HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/89TAPE #636
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 10, 1989
#0023
#0042
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, May 10, 1989 at 5:30 p.m.,
with Council President Spencer Horning presiding. Council
members present were Shirley Marty Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Hank
Waibel, Morrie Dawkins, A1 Colvin and C. R. "Tiny" Collins.
Councilmen Lon Overson and Russ Johnson were absent. Also present
were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Horning and Invocation was given by Reverend Clinton
Adams of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
President Hornina announced Items 7B and 7C would be heard under
the Public Hearing segment of the Council meeting and Item 7A had
been pulled off the Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - April 19, 1989, #AB89-128
B. Minutes Of Meeting - April 26, 1989, #AB89-129
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTER8
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/Dawkins) on May 10, 1989, the Council does approve
for payment those vouchers included and further described as
follows: 43191, 43192, 43193, 43194, 43195, 43196, 43197, 43203
through 43351 for a total amount of $170,348.25 and Regular
Payroll in the total amount of $322,432.28.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin announced May 15 is the deadline for clubs or
organizations to submit a request for a Certificate Of
Appreciation (from the Governor's Office) relating to the Spring
Clean Up Rally. And, he was pleased to hear the Port
Commission's President, Mr. Schoneman, reported Bremerton's
waterfront project will proceed as scheduled.
Mr. Dawkins stated he wished the Governor and Legislators were on
time - the Ferry funding is still unsure as well as an upheaval
of membership within the ranks of the Transportation Committee.
He noted a recent newspaper article in The Sun reported there is
a shortage of golf courses and hoped the Council will look
favorable on a recommendation soon to come from the Parks
Department recommending expansion of Gold Mountain Golf Course.
Mr. Collins stated his apology to the people of Westpark for
having been unable to attend their meeting. He hoped Mr. Fisher
passed on to them the beautification plan and a contest for the
beautification of Westpark.
Mr. Crutcher stated he had received a few calls on junk cars and
noted some other cities are dealing with junk cars from a health
problem and hopefully the City of Bremerton will look into this
aspect. He had been told by a citizen that her child had been
bitten by a rat found in a junk car in a neighbors yard.
TAPE #636
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 2 of 21
Mrs. Horton thanked Don Pratt and Dick Mumma for their part in
removing the junk cars from 15TH and Cambrian. She had received
more telephone calls on the junk cars at that location than any
other issue so she is pleased that the problem has been resolved.
She noted that the City is mandated by State Law on junk vehicles
- there being several categories of junk vehicles - whether or
not it is on private property or public property, depends on
whether the City receives cooperation of the property owner,
depends on if the last registered owner of the vehicle can be
located, etc. She noted City staff is doing a fine job in trying
to get a handle on the problem, there may be ordinances coming
along on a couple other things that Mr. Mumma is working on in
trying to abate a few other situations in the City. Also, she
had the opportunity this past week to sit in on the selection
committee for the City of Bremerton Sister City Exchange Program
- four high school students were selected, Siri Quigley, Jim
Hochstein, Monica Matthews and Heather Smith. These students
will be going to Kure, Japan the end of July through August.
Mr. Hornina stated last week he mentioned recycling and
apparently hit a note with the Silverwood School in Silverdale,
a private school. They sent him a note stating that they had
been inspired into action and are going to do some recycling at
the school. Also, Mr. Homing announced that a former City
employee Russ Dodge recently received a major Merit Award from
the Seattle Water Department and extended to him congratulations
from the City of Bremerton for his accomplishments. Mr. Horning
did attend the meeting at Westpark and the beautification plan is
moving ahead.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Gene Madden, representing Bremerton Power Squadron, stated their
appreciation for the help the City Council provided in promoting
safe boating and their Safe Boating courses. Myra Jo Redlack,
Commander of Bremerton Power Squadron, presented the City Council
with a Certificate Of Appreciation in grateful acknowledgement of
cooperation and promoting safer boating. President Hornina
stated it was truly the Council's pleasure to add what little
they could and he noted Channel 29 has been a big part of
promoting boating safety throughout Puget Sound.
Cecil McConne11, President of BACON, stated he had intended to
speak to Item 7A, however it had been pulled from the Agenda.
He stated he wanted the City Council to know that it wasn't what
was being done but how it was being done - it was not following
the rules. In regard to appointment of members to Boards and
Commissions of the City, the intent of the Ad Hoc Charter Review
Committee and the voters of Bremerton was that only after a good
faith effort in seeking members from within the Bremerton City
Limits would it be acceptable for the City Council to pass an
ordinance to obtain a resident from outside the City to serve on
committees, commissions or boards.
James Paterson, 202 Burwell #418, exp.¢ssed concern over
corporate flags flying underneath the United States flag, such as
McDonalds, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken. He noted it was
not only against the law but disrespectful - the U.S. Flag should
never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever,
it should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or
handkerchiefs and the like, printed or impressed on paper like
napkins or boxes for anything that is designed for temporary use
or discard. Advertising signs should not be attached to a staff
or halyard from which the flag flies. He has contacted some of
the managers of the local businesses but as of this date he has
not had a response and expressed concern that people really do
not understand the correct manner to treat the flag. He noted
perhaps the City could ask the local businesses to be more
#0544
TAPE #636
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 3 of 21
responsive to the request to remove or reposition their corporate
flag.
6A - FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SOFTWARE, #AB89-130
Attached is the cost proposal and limited license agreement for
lease of the Count Systems FMS software through Royce Arbour
their distributor. The total purchase price is $45,835 which is
within the previously approved computer budget. Staff has
reviewed several other products and found this system to meet our
needs.
Kathleen McCluskey, Director Of Administrative Services, stated
for the record, that three items will be added to the contract
that have been negotiated over the past week: (1) the use of
Source Code for recompiling; (2) specify where on our system the
software will be located; (3) should Count systems go out of
business Source Code will be provided free of charge.
Mrs. Horton questioned, under Correction Of Program Errors, what
would be the cost of transmission and if it is their defect would
the City have to pay for it? Ms. McCluskey stated cost of
transmission is just the cost of the media tape which would be
very nominal.
M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract
with Royce Arbour, Inc., including the three additional items as
noted above.
7D - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) RELATING TO PARKING RATES, FINES
AND THE RETAIL AREA, #AB89-133
On April 5, the City Council approved certain elements of a
comprehensive parking plan proposed by the administration which
were to be implemented by appropriate ordinance or resolution.
The proposed ordinance adopts some elements and creates a
framework for subsequent adoption of other elements by
resolution. Some code changes and simplification reflect
amendments to the Model Traffic Ordinance, handicapped parking
laws, and the Bremerton Code itself since this title was last
amended.
This ordinance does not establish the new neighborhood parking
permit proposals recently before the City Council, although the
current residential parking districts remain consistent with this
ordinance. The ordinance should have no revenue impact except
for increased revenues from higher fines for infractions and
increased penalties for new misdemeanors relating to non-response
to parking infractions rather than relying on the present system
of civil collection. A summary of the elements approved by the
City Council follows:
1. Settina of parkina rates. The location and amount of fees
for parking meters or other fee zones should be addressed in a
replacement chapter for 10.08. This new chapter was pulled by
Operations Committee to be presented as a package with
resolutions mapping meter or fee areas and setting rates.
