Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/89TAPE ~640 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 24, 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, May 24, 1989 at 5:30 p.m., with Council president Spencer Horning presiding- Council members present were Lon Overson, Shirley Marty Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Morris Dawkins, C. R. "Tiny" Collins- Councilmen A1 Colvin, Russ Johnson and Hank Waibel 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 Mike Grimshaw of the First Church Of The Nazarene- CONSENT AGENDA - None #0018 CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the council- M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Crutcher) on May 24, 1989, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 43498 - 43641 in the total amount of $329,456.47 and Regular Payroll in the total amount of $338,065.85- COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson congratulated Mr. Horning on announcing his candidacy for Mayor - he noted Mr. Horning's dedication of service to the City over his years of public service and knowledge of issues and his ability at dealing with them makes him best for the position. Fiscal and Budget Committee held a meeting on May 23 and as a result time is scheduled for the June 5 Study Session to discuss what Council will need in the way of detail for the 1990 Budget, also consideration of the Biennial Budget for 1991'92- There will be several modest Budget Adjustments coming to Council in the near future. Mrs- Horton stated an Operations Committee meeting was held this date and Dave Baker, City Engineer, discussed the Transportation Improvement Plan and requested input for the plan from Council members- She reminded everyone that on ThursdaY, May 25, 7:00 PM at Pier 66, the Puget Sound Air pollution Control Agency would hold dete~mln ores and it affects everyone who burns wood i~ their home program will be discussed at this meeting. Mr. DAwkins noted he had an interesting trip on May 23 on a trip to Seattle - with the cooperation of City of Bremerton and TCI Cable Vision they filmed a Sea Cadet (one-hour) program showing Sea Cadets in action in the local area. This program will be flown back to the Navy League in Washington, D.C., to see about funding it and producing a dozen shows locally. A luncheon was held Sandpoint Naval Air Station and the Commander in charge of the Sea Cadets was very pleased with the filmed program. Mr. Collins reported a very successful Armed Forces Parade and follow up events. As a part of the Armed Forces activities, about 7,000 people toured Puget Sound Naval Shipyard- Mr. Collins noted TAPE #640 -- City Council Reg ' Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 2 of 12 that by the community support of the Armed Forces activities, it shows there is a spirit of togetherness between the Military and the civilians. Mr. Hornina stated the entire Armed Forces Week was very well done and he applauded all those who participated in the many activities. It does show a team spirit between the civilians and the Military- He attend a Teen Drug Awareness Seminar on Monday, May 22, sponsored by Kitsap County. As a follow up to a citizens complaint that a developer desired to talk with City officials about the possibility of investment, he attend such a meeting, found it to be very interesting and noted the previous difficulty seemed to be just a breakdown in communication- A suggestion was made at that meeting that the City needs an omnibusman who would assist people through the processes of City Hall - he will be making that suggestion to the Mayor and feels it does have merit. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Jerry Soriano, 509 4TH Street, requested the City Council look into the enforcement procedures of the City's Parking Ordinances- It was his understanding that parking meters are checked from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. He relayed that at 4:45 PM on 4TH Street, he counted eight meters that were expired, 15 meters with 15 minutes left which to him meant that no one is going around checking those meters. So, what occurs from about 3:30 PM on in the afternoon there is no place to park on 4TH Street. On Monday of this week, after he made a complaint to someone in the City, the enforcers did check them and there were 21 parking citations given out on 4TH Street and Park Avenue. He noted one of the biggest problems regarding parking is enforcement and all he asked is that the City' Parking Ordinances be enforced which will give anyone wanting to come downtown to shop the opportunity to find a parking spot. Mr. Soriano provided photographs of several vehicles parked on 4TH Street and generally parked there between 3:15 p.m., and 3:45 pm., through 11:30 PM - 12:00. The change in parking meters at Burwell and Park Avenue - he questioned why the City would change the meter from an hourly rate to $1.00 all day parking. He noted businesses could use the part- time parking so people can patronize local businesses- It was his understanding that a couple of meters were changed as a result of a meeting of the Police Department, Engineering Department and Finance Department. It was his understanding it was done without