of the specific intent of the City Council in passing legislation; or (2) even the appearance of abuse of discretionary power by an agency in its actions in the absence of written rules". In the event Administrative Policies are not followed, the director of the department that is administrating the policies and procedures is directly accountable to the Mayor of the City for implementation of the policies and procedures that are adopted, as part of the performance and evaluation process. Also, under that make up there is only one layer between the person who is actually responsible for processing the zoning action and the Mayor and that layer is he, as Director of Community Development. This is unlike some jurisdictions where there is at least three or four layers between the Chief Executive Officer and publicly elected Mayor and the person that is processing the permit. In many cases there are also Hearings Examiners and multiple bodies and commissions that also have something to do with it. The second item under recourse if policies and procedures are not followed, if they are violated and held in question they are admissible in court as evidence. They are not an ordinance and they cannot be violated with penalties for that violation but they have been used as evidence that a party has been damaged by miss administrating the ordinances of the City. Processes to Adopt Policies & Procedures: Post and make Polices and Procedures known to people who will be affected by them, in this case, it would be the population of the City of Bremerton. Then, circulate the proposed Police and Procedure to other agencies and departments that other impacts on it; then take comments; adopt and file. Lastly, if the Polices and Procedures are adopted he has further work to do within the Department...adopt the policies and procedures (running the process), develop a Policy and Procedure which defines what a complete application is; logging in and out such minor things as telephone calls for inquiries in order to meet time slots. In close, Mr. Pratt stated he believes the permit processing procedure in Bremerton is a co-laterate process. Many time they need more time to work toward "yes". His task is to treat every applicant that comes in as a potential "yes" vote to get the project completed. What he needs to do is find the things that TAPE #618 TAPE #618 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 14 of 17 need to happen within the project to make it a "yes" vote. If that means working with neighborhoods, mitigating wetlands, any number of things that may not be accomplished in a 90 day period or 5 day period he would not like to bring that application before City Council without having cleaned up the soft spots within the application. For that reason he thinks rushing an application and mandating it by law would be in error. on the other hand, allowing them to have some latitude in administering a policy or procedure and to not make it either a civil or criminal violation if that time frame is not met or waivers are not appropriately given, would tend to influence the process a little too much. Both he and the Zoning Review Committee felt it was appropriate to leave the Polices and Procedures and not include them in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated he did not feel this was an issue that the Council should get into...that it should be the Mayor's responsibility and he should have the right to develop policies and procedures without coming to Council. As far as the specific content of this particular one (time frames for processing) he still felt strongly that it should be an ordinance. In the case of Planning they have 60 days to take action and if there is a delay then Council should be notified of the reason. Mr. Dawkins agreed with Mr. Johnson and noted that he would not have felt as confident in past Planning Directors actions as he did Mr. Pratt's. Mr. Collins stated that as long as Mr. Pratt is Director of Community Development and Mayor Lobe is Mayor he has no problems with this. The last Zoning Ordinance lasted from 1942 to 1989 and he thinks the citizens need some kind of guarantee and protection. Mr. Waibel stated he was not sure how an ordinance could be written or what would be an appropriate penalty if violated or would the application be automatically accepted. He did feel that the ordinance should say that they normally expect these things to be handled within a 60 days period. Mrs. Morton noted she was most concerned about response to complaints and when there are zoning inefficiencies and misappropriation of zoning or someone comes in with a non-legal non-conforming use that and someone blows the whistle - then that period has to have some sort of guarantee that he will be responded to. There can be cases where it is a sticky issue and the City does not want to pursue it, but in all fairness the City must investigate the issue. Mr. Crutcher stated when time tables are placed people can get over worked, mistakes are made, etc., this just does not work. President Hornin~ questioned if policy and procedures already outline time frames what would be the difference if it was adopted in an ordinance? Isn Sievers, City Attorney, stated not much difference, both create an enforceable right for a party that is engrieved and either are enforceable. President Hornins noted that if it were included in the Zoning Ordinance it would be clearer to the public yet no real difference. Mr. Sievers stated yes, the main difference is notice is much better, more available and accessible for everyone to know what their rights are. President Hornin~ noted when the Zoning Ordinance was being adopted Council said to the public they will consider this issue and put the results in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Waibel addressed questioned wouldn't this kind of situation be with reference in the ordinance to these kinds of #0466 #0570 #0655 TAPE #618 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 15 of 17 Administrative Procedures and Policies rather than incorporating them in the ordinance itself? President Horninu questioned if there was some way to address this issue in the Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated it may be quicker to change a policy and procedure through the ordinance than it would through the Polices and Procedure process. Both are enforceable because rule making that is delegated by the Council is delegation of legislative authority with the criteria and guidelines set by Council. Mrs. Horton emphasized that the citizens are given time lines to file applications therefore why shouldn't the department have time lines in processing the request. M/S/F(Crutcher/Dawkins) to not send this issue to staff and build an ordinance. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Crutcher, Waibel, Colvin, Dawkins Johnson, Horton, Collins, Horning Motion failed. M/S/C(Johnson/Colvin) to send this whole issue back to the Planning Director to do what the Council requested in the first place. Vote: In Favor: Johnson, Horton, Collins, Colvin, Horning Opposed: Crutcher, Waibel, Dawkins 6E - ADJUSTMENT OF EXECUTIVE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUDGETS TO SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION COORDINATOR, #AB89-052 In order to allow Ron Hough to serve as the Mayor's Annexation Coordinator, certain changes are needed in the budgets of the Executive and Planning Departments. In summary, the changes will move $7,356 from Planning to Executive, eliminate a Planning Manager and Planner positions and ad a Senior Planner and a Temporary Planner positions. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated the Mayor has appointed Ron Hough as Annexation Coordinator and he has been a key person in the planning function. Therefore, in order to cover this loss he, Don Pratt, is willing to take a more line responsibility in getting current and long range planning activities done, also proposing to use some of the funds which would have been used to pay Mr. Hough to higher a temporary planner at significantly less salary and to use some of the money to buy computer equipment for planning personnel. President Hornin~ questioned if this introduces new unbudgeted monies? Mr. Pratt stated no new funds, even gives some away. M/S/C/U(Johnson/Dawkins) adjustment. to approve the proposed budget 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) TO ADOPT CORRECTIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE BREMERTON ZONING ORDINANCE, #AB89-053 On February 22, 1989, the City Council conducted a public hearing to accept public comments and to consider recommendations from the Zoning Review Committee pertaining to errors and omissions in the text of the Zoning Ordinance. A number of specific corrections were approved and have been included in the attached ordinance for the Council's consideration. Ron Hough, Planning Department, stated this ordinance includes the items approved by City Council with the exception of Item #2 involving day care use and #3 which amended the definition of adult business so the City Attorney can give it further study. TAPE #618 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 16 of 17 #0728 #1276 #1330 M/S/C/U(Horton/Waibel) to approve ordinance, on first reading, correcting errors in the text of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance, Ord. No. 4172. 7B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE #3702 (BMC 10.08.070) RELATING TO REVISIONS IN PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS, #AB89-038 The City's current penalty structure discourages compliance with the City's parking regulations. The proposed amendment provides for increased penalties for parking violations. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, requested a change in the proposed ordinance by striking the wording...second paragraph last sentence beginning with the words: "Failure to make payment .... ". Mr. Hanna noted that sometime in the future Council will be asked to give consideration to the impound authority but it requires more research. The action being requested is to delete the $2.00 violation penalty if paid within 24 hours. Elizabeth Bue11, 1722 High Avenue, questioned if the reason the $2.00 fee was being eliminated is because the City needs money? Mr. Hanna stated no, that was not the reason. It has been his experience that the $2.00 fine does not provide adequate financial penalty to discourage the types of violations we need to discourage in order to have the parking system work; Particularly in the area of the retail meters in the downtown area being used for computer parking. Presently a person can put one or two dimes in the meter and if they are ticketed for an overtime violation every day there are still are paying a total that is less than $2.50 for a private parking spot. President Hornina questioned if there were zone violations which could go on top of the overtime penalty? Mr. Hanna stated the $2.00 fee applies only to an overtime meter violation if paid within 24 hours. If the parking violation is committed in an eight hour period in which enforcement is in place, however, there are breakdowns in the system during Graveyard and Swingshift work periods. Mr. Sievers, City Attorney, stated the Court Administrator has to approve our response periods - they will not approve something where someone is penalized for wanting to exercise their full 15 days to respond. Mrs. Buell questioned why not reduce the time to pay it within four hours? Mr. Hanna emphasized the 15-day response time allowed to responde to the infraction notice. Mr. Waibel stated if Council is going to remove the enticement to pay the fee quickly without increasing the penalty nothing will be gained and should leave in the $25.00 fee if not paid within 30 days. M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin} to table this issue indefinitely 7C - ORDINANCE #4192 (SECOND READING) ORDINANCE AMENDING CHARITABLE SOLICITORS LICENSE REGULATIONS, #AB89-037 Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated Council neglected to include a section in the ordinance making it effective in 10 days from publication due to the fact that several solicitation applications are pending. M/S/C/(Waibel/Horton) to pass Ordinance #4192, on second reading, reducing the license fee for professional fund raisers, reducing the term for professional and charitable solicitation licenses, removing a limitation on costs of solicitation, and amending Chapter 5.17 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, with an effective date 10 days from its publication. Vote: In Favor: Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson, Horton Waibel, Horning TAPE #618 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 8, 1989 Page 17 of 17 Abstain: Crutcher With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m. T~'~'~ L~E c ~ KAT LEEN L. MCC Y, CITY CLERK APPROV C' y o~ ~~ KLM/S/me co: Co il President Normal Distribution File/Vault