2. Settina of parkina violations/penalties. New penalties, as
recommended by the Parking Committee, are addressed in Section
8(.030). Enhanced penalties for those who ignore parking
infractions are addressed to the maximum extent allowed by law
(.040 and .050). This element, as approved by council, also
called for "impound/immobilization" procedures for non-payment
and these are detailed in Section 8(.060-.080).
3. Parkina Advisory Board. To be included in new Chapter 10.08
under parking administration.
TAPE #636
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 4 of 21
4. Prohibition of ~arkina on ~lantina strips. Presently there
are two definitions of planting strips and two inconsistent
regulations in the Code on strip parking, one in the MTO adopted
in 10.04.010 and one in Chapter 10.09. This element is adopted
by a language in Sections i and 6.
5. Designation of one-way streets. This element is already a
prerogative of the City Council to be taken by resolution.
6. Retail/business ~arkinu areas. To be adopted by subsequent
resolution under authority of Section 5.
Other subsequent changes adopted in this ordinance
follows:
are as
1. 10.04.033 is unnecessary since state statutes now include
these sections as part of the Model Traffic Ordinance.
2. Our Handicapped Chapter is badly out of step with procedures
and exemptions granted by State law. The new Handicapped Chapter
brings our Code into compliance.
3. Parking infractions will be administered through the
Municipal Court, as with other traffic infractions (B.M.C.
1.12.030) and in compliance with RCW 46.63.020-.040.
4. Since the only planting strip parking will be sanctioned as
an extension of right-of-way parking, the City should be
responsible for maintenance and the adjacent owner's
responsibility is modified for these areas.
5. City Engineer's functions of Chapter 10.20 were adequately
covered in the Model Traffic Ordinance (RCW 46.90.265).
Ian Slavers, City Attorney, stated he provided to Council an
additional exhibit - RCW Section that was omitted from the Model
Traffic Ordinance, which the City has adopted, and will now be
included in the City's adoption by reference having to do with
service parking hoods.
Mrs. Horton stated the Parking Committee would like to bring back
the Advisory Board and Time Zones as a composite package so it
can be looked at in its entirety. The Committee felt that action
should be taken to move ahead on the fines and meter rates as
soon as possible. She noted that some of the fines and
penalties might seem a bit severe but other Cities have already
set examples and other cities are finally waking up to the
realization that parking is a severe problem, parking infractions
are a severe problem and the City needs to get the attention of
the people who are habitual offenders. The Committee's
recommendations were not all unanimous but they were voted on
separately and well supported. Also, the Committee is
recommending impounds for multiple violators and for violators
who have not paid their penalties or parking fees. They feel the
only way to get a handle on the parking situation is to put some
teeth in the ordinance and they believe this is a way to do that.
Other cities have implemented impounding and it is working
successfully.
The ordinance includes the following penalties:
Overtime:
$5.00 short-term retail parking or posted free
retail parking
$10.00 - all other
Loading Zones: $15.00
TAPE #636
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 5 of 21
No Parking: 820.00
Parking Wrong Way: $15.00
Parked on Sidewalk: $50.00
Fire Hydrant: $25.00
12" From Curb: $5.00
Handicapped (Public & Private): $50.00
Planting Strip: $20.00
Counterfeiting or Use of counterfeit Permits of Tokens: $500.00
All Other Infractions Not Specified Above: $10.00
President Hornina noted an area that may present some concern is
penalties for parking on planting strips - in some instances
parking will be allowed. He questioned when this goes into
effect how can a citizen find out if a planting strip area is
exempted so as to allow parking? Mrs. Horton explained the
Engineering Department will be the entity to decide which
planting strips can be used for parking. Several things will be
taken into consideration: width, depth of the strip, if there is
no other parking on or off street available in the area then
strip parking will be allowed. A long term recommendation that
will be coming to the City Council is that as
streets/sidewalks/planting strips are upgraded the Committee
would like those planting strips to be dealt with properly either
by removal or to provide adequate on-street parking and keep the
planting strip as a green belt. Mrs. Horton noted this is
something that will be dealt with in a phase-in manner and duly
notifying neighbors affected.
Mr. Waibel emphasized the issue of Vehicle Impound and the need
to streamline the process since it involves three departments to
effect an impound. The City has problems with other processes
because of multiple department involvement and hoped the areas of
responsibility are very clear. The State feels, per RCW, the
Chief Of Police should be in charge of service parking hoods,
however, in our ordinance we are involving the Department Of
Administrative Services. Therefore, the entire ordinance should
be as simple as possible and involve as few departments as
possible. Mrs. Horton noted impounding of a vehicle is not a
simple matter. Mr. Sievers explained the Court will indicate the
status of their records showing the number of "failures to
appear" and the Police Department is charged, by State Law, with
actual authorization to impound vehicles on right-of-ways.
Mr. Collins expressed concern over the penalty for parking on
planting strips. He noted there are several miles of streets in
his District that have signs on them put up by the City that say
"Parking On Strip Only". Mrs. Horton explained the ordinance
states that unless it is signed and the City has come in and
assessed the needs of the area and delineated parking - parking
is allowed. Mr. Collins suggested making it easier - if the
street is 30 feet or less in width the street will be one- way
between collectors, collectors being secondary streets. Or,
parking on one side if there is still not space for emergency
vehicles. He questioned what is a good width for a sidewalk, a
parking strip and when does ~ become hazardous? He felt too
much supposition is being put in the hands of the people who have
to enforce the ordinance. He noted in the area known as old
Charleston there are 8 miles of 25 ft., wide blacktop streets and
he questioned where would people park? For now he supported
#1483
TAPE #636
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 6 of 21
taking the planting strip parking out of the ordinance. Mrs.
Horton stated the Parking Committee is working on a
recommendation on one-way streeting - not street-by-street but
are starting with the residential area in the downtown area.
There are some streets, such as Gregory Way, that the Committee
would like to see as one-way primarily because of the safety
factor and there is no place for the residents to park. She
stated she did not have any problem removing planting strips from
the ordinance, however, she would want to put it back in once it
is refined.
Mr. Crutcher stated he also supported removing parking strips
from the ordinance as he felt it was very confusing for both the
Council as well as the citizens. Mrs. Horton stated for
clarification if the parking strip section is removed from the
ordinance and people park on the strips then the property owner's
liability should be removed in the event something happens.
Mr. Colvin questioned when would the ordinance become effective?
Mr. Slavers stated when this was discussed in the Operations
Committee meeting it was suggested that a delayed effective date
be considered. The normal effective date is 30 days after
passage/publication and upon checking with the Engineering
Department they felt they could survey the planting strip issue
and decide if the size of planting strip should remain, thus
allowing planting strip parking, or if it should be taken out.