City Council or Mayor's approval. All Mr. Soriano is asking is that those meters go back to the hourly rate. Currently vehicles parking there are being used by commuters to Seattle. Mr. Soriano expressed concern that City staff was not very responsive to previous inquiries and he would like the City Council to take some action in looking into these concerns. Maraaret Carey, 108-B Oak, stated the Sheridan Neighborhood Association passed a motion on May 18 which was violently opposed to the City selling Roosevelt Field and read a letter from Carl "Dusty" Rhodes, Acting President of the Sheridan Neighborhood Association, into the record. Mr. Rhodes letter expressed concern over the possibility of Olympic College purchasing Roosevelt Field from the City. He noted even at twice the price of $400,000 it would be no bargain since it is irreplaceable- He questioned "what is Flagship '88" and expressed concern that not many people know the purpose of this organization. He strongly opposed the City's disposing of Roosevelt Field. Isaac Soriano, 520 Burwell, expressed concern over parking meters between Park Avenue and Pacific Avenue being changed from 2-hour limit parking to "all day parking". From his observance it appears that those parking in these spots are commuters to Seattle. He TAPE #640 City Council Req "Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 3 of 12 sought out who was responsible for making such a change and was informed that Mr. Hanna, City Treasurer, was the responsible person. He did meet with Mr. Hanna on this issue and was told the only reason given for the change in meters was the need for more money for the City. Mr. Soriano offered to show Mr. Hanna how the City was loosing money instead of making money - the people who previously parked in the City Parking Lot on Park Avenue and paying $2.50 moved to on-street parking and only had to pay $1.00. Mr. Hanna was to check into this situation and get back to Mr. Soriano. After a number of days Mr. Soriano had not heard back from Mr. Hanna so he contacted Mayor Lobe who in turn said he would check into the situation and get back to Mr. Soriano, which as of this date he had not. Mr. Soriano stated what worries him is the effect it has on local businesses, limiting parking available for the few that still come downtown. He strongly urged the Council to have the meters he identified changed back to the 10 cent per hour rate and in the long run would be money ahead. E. L. Sturdivant, 3231 Halverson, expressed concern the possibility of Olympic College purchasing Roosevelt Field and the fact money has been included in the State budget that is earmarked supposedly to acquire buildings and now an attempt is being made to veto that line item so it can be used to acquire land. What bothers him is the fact that this whole issue has not been an "open" issue and the fact that Mayor Lobe and leaders of Flagship '88 have been lobbying Legislators in Olympia for this money for Olympic College so that they can acquire Roosevelt Field. Having been in sports, physical recreation, etc., he felt it was asinine to think that a community of any value would even consider selling a strategically located play area that is in operation. He is very much in favor of a sports complex, however, he did not support giving up recreational land or playgrounds in the center of the community. He noted seven acres of land with possible commercial value or multiple housing is certainly much more valuable than $450,000. Elizabeth Bue11, 1722 High Avenue, stated this was the first time she had heard about the College buying Roosevelt field and she supported keeping it like it is. 6A - MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH WSHFC FOR SETTING ASIDE OF MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES FOR WEST BREMERTON, #AB89-1&0 The Washington State Housing Finance Commission (WSHFC) has agreed to set-aside up to $1 million of Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) for use by low and very low income first time home buyers purchasing homes. The MCC set-aside is targeted for use in West Bremerton consistent with the boundaries identified in the City's Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) as approved by HUD, and the smaller target areas permit the City to combine rehab funds with MCC's to provide purchase/rehab assistance if necessary to participating homeowners. The MCC's are available starting May 15, 1989, to purchasers through one of the private lenders participating in the MCC program. The City will complete the Income and Target Area Confirmation Form and attach it to each MCC reservation request to confirm that the gross income and address for the home to be purchased are consistent with the HAP. Confirmation of the set-aside of $1 million of MCC's to Bremerton is outlined in the Memorandum Of Agreement to be executed by the City of Bremerton and the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. Participation in the MCC Program through the proposed set-aside furthers the City's Housing Goal to increase home ownership opportunities for all residents particularly, low and moderate income families with children. TAPE #640 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 4 of 12 #0956 