The notice issue is very clear, after the effective date of the
ordinance if there is no sign posted saying "Parking Allowed On
Planting Strip" no parking is allowed and vehicles will be
ticketed. The City Engineer felt the unusual effective date of
60 - 90 days was not necessary. Therefore, as it stands the
effective date of the ordinance will be 30 days after passage.
Mr. Colvtn expressed that not all citizens read the newspaper to
get the message and he suggested a "courtesy ticket" be devised
before implementing the penalty enforcement.
Mr. Crutcher questioned if the 12 inches from the curb is the
same as the State requirement? Mr. Sievers stated that is part
of the Model Traffic Code which the City has adopted.
M/S/C/U(Horton/Colvin)
excluding both the fine
planting strip parking.
to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
and Ordinance section pertaining to
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, PUD & SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, APPLICANT: JOHN STEPHANUS, ARMCO
REALTY~ LOCATION: BR~MERTON GARDENS APARTMENT COMPLEX, 1014
PARKSIDE DRIVE, #AB89-134
On April 18, 1989, the Bremerton Planning Commission voted 5 to 0
recommending to the City Council approval of the following three
applications to the City Council. Planned Unit Development,
Shore Substantial Development Permit and Vacation of Parkside and
Mountain View Drives.
Chapter VI, Section 8 of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance requires
the City Council to take action to approve, deny or approve with
conditions, the Preliminary PUD Plan. The City Council action,
approving the Preliminary Plan, shall be the approval of the
layout and densities submitted on the Preliminary Plan as a guide
to the preparation of the Final Plat.
President Horninn asked the "Appearance OF Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest question" with all Council members excepting Mr. Waibel
being seated.
Jack A11inaham, Planning Department, stated the Planned Unit
Development entails the removal of two single family residences,
TAPE #636
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 7 of 21
four duplexes, some certain garage structures on site and the
construction of 104 additional units for a total of 287 units on
the site. In addition to the construction of the dwelling units,
parking on the site will be reconfigured and approximately 300
parking spaces will be provided on site.
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Residential
15 to 30 dwelling units per acre. There is a ravine on the site
that separates the north half and south half and in the
Comprehensive Plan it is designated a "sensitive area" and no
development is proposed for the stream. The Comprehensive Plan
land use element is Residential land use, shoreline land use and
housing use elements and all support the Planned Unit proposal.
The Zoning designation for the site is Multi-family and the
Bremerton Zoning Ordinance requires Multi-family development of
one acre or larger to go to a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The density allowed in a Multi-family zoning district through the
PUD process is 22 units per acre. The site has a total of 21
acres allowing a density of 462 dwelling units. The total build
out of the development will be 13.7 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. A11inaham noted that the vote of the Planning Commission was
5 to 0 recommending approval of all three applications. The
specific conditions to these applications are contained in the
proposed model motions included in the Agenda Bill
The Right-Of-Way Vacation motion recommendation to the City
Council is for approval subject to the applicant's confirmation
for the need of any additional easements necessary for power,
gas, telephone, cable and if additional easements are needed the
applicant shall grant the necessary easements within the vacated
area. The applicant shall compensate the City for the property
in accordance with City and State Regulations
The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit recommendation to
the City Council is also for approval subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The applicant/developer shall construct an improved public
access stairway at the termination of E. 16TH Street and Port
Washington Narrows as proposed on the site plan dated April 10,
1989. (Art. #1 to Staff Report).
(2) The applicant/developer shall grant a 12 foot wide public
access easement along the tidelands or adjacent wetlands of Port
Washington Narrows for the length of the site frontage. The
easement shall allow the City privileges for future construction
of an "improved public access" consistent with an Adopted Public
Access Plan or Shoreline Ordinance.
The Planning Unit Development application is recommended for
approval subject to the following conditions:
(1) Required parking per the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance taking
into account non-conforming situations shall be provided for all
new construction.
(2) Active open 'space, as required by the Bremerton Zoning
Ordinance, shall be provided on site. Additional active space
may be proposed and submitted to the Bremerton Parks and
Recreation Department for development of a specific project
within Eastpark.
Mr. A11inaham made a slide presentation showing existing
conditions.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record letters
received from the following individuals who were in opposition
TAPE #636
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 8 of 21
to the planned development and/or some portion of it: Councilman
Lon Overson; Ceclia Madden, Bremerton Gardens Steering Committee;
Evelyn Buell, 1612 Wheaton Way. The following concerns were
noted: more land should be utilized to provide needed parking;
City needs to keep the street as it is since the developer will
be taking in a million dollars in income per year and a quality
development is needed; not all of the residents who were entitled
to Relocation Costs have received them; there is not an
appointed Counselor "on site" to help those who have relocation
problems; poor location of a parking lot - it will be a blight on
the existing neighborhood;
Warren Pollock, Architect with Pollock Lau & Associates, 1100
Olive Way, Seattle, stated when they first talked to Armco Realty
about the Bremerton Gardens project, before beginning design
work, they invited residents to meet with them and give their
reaction to the project and to make suggestions about things they
thought should be included. From the very beginning the project
has been divided into two parts: (1) to renovate, repair and
restore existing buildings. Most of them are about 50 years old
and the initial assignment was to repair things that were wrong
with the existing buildings. A number of people brought to their
attention the fact the buildings were hard to heat and had energy
problems. As a result of those comments and after an analysis, it
was decided to insulate the buildings fully and to replace all of
the windows in all existing buildings with insulated units. In
addition, there will be renovation of surfaces, new gutters,
roofs, replacing about 50~ of the siding and repairing small
parts and pieces that have been broken or deteriorated. In the
renovation phase, as alerted to by the residents, parking
problems existed and was poorly defined. Some of the areas were
not stripped properly, etc. It was decided to correct and repair
the roads through the site. The idea of vacating the streets
came up in discussion with City staff - if it was desired to re-
stripe, change and alter them and rapave areas that were
deteriorated the developer could not do that unless it was on
their own private property. City staff represented to them that
the City did not have funding to make the suggested changes and
repairs. So, that initiated the idea that the project should
take the streets back so the improvements could be made and
maintained in the future.
(2) Location of new structures - it was decided to locate new
structures at the back of the property (or most remote site from
the water) so views would not be blocked from existing residents
and the main open spaces were found in the back. There are 10
units on the overall project grounds that were not part of the
original project constructed 50 years ago. Ten units were built
at a later time and were of a lesser quality and have
deteriorated more than the original buildings. Those ten units
are to be removed rather than to be restored under the new
construction phase. They will be adding 104 new units for a
total of 285 units. The current zoning allows a density that
would permit 170 units more than what is being proposed, but
what is proposed is 62~ of the allowed density.
At one point consideration was given to restoring the foot bridge
across the ravine that had been there up to 5/6 years ago,
however, in meetings with some of the long time residents they
did not want the bridge replaced. Therefore, it has been decided
if residents do not want the bridge then it will not be replaced.
One of the four-plex buildings (B1) is in the shoreline,
therefore, the project comes under the Shoreline review and
access to the beach is required. Again, in conversations with
members of the community, it was explained that a good place for
TAPE #635
TAPE #636
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 9 of 21
such access would be at the end of 16TH Street. The dilemma
here, as stated in one of the letters read into the record, is
when the access is provided people using the access will be
looking for parking and that may not be looked upon favorably by
some of the existing neighbors. The State Shoreline Ordinance,
as they view it, is that access to the beach for the public at
large is an important thing to provide. As they are directed by
City staff, they are willing to provide that access knowing it
will be used by people other than just by people in the project.
Another reason for locating the beach access on that end of the
project site is because the rest of the site is so high above the
water there is no feasible way to get a path down the slope
without undermining the slope.
The location of the new structures and their associated parking
is the result of Mr. Pollock's firm working with City staff to
understand requirements of the Zoning Code and to make a proposal
that will be in conformance with those requirements. They have
provided parking for about 300 vehicles - new parking
requirements for the new construction require more than one
vehicle per dwelling unit. And, the new construction has all of
the required parking for its existence. They feel the abundance
of parking for the new construction will actually help as
overflow parking for current residents. It was not their
intention to bring all existing buildings up to current code
provisions but they realize raising the overall parking available
on the project is going to benefit everyone who lives there.
The new structures are designed to be similar in character and
scale with the existing buildings so they will have a feeling of
being friendly to the existing structures. They do intend to
take a different approach to the colors of the building - eight
different color schemes for the buildings will be used to
correctly blend into the expanded community.
Mr. Pollock stated they have made an effort, since the beginning
of the project, to both discover what residents and neighbors
would like and making effort to incorporate suggestions and ideas
into the project. In addition, they have tried their best to
work with staff in developing this new proposal.
Cecil McConne11, President Of BACON, stated if the City Council
approved the street vacation then the citizens of Bremerton
should receive more than 50%. There should be some amenities
provided to the City for the affected area (Eastpark). He noted
increased traffic will be a major problem and he did not support
the location of the exits of the parking lot due to the danger
they impose. If the parking lot location is not changed, he
suggested allowing only the most northern exist from the lot on
to Wheaton Way.
Andrew ParyDa, 1122 Hayward Avenue, stated his opposition to the
exits from the proposed parking lot out on to Wheaton Way due to
its being a dangerous area already.
Delores Donni-er, 3218 Viewcrest Drive NE, opposed the street
vacation if only to make sure the conformance to parking is
according to current zoning. Also, she questioned if there is a
20 foot setback on any parking on any street? Mr. Allinaham
stated a 20 foot setback is not correct, the Parking Chapter of
the Zoning Ordinance requires setbacks to the type of street it
is. In this case, it would be a minor arterial and parking lots
of 15 or more vehicles requires a minimum average of 15 foot
setbacks, however, the PUD Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance
(Chapter 6, Section 13 Scope Of Approval Of A PUD) allows the
modification of lot size, setbacks and heights within the PUD
TAPE #636
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 10 of 21
project and the PUD as proposed with the setbacks is an allowable
process. Ms. Donniaer questioned if the end of East 16TH Street
is now a public view point and how will parking be handled that
is proposed for this area? Mr. Allinaham stated yes it is a
public view point and a beach access staircase is proposed for
installation at the end of East 16TH Street along with a parking
area to be developed for both tenants of Bremerton Gardens
complex and community residents at large. It is staff's
understanding that the project provides for public parking in
that area whether it is utilized by a resident of Bremerton
Gardens complex utilizes or a citizen of Bremerton (first-come-
first-serve basis). Ms. Donniger questioned if those parking
spaces would be included in additional parking spaces being
provided for the apartment complex? Mr. Allin~ham stated they
are outside the number of parking spaces being proposed for the
project.
Hank Clark, 129 Sheridan Road, spoke in opposition to the parking
lot exits as proposed in the project. He pointed out it is
probably one of the most dangerous corners in the whole area and
questioned if there had been any traffic study made on that
particular portion of Wheaton Way? Also, he questioned
considering the project is suppose to be low-income housing and
the developer is proposing new construction in that area-
wouldn't there be a conflict there?
Dolores Donnin-er, 3218 View Crest Drive, pointed out that the
housing is for low-income people which could mean an increase in
the number of children in the complex and she was not aware of
any amenities in the proposed project for children.
Warren Pollock, project Architect, stated the PUD requires a
beach access and it is up to the discretion of the developer and
City staff to identify placement of such access. It was the
consensus of everyone that E. 16TH Street was the traditional
access point and should be located there.
Parking shown next to the access point is not included as
parking for the project, however, the assumption is that people
will come down to that point from the community and they will
need some place to park other than in front of a driveway or
spaces where other people feel they have first call to park.
In regard to the parking lot located on the curve with two
methods of access, there is currently a parking lot on the top of
the hill with access at the exact points shown on the plan.
There is no additional site access points in this proposal. As
the details of the plan is worked out with staff, access could be
restricted on one access point or make them one-way in and one-
way out, depending on what the Engineering Department wants to
recommend. The Engineering Department has been reviewing traffic
consequences of the project as has the transit system and they,
the developer, have taken the review and comments into account on
the design. In the event additional comments or new information
is available, the plan could be modified to make it more safe.
In reference to amenities for children, all of the project both
existing units and new will be available to low-income people.
On the site plan there are several areas indicated Active Open
Space and they will be developed for out-door play areas for
children. Residents of the project asked the developer to
confine children play activities to specific areas so children at
play could be better supervised by an adult and so they would not
bother other residents within the project who desire quiet and
privacy.
In regard to the request for street vacation, the streets were
TAPE #637
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 11 of 21
constructed when the project was built and were internal roads
for the project, not streets. At that time, parking that was
perpendicular to the street was the method of parking along those
streets. That parking configuration still exists and when they
became public streets it was not changed. So, parking in essence
has been a non-conforming configuration since that provision went
into the code. This situation still exist and would continue
whether the streets remain as they are or returned to the
project.
Since the project is made possible by a Federal Tax Credit
Program, administered by the State, that allows someone to build
a new building at new building costs and rent it at lower than
normal market rate.
Mr. Dawkins stated he agreed that exiting the parking lot on the
curve would be a dangerous situation and questioned if the
Engineering Department had looked into a one-way entrance and
one-way exit? Mr. Pratt stated the Engineering Department had
looked at the plans and had not recommended anything specifically
different than what is being proposed. However, Council does
have some options through the conceptual and preliminary review.
One of the options is to go to some detail and specify no in-
gress or egress as shown, which is a little restrictive, or could
flag that aspect of the design and ask staff, at final review, to
implement a more workable design or pay special attention to that
area and come up with a design with more safety. Speaking on
behalf of the staff, he suggested Council tell them they are
unhappy with the design as proposed and give further study to
finding a safer application at that corner and bring back in
final approval a safe design.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if soil stability is an issue in the area
where new construction will take place? Mr. Pratt stated he
understood the developer has run a soils survey and found it to
be safe and the Shoreline Permit requires that prior to Building
Permit approval the City's Building Official reviews those
permits and decides whether or not further soils analysis is
necessary.