Carol Dickinson, Community Services manager, stated this is the first step in meeting the City's goal to increase home ownership opportunities and Target Area i can be called "Charleston Neighborhood Demonstration Program". The significance to entering into this particular agreement is it is the first time the Housing Finance Commission has taken it upon themselves to figure out ways that they can rework some of their existing programs to assist small cities, like Bremerton, to target funds in a way to accomplish goals that these cities set aside for home ownership. Bremerton is one of four cities across the state to receive this particular set aside and if it goes well this year starting on May 15 through the end of March 1990, hopefully the City will be able to do it again with even more money and more opportunities. The Program works as follows: a first time home buyer locates a residence that costs less than $65,000 in West Bremerton, they must be a low income person with certain income guidelines and will connect with a participating lender. The home buyer will receive a huge tax deduction each year on their income tax and what that does is to translate into a much reduced monthly mortgage payment. President Horninu stated this is one of the things that will help the City revitalize...housing is a critical issue and the community has a housing stock of reasonably priced homes in the areas of West Bremerton. Mr. Dawkins noted the MCC Program is available in Kitsap County as well and this just add an additional $1 million dollars to the area. M/S/C/U(Collins/Dawkins) to authorize the Mayor to enter into a Memorandum Of Agreement with the Washington State Housing Finance Commission to set aside $1 Million of Mortgage Credit Certificates to eligible first-time home buyers to purchase homes in West Bremerton. 6B - CONTRACT AMENDMENT - U.S. NAVY WASTEWATER CONTRACT #N62&74- 83-C-9720, tABS9-141 The Utilities, in order to secure funding for current and future infrastructure improvement projects, has been negotiating with the U.S. navy with respect to their financial participation in those projects which serve their facilities. For Council's consideration is an amended service contract between the City of Bremerton and the U.S. Navy which provides for participation by the U.S. Navy in Utilities projects. These projects include, as noted on Exhibit "A", (a) the Central Bremerton Wastewater Facilities Improvement, (b) the Sludge Management and Disposal Program, (c) Improvements to the Oyster Bay Pumping and Transmission Facilities and (d) allied costs associated with design and construction management of these projects. The participation by the U.S. Navy for all components is approximately $4,000,000.00 and is based on their use of the respective facilities. Bill Duffv, Utilities Director, stated the Navy prepays much of their participation in the capital improvements projects and this is a continuation of that program wherein they will pay their proportionate share of infrastructure replacement projects. Mrs. Horton pointed out in the contract it states the government does not have funds available for the obligation under the contract and questioned what happens in the event they do not authorize TAPE #640 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 5 of 12 #1136 funding? Mr. Duffv stated there is language in the contract that if the appropriations are not made as part of the budget negotiations in Congress then the City has the right to go in a~ collect them~hro~ the rate structure. M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Horton) to approve the modification to Contract #N62474-83-C09720 for funding of various Utility projects and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement subject to City Administrative Policies and procedures and formal approval by the U.S. Navy. 6C - U.S. NAVY WATER SERVICE CONTRACT ~N62474-85-C-6913, #AB89-142 The current service contract between the U.S. Navy and the City of Bremerton for providing water service to the U.S. Navy was negotiated in 1948 and has been amended thirty-eight times for various reasons. The existing contract is difficult to work with due to the significant number of amendments and is in non-compliance with many of the new State and Federal regulatory requirements. For Council's consideration is a new service contract between the U.S. Navy and the City of Bremerton. The new contract is similar to the Wastewater Service contract wherein it contains new language with respect to affirmative action and equal employment opportunity programs and other regulatory requirements. In addition, the contract provides for financial participation by the U.S. Navy in several utility projects serving Navy facilities. These projects include, as noted in Exhibit "A", (1) Anderson Creek Pump Station Replacement Project, (2) Transmission Mains Replacement Project, (3) Replacement Wells at Anderson Creek and (4) Allied costs associated with design and construction management of these projects. The participation of the U.S. Navy in all components is approximately $5,000,000 and is based on their use of the respective facilities. Bill Duffv, Utilities Director, stated the water contract had not been rewritten for a number