Mr. Collins questioned for clarification if the developer is
building the public beach access on City land and has the City
agreed to that? Mr. Pratt stated yes, the proposal is to agree
in concept at this time and to work out details for final
approval. The developer would be constructing a City facility on
public property. Mr. Collins questioned if the City would be
taking ownership of the access facility and if so is the City
liable in the event someone is hurt? Mr. Pratt stated yes to
both questions - they are also deeding public use for the beach
area, which is part of the Shoreline Plan that was adopted, which
requires the provision for public use across commercial and
multi-family residential properties. Mr. Pratt stated the City
will have design approval - the public use access will not only
be built to Building Code but will be built to City standards.
Mr. Collins pointed out the developer/owners are to provide
public access but the implication would be that it would be on
their property, not on City property. Mr. Pratt stated that
this is a fine point staff is working through in the Public
Access Land Plan that Council requested. Currently staff is of
the mind, in light of State Law and liability, if the City is
asking for and receiving public use access then the City needs to
be responsible for it. President Hornina questioned if the end
of East 16TH Street is the staff's preferred location of the
beach access? Mr. Pratt stated yes - if the City asks for
public access anywhere else it could be considerably more
dangerous to develop and maintain then the recommended site.
TAPE #637
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 12 of 21
Mr. Collins questioned if the proposed project would be
considered a major development and could the City require that
parking needs be provided to current City standards? Mr. Pratt
stated yes - it would be a design attribute within the PUD
scheme being used at this time to require a certain amount of
parking. Council can make a determination that the parking
proposed is adequate or inadequate. As a footnote, he pointed
out that under any other development where a developer would be
adding to a commercial residential multi-family property, with-
out using the PUD process, would be required to only provide
parking according to the new standards for the new portion that
is being developed. They would not be required to consider the
project as a whole and provide parking under todays standards.
Mr. Collins pointed out the lack of parking area near some of the
units which would allow for unloading passengers, groceries,
laundry, etc? Mr. Pratt stated "usable" is a very subjective
word - the requirements made by the City is that parking space be
provided and Council does have design considerations...Council
could find this design unacceptable because there is no allowance
for immediate parking next to every unit, however, when measuring
whether or not the proper quantity has been established the
City's concern is whether the unit and parking is on the site and
whether or not they have to walk a distance from their unit is a
marketing concern for the developer. As long as the resident
does not have to go off-site to park which would impact another
neighborhood or another property owner. There is an element of
design benefit from cluster parking in that it tends to be kinder
to landscaping qualities of the design.
Mrs. Horton noted a discrepancy on the site plan compared to
what is included in the Agenda Packet. The proposed parking for
the new construction is shown as 164 and on the site plan it is
180. Also, she suggested adequate landscape screening be required
to buffer the parking lot from the residential view from Wheaton
Way and questioned if this were possible? Mr. Pratt stated the
current City Parking Ordinance, which requires a 15 foot average
setback and also specifies that a certain number of trees be
planted within a specified number of feet, will be enforced at
the final design and there is enough room to have that average
buffer on every parking lot that faces the street with the
exception of the corner of Wheaton Way. That particular site has
a significant grade separation of as much as 10 feet. The
Parking Ordinance also allows the applicant to provide an
alternate landscape design which would meet the same objectives.
The grade separation makes it possible for the applicant to have
less than 15 foot average but a slightly denser landscaping
buffer.
Mr. Pratt stated one of the reasons for providing the vacation of
street is to put the parking control, which would limit the
parking use to the tenants of the site only, under the ownership
of the complex and they would then have the option of having
vehicles of non-residents towed if parked improperly. If it
remains as a public street, this owner will not have that option
and it would be available for public parking for anyone. Parking
is a dilemma throughout the City where redevelopment is being
encouraged. The current facilities and buildings were developed
under a Parking Code which allowed this parking problem to
happen. The question has been posed - "do we want to go back
retroactively and try to bring all of that parking up to standard
or do we start and say with all new facilities today there will
be required parking according to this standard"? The City
Council, in adopting the Zoning Ordinance, said "we will not
retroactively require existing properties to bring current
properties up to parking standards. Instead, new properties will
be brought up to standard". This project has both old and new
facilities so somewhere in between meeting the new standard and
#1043
#1066
TAPE #637
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 13 of 21
coming as non-conforming under the old standard is a balance.
One of the things looked at was "is the parking situation being
improved or is it being degraded". The final result came about
through a process of mathematical formulas - the result being
there is more than enough parking stalls per units in the final
design, currently 2/3 spaces per cars per unit. This is not the
ideal solution but it improves the situation.
Mr. Colvin stated he felt the proposed development impacted a
greater area than just the complex and supported bringing up
parking requirements to new construction standards. Mr. Pratt
stated that operating under the current policy and as the Zoning
Ordinance is applied today, staff feels they have made the
recommendations that meet those standards.
M/S/C(Crutcher/Dawkins) to approve the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit application subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant/developer shall construct an improved public
access stairway at the termination of E. 16TH Street and Port
Washington Narrows as proposed on the site plan dated April 10,
1989.
2. The applicant/developer shall grant a 12 foot wide public
access easement along the tidelands or adjacent wetlands of Port
Washington Narrows for the length of the site frontage. The
easement shall allow the City privileges for future construction
of an "improved public access" consistent with an Adopted Public
Access Plan or Shoreline Ordinance.
Vote: In Favor:
Opposed:
Crutcher, Horton, Horning, Collins, Dawkins
Colvin
Mr. Colvin stated his opposition to the vacation because he
believes the City is giving away property and there are other
options to consider.
M/S/C(Crutcher/Dawkins) to approve the requested right-of-way
vacation subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall confirm the need for any additional
easements necessary for power, gas, telephone or cable
facilities. If additional easements are needed, the applicant
shall grant the necessary easements within the vacated area.
2. The applicant shall compensate the City for the property in
accordance with City and State regulations and policies.
Vote: In Favor:
Opposed:
Crutcher, Horton, Horning, Dawkins
Colvin, Collins
President Hornina questioned for clarification if the City
Engineers had accepted the design of the public access to the
parking lots as it was presented? Mr. Allinaham stated yes - the
preliminary design has been accepted, however, the City Engineer
could re-review the design. President Horninu noted he would
desire a re-review by the Engineering Department and desired to
have it included in the motion when made.
President Horninu pointed out with the additional parking being
provided for the new construction will have an easing impact on
current residents of the complex and it does meet the City's
criteria. He emphasized one of the nice points of the complex is
the green space available and if more parking is required than
proposed, it would decrease some of the natural beauty of the
project. President Horninu questioned if the issue of raising
the parking requirements had been discussed at the Planning
#1645
TAPE #637
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 14 of 21
Commission meeting? Mr. A11inaham stated the Planning Commission
did not agree with the applicant or staff's calculation on
required parking spaces. Primarily it involved how much credit
would be given for the demolition for the existing dwelling units
(4-duplexes and single family residence) - Planning Commission
determined that 180 spaces were going to be required minus
required parking for 10 dwelling units - the substraction of 10
dwelling units at a ratio .67 was determined to require 173 new
net spaces for the proposed development. The total required
parking found by the Planning Commission is 302 spaces.
Mr. Crutcher pointed out the development will attract low income
residents and in most cases if a person or family is in the low
income category they can only afford one vehicle, if that.
Mrs. Horton stated because this PUD focuses on only the new
portion she did not believe just because some buildings are to be
demolished credit should be given and go by the number of
parking spaces required for this project. She stated she wants
to encourage growth and construction, however, she also wants to
encours~ doing it properly.
Mr. Collins noted, because of the location of the complex, there
are actually two different projects - what is to say that all of
the parking isn't in the north project and residents living in
the south project...where is the ratio of parking in relationship
to where the people are located? Mr. Allinaham stated the review
by City staff was responsible for one: (1) living units were
being provided on site; (2) adequate parking be provided for the
living units - the specific design for where the parking spaces
would be provided would be under the responsibility of the
developer.
Mr. Dawkins referred to a condition the Planning Commission's
recommended for approval of the PUD: "active open space as
required by the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance shall be provided on
site. Additional active space may be proposed and submitted to
the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Department for development of
a specific project within Eastpark". Mr. Allin~ham stated part
of the requirements for the PUD is one- half of the active open
space be provided on the site. Staff identified the possibility
of partially fulfilling this requirement at Eastpark and made a
recommendation to the Planning Commission that the active open
space be provided either on site or at Eastpark, identifying if
it was to be provided in Eastpark that it would be earmarked for
a specific proposal. Planning staff felt if it was provided in
Eastpark then it would be available for the community at large to
utilize. The Planning Commission took that recommendation into
consideration but felt it would be better to provide the active
open space on the site itself, however, they made a statement if
the developer so desired they could provide additional active
open space in Eastpark.
M/S/C(Horton/Colvin) to approve the Planned Unit Development
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Required Parking per the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance of 180
spaces, taking into account non-conforming situations shall be
provided for all new construction.
(2) Active open space as required by the Bremerton Zoning
Ordinance shall be provided on site. Additional active space may
be proposed and submitted to the Bremerton Parks and Recreation
Department for development of a specific project within Eastpark.
(3) The landscaping requirements be included to provide a buffer
on Wheaton Way to buffer the parking areas from the rest of the
residential areas.
TAPE #637
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 15 of 21
(4) The access points into the parking lot off Wheaton Way are a
concern of the City Council and request the Engineering
Department to re-review the proposed design of said access
points.
Vote:
In Favor:
Opposed:
Crutcher, Horton, Waibel, Horning, Collins,
Dawkins, Colvin
Collins
Councilmen Hank Waibel returned to the meeting.
7I - RESOLUTION #2246, APPROVING HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN
PROGRAM OPERATION, #AB89-126
City Council directed staff to develop a Housing Rehabilitation
Loan Program for Council's approval as a condition for release of
$80,000 in 1989 CDBG funds for a Housing Rehabilitation Program.
Carol Dickinson, Community Services Manager, stated the $80,000
for Housing Rehabilitation had been on hold pending development
of a Rehab Program. Along with the request for a Rehab Loan
Program Council requested a series of steps for a Comprehensive
Housing Policy Program for Bremerton. At this time the first
step in that direction is being brought before Council.
Last fall Council made three statements about housing which she
has interpreted as "Housing Goals": (1) Improve the quality and
integrity of the existing housing stock through rehabilitation;
(2) Increase home ownership opportunities for all residents,
particularly, low and moderate income families with children;
and (3) Encourage construction of infill housing in place of
vacant structures that are dilapidated and cannot be economically
rehabilitated. The program being proposed is designed
specifically to meet the first goal.
1989-1990 Program Objectives - the following objectives are
recommended to guide use of locally administered funds in
meeting housing goals through the Housing Rehabilitation Loan
Program:
(1) Target housing program to certain areas within the Central
Business Residential-Zone (CBR) in West Bremerton;
(2) Use Community Development
rehabilitation loans to low and very
home owners; and
Block Grant funds for
low income single family
(3) Use Rental Rehabilitation Program funds for rehabilitation
loans to owners of rental units occupied by low and very low
income families with children (first priority) and individuals
(second priority). Note: the maximum amount of funds that can
be applied for through the State is $175,000. Work is underway
to have an application ready to submit by June 3.
Ms. Dickinson noted that the intent is to take little bits of
very precious resources available and use them in the best way
possible to maximize the impact and to create a program that is
simple and easy to understand for property as well as for staff
to administer.
The loan terms and conditions that are being recommended involve
a maximum principal amount of $20,000 for each owner occupied
unit (major system, exterior, internal painting, new roof, etc.).
The principal loan amounts for rental occupied property is $5,000
to S8,500 per unit depending upon bedroom sizes. If a studio
unit the maximum the State will allow is 85,000, if a 3-bedroom
TAPE #637
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 16 of 21
rental unit they will allow $8,500.
The interest rates will be nominal - the idea behind the interest
rates is to have a hedge against inflation over time. The intent
is not to price people out of the market but also not to be a
total give-a-way. A simple annual interest of 3~ for
owner/occupied unit and 5~ per annum tenter/occupied unit is
being recommended with a loan term of 15 years. Security for
such a loan would be a Deed Of Trust with the City in second or
third position. They want to make sure owners are in a Fee
Simple ownership rather than behind a series of Real Estate
Contracts.
Loan To Value - 90~ of the after-rehabilitation value based on a
qualified appraisal or the sum of the assessed value plus the
hard rehabilitation costs.
Repayment - there will be a minimum monthly payment of at least
$30.00. The full monthly payment on a $20,000 loan, 15 years at
3% would be $140.00.. However, if the full amount cannot be paid
then they would like the flexibility to work with individuals who
do not have a lot of money or who are on a fixed income to
establish a repayment schedule.. A suggestion from the Council
during previous discussions was to consider monthly payments
scheduled over time to be increased as people's wages increase.
In response to another concern of the City Council, it is
suggested that the loan funds repaid or returned to the City will
be placed in a special loan repayment fund. And, those funds
will be reallocated according to priorities established by the
City Council annually through the budget process. Also, it is
suggested a pre-payment penalty as a disincentive to speculate on
cheap property using cheap government money. It is desired that
people make a commitment to have their investment stay real for
15 years. What is being suggested is that 50% of the original
loan principal be repaid in addition to the amount loaned if
there is a change of use, sale or transfer of ownership during
first five years.
Leverage - $250,000 Block Grant funding might rehabilitate 13-16
homes. One way to extend that amount of money is to leverage,
such as working with the local energy programs so that homeowners
can get grants to weatherize their homes. If a homeowner can
afford some amount of money through a private lender at market
rates or if below market rates could be achieved, we want to take
advantage of that opportunity.
Because there is not a great deal of money, it is recommended
that a small area be targeted so the greatest impact can be
achieved for the dollars invested. Specifically, the areas
identified as in most need of rehabilitation and fitting into
other long range planning is the residential area located near
PSNS. She noted the target areas can change over time. As an
example of that, in prior years the Smith Neighborhood and areas
around Evergreen Park received a lot of investments for fixing
up.
Ms. Dickinson pointed out Council's approval of the Housing Rehab
Program is just the first step, staff will take the next 45 to 60
days to put together the particulars to implement the plan. They
will allow time to meet with local realtors and lenders so they
are apprised of the City's plan.
Mark Kuhlman, Flagship '89 representative, stated the goal of
Flagship '89 Task Force #4 is to improve the quality and quantity
of housing stock in Bremerton. Programs implemented and
recommended by this committee should provide a framework for
TAPE #637
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 17 of 21
coordination of effort to improve housing in the community. This
will allow resources available to be put to their best and most
efficient usage. The CDBG grants and Rental Rehabilitation
Program are important funding resources and should operate in
concert with programs and recommendations still to be formulated
by their Task Force. From the vantage point they offer the
following comments and recommendations:
1. Prioritizing owner occupied homes renter occupied is
supported.
2. Establishing a maximum loan amount of $20,000 - The
committee suggests increasing the maximum loan amount which would
allow a more comprehensive and longer lasting improvement to a
given home, however, the increase would likely reduce the number
of total participants and therefore the opportunities and
leverage.
3. Establishing an interest rate - Committee supports this item
to help defray the effects of inflation. The Committee feels
consideration should also be given to help defray some
administrative costs. A 34 loan is still a very favorable rate.
4. Minimum Monthly Repayment Requirement - prepayment should be
encouraged for continuation of the program, revolving funds help
more people. However, there should be consideration to the
handicapped, elderly, infirm and unable. Situations of
unsanitary or unhealthful conditions should be addressed without
regard to ability to repay.
5. PrePayment Penalty - preventing speculation in the market
using low cost City funds is a laudable goal, however, the
deserving participant could be injured by a p~epayment penalty.
If access to the program for owner occupied is controlled by
income, speculators likely will be excluded. Note: very low to
moderate low income people need to relocate less often than other
income levels. In general, the Committee feels that such
penalties or restrictions placed upon an improvement program are
counter productive to making the improvement. The Committee
views each improvement as a statement to other improvements in
the neighborhood and therefore should not be encouraged in this
manner. Prepayments should be encouraged in a revolving loan
program - that makes monies available for additional improvements
on other program participants. Prepayment penalties for rantar
occupied units may be justified on a case-by-case basis, that is
if the prepayment is brought about by a occurrence that does not
increase the rent of those units then perhaps the prepayment
penalty would not be justified.
6. Exterior Beautification - exterior painting is a cost
effective improvement which adds value greater than the cost.
The value is added to the neighborhood as well as the individual
home. Exterior painting and other forms of outward
beautification should be encouraged.
7. Repaid Funds - in order to foster maintenance and growth of
the Rehabilitation Loan Program the Committee feels repaid funds
should remain with the program. Future CDBG funds may supplement
program funding as directed by the annual City process.
8. Prioritization Of Small Geographical Areas - prioritization
of areas to receive benefits is a critical element in
coordinating this program with other programs aimed at improving
housing in Bremerton. To maximize benefits of this program, the
funds should be directed to areas requiring a stimulant only.
With a very limited amount of funds, therefore, they must be put
to the best usage. Program funds should be directed away from
TAPE #637
TAPE #637
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 18 of 21
areas targeted for other programs so that there is not a conflict
between programs and they should be directed away from areas that
are least likely to recover current land usage. Ideally a
massive and highly concentrated industrial complex like PSNS
should be screened from single family residential. In their
discussions about this particular issue, the Committee tried to
think of a single case in another city or instance where a single
family residential area has been successful immediately adjacent
to an industrialized complex like PSNS and they could not find
any. The Committee is concerned that there needs to be
transitional land uses with intermediate and decreasing
intensities. The Committee feels that proper buffering uses may
include parking areas, thoroughfares, transit facilities, light
manufacturing and business trade type functions. The area north
of 11TH and east of Warren, which is a triangle containing
Evergreen Park benefits from amenities such as Evergreen Park and
the proposed boardwalk to the ferry. In the proximity to Olympic
College this is a compelling reason for this area to continue to
grow on its own. Land use regulations promoting multi-family
style living, while discouraging manufacturing, light
manufacturing and business trade uses, may feel the
transformation growth in the area. Therefore, the Committee
recommends that this area be given no priority. To summarize,
the prioritization of areas to receive benefits allows limited
funds to be put to their maximum usage. It is desired to see
something more than just individual house improvements and
revitalize and stimulate neighborhoods. Given the limited
funding of the program, those areas given priority must be made
as small as practical and areas selected should be those which
will provide the community the most and long lasting benefits for
the amount invested.
9. Program Procedures - the Committee felt program
implementation should consider inclusion of the following
elements: (1) homeowners in priority area #1 should be given
written notice of the benefits available to them. (2) The
process of application review and process selection should
include a time element which delays selection of the applications
from areas other than that area given the highest priority. (3)
Projects selected for inclusion in CDBG portion of the program
should be zoned SF-1, SF-2, SF-3, DR or CBR at the time of
selection. The Committee does not feel it would be appropriate
to invest money in a single family house that is currently zoned
Commercial because the desire is for a long lasting improvement.
Mr. Kuhlman thanked the City Council for allowing Flagship Task
Force #4 the opportunity to present their recommendations and
encouraged the Council to approve the program.
Cecil McConne11, President of BACON, stated his support of the
proposed plan and believes it is a positive step toward doing
something for Bremerton and the targeted area selected is a very
good place to start.
Mr. Collins noted since Area #1 is in Charleston he suggested
naming it the Charleston Demonstration Area and offered to
personally campaign helping to promote the program.
President Hornina questioned if the interest rate were increased
by a point would it make a difference? Ms. Dickinson stated in
these type of programs the interest rate traditionally started
at 0R. Every couple of years the industry has gained more
experience and the interest rate has gone up. Right now the
common philosophy is that 3~ is a breaking point. The issue
involves the impact of the interest rate on the monthly payment,
and whether the monthly payment is affordable.
President Hornina stated he supported Flagship's recommendation
#0308
TAPE #637
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 19 of 21
in Item #9, which provided notification to property owners in the
"targeted area" and questioned if this would be a problem to
administer? Ms. Dickenson stated it would be possible to stagger
marketing the program in different areas.
M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Waibel) to approve Resolution #2246 which
includes:
(1) Outlines the 1989-90 Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program for
the City of Bremerton.
(2) Releases $80,000 of 1989 CDBG funds
program.
to implement the
(3) Supports application to State for Rental Rehabilitation
Program funds to implement the program.
7B - PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) VACATING PORTIONS
OF BRUENN AVENUE, AUTO CENTER WAY AND 6TH STREET, #AB89-131
This vacation was initiated by the City Parks Department to allow
an expansion of SR3 Park boundaries to include portions of park
tennis courts now encroaching on the right-of-way, and to allow
release of a parcel along the south park boundary from deed
restrictions imposed by the federal government.
The rights-of-way subject to partial vacation are wider than
necessary for future traffic needs.
President Hornina asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest: question with all Council members being seated.
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks Director, stated for clarification the need
for the vacation - she had been approached a few months ago by a
private developer requesting easement rights across SR3. SR3 is
a piece of property which currently has tennis courts on it with
the top half of the property being undeveloped. The request by
the private developer evolved with the development of a proposed
gas pumping station project at the south end of the of the SR3
property and to use the property for that purpose they needed to
increase the radius turn for approach to the proposed gas pumping
station. In order to do this, they would need an easement from
the Park property. During discussions on this request, the
question was raised what benefit could it be to the Parks System
and how would the request be negotiated as well as some
conditions on the land due to its being government surplus land
with Deed restrictions which the National Parks Service monitors.
Contact was made with the National Parks Service, they in turn
did an inspection of the land and stated one of the conditions of
the property is that an easement or lease may not be given on
government surplus land. However, it would be possible to do a
surplus sale but it would focus attention on all the City's GSA
lands, which is not something desired at this time. One of the
options given during the National Parks Service inspection was to
do a boundary adjustment which would put the land containing the
tennis courts (which were constructed in easements along Bruenn,
6Th Street and Auto Center Way and does not have conditions for
GSA land) into the Park and under the Deed restrictions.
William M. Palmar, Land Use Planner/Real Estate Agent for owners
of adjacent property to the south, pointed out the interesting
situation where tennis courts are located in City right-of-way
and it is reasonable to take such action to place the tennis
courts in the park property and working with GSA and the National
Parks Service for development of the park property. He
questioned if this is done will there be a problem created with
improvements within the right-of-way? He noted that through the
documentation he has looked into provides evidence that this
#0772
TAPE #637
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 20 of 21
would not be a problem.
Mr. Collins questioned if there was a real need to make such an
boundary adjustment - the tennis courts have been located where
they are for a number of years without any major concern that
they are in the right-of-way. Now, after someone becomes
interested in developing the adjacent property, the City want to
correct the situation - what benefit is it to the citizens/
Mr. Hornina questioned what right does the City
tennis courts in the right-of-way now that
situation?
have leaving the
it is a known
Mr. Colvin questioned if the City would be loosing anything? Ian
Sievers stated by this transaction on right-of-way vacation the
City would not be loosing anything but would be gaining some
flexibility on the use of the easement area. He noted the
National Parks Service has not been happy that the park land
involved has remained undeveloped this long.
Mr. Sievers requested one additional condition be included - an
easement for utilities after a survey has been completed
(Section 2: add Item (3).
Mr. Collins questioned if the developer/owner of the adjacent
property has been in position of the property for a length of
time and has there been a plan to put in a gas pumping station?
Mr. Palmer stated the property owners of the two parcels
adjoining the SR3 property are not the developer who requested
spawned the request for use of the easement area... he, Mr.
Palmer, saw the opportunity to make the site more effective for
the gas/lock station that is being proposed, however, it is too
small to do all the radius turns needed and the easement area
makes that possible.
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
vacating portion of Bruenn Avenue, Auto Center Way and 6TH Street
adjacent to SR3 Park with the additional condition under Section
2 to include language maintain the required easements for
utilities.
7C - PUBLIC HEARING - LEASE OF A PORTION OF SR 3 PARK, #AB89-132
Parks Department proposes to lease approximately 6750 square feet
at the south end of SR3 Park to allow access into a private truck
fueling station proposed for an adjacent parcel.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the lease cannot be executed
until the effective date of the Ordinance approved on first
reading under Item 7B, however, it is desired to get Council's
direction and to review the lease as a first proposal. He
suggested a continuing motion on this item for the purpose of
further discussing with attorneys for the lessor and lessee on
the development on the private parcel, who may be open to an out
right sale of the area, which may be beneficial to the developer
for a more permanent use of that area and would provide more
revenue for park development for the City.
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks Director, stated when the National Parks
Service reviewed this land he commented to the effect that the
Parks Service would like to see some development happening in
this area.
William M. Palmer, Real Estate Agent representing a specific
party, stated he would have more to say when looking at a total
proposal to present to Council, either a sale or lease. However,
the concept in the "Card Lock Station" was to develop radiuses in
the subject area and to use it for this specific purpose. He
#1094
#1117
#1184
#1237
#1263
TAPE #637
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
May 10, 1989
Page 21 of 21
noted that during discussion under Item 7B, the proposal
suggested for enhancement of the park area was proposed lighting
for the tennis courts to maximize their use and initially to do
some landscaping. Also, he offered to personally help out to
develop a plan for this particular piece of park property.
Mr. Waibel stated he was supportive of a sale rather than a lease
as proposed.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if placement of fuel oil tanks would be a
problem for the business already located in that area? Mr.
Palmer stated regulations for placement of fuel oil tanks are
very restrictive and the only way to obtain liability insurance
is when constructing a new installation. There is an urgent need
in this part of Bremerton for the type of station described.
M/S/C/U(Waibel) to continue this item for two week.
7E - ORDINANCE #4206 (SECOND READING) OLYMPIC CABLEVISION A)
TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE, B) CORRECT SERVICE AREA, #AB89-115
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Horton) to pass Ordinance #4206, on second
reading, amending Ordinance #3981 to authorize transfer of said
franchise from Olympic T.V. Cable, Inc., to Olympic Cablevision
Limited Partnership and amend the service area to include Jackson
Park and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard effective January 1, 1988.
7F - ORDINANCE #4207 (SECOND READING) REPEALING TITLE 7 OF THE
B.M.C. RELATING TO ANIMALS AND FOWL AND REPLACING WITH A NEW
CHAPTER, #AB89-085
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4207, on second
reading, repealing Title 7 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
relating to Animals and Fowl and replacing with a new chapter.
7G - ORDINANCE #4208 (SECOND READING) SETTING FORTH A NEW CHAPTER
5.04 PET SHOPS AND KENNELS TO TITLE 5 OF THE B.M.C., #AB89-086
M/S/C/U(Horton/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance #4208, on second
reading, setting forth a new chapter, 5.04 Pet shops and Kennels
to Title 5 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
7H - ORDINANCE #4209 (SECOND READING) TO CORRECT THE CITY'S
ZONING MAP AS A RESULT OF THE DOCKSIDE ON KITSAP LAKE ZONING MAP
REVIEW, #AB89-124
M/S/C/U(Horton/Crutcher) to pass Ordinance #4209, on second
reading, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of
Bremerton to correct an error in the application of the Single-
family (SF-2) zoning district to Dockside On Kitsap Lake
Subdivision.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
APPROVED
it ert n .
KLM/SH/me ~
cc:
Normal Distribution
File/Vault
President