of years and became very difficult to work with so, in additional to adding the capital improvement projects he requested the Navy if they would rewrite the entire contract to bring it into current compliance with Federal, State and local regulations. Hank Clark, 129 Sheridan Rd., questioned if the current rate the Navy pays for water and services are comparable to what the residents pay? Mr. Duffy stated yes, their rate is similar although they prepay the infrastructure of the capital improvement investment whereas the public/citizens have it built into the rates. #1383 M/S/C/U(Horton/Crutcher) to approve Contract #62474-85-C-6913 for providing water service to various U.S. Navy facilities and for funding of various Utility projects and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures and formal approval by the U.S. Navy. 6D - LEASE/SALE OF A PORTION OF SR3 PARK, #AB89-132 Parks Department proposes to lease approximately 5,750 square feet at the south end of SR3 Park to allow access into a private truck fueling station proposed for an adjacent parcel. Alternatively, Parks recommends surplus and sale to the adjacent property owners. In approving this surplus sale, Council will waive provision 4 of Policy 1-6, Review by Planning Commission. TAPE #640 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 6 of 12 This proposed exchange of Park properties to allow park improvement has been approved by the Parks Board. This is a negotiated sale to the adjacent owner rather than a notice and bid under provisions 6 and 7, given the non-marketable size of the parcel. Arvilla Ohlde,Parks and Recreation Director, stated one addition she wished to clarify - originally the request had been brought before Council as a lease and they in turn directed her to look into a sale of the property instead of or as a possibility. Therefore, information pertaining to a sale is included in documentation provided. As clarification, She noted in Section 2, last sentence it states the purchase would include improvements to SR3 Park and Ms. Ohlde pointed out this came about during discussions with the purchasers that if there was machinery out clearing lands adjacent to the park they would assist with some of the clearing in the park and nothing more than that. Also, she and the developer had agreed upon an appraiser who had indicated the appraisal could be ready prior to Council meeting, however, it was not available so the agreement would have to include the statement "fair market value as agreed to by both parties". Bill BrouGhton, Attorney representing the adjacent property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Shearer, stated he agreed with the recommendation to have a sale of said property rather than lease thereby putting a small piece of property back on the tax rolls and turned into profitable pieces of property for the tax payers as property taxes are paid generating income. He noted the prospective purchasers are very interested in purchasing the property at the fair market value. A point of concern to Mr. Broughton and his clients was the time frame of the Closing Date being a little tight because of the amount of time needed to arrange financing for purchase of the property and requested changing "20 days" to "60" days in the agreement under Section 17. Pam Shearer, owner of adjacent property, stated she and her husband would like to purchase the property, it would benefit them by allowing them to develop their property commercially. Also, she feels there would be benefit to the city with some enhancement for the park property. Mr. Dawkins questioned if the City needed to get approval to sell a piece of GSA property. Ms. Ohlde stated when the issue was brought before Council to do a boundary adjustment it was at the recommendation by National Parks Service and is free of any Deed Restriction under the National Parks Service System. Mr. Collins voiced his objection and noted that public land is being taken and added to a piece of public property and then selling it off. He did made the statement he would support this request as he did previously, however, he was putting staff on notice that it was a poor way to do business. Mr. Overson questioned the appropriateness of conditioning the sale funds to be redirected back to the Park property and stated he did not personally support this due to the general policy that funds generated from a sale of City property would be placed in Cumulative Reserve or General Fund. Mr. Sievers, City Attorney, stated the City's surplus policy requires that Council designate which fund those proceeds are to be deposited in. The reason why he desired the Council to take some additional appropriation action and tied it into this motion is because it is one of the conditions for GSA approval - that the City uses the proceed from the sale for improvement on Federal Surplus Park property. Mrs. Horton pointed out the City does have several pieces of GSA property and sometime in the past the City was suppose to be making improvements to those properties. She expressed concern that if #1932 #2000 TAPE #640 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 7 of 12 effort was not made soon toward enhancement of the GSA properties the City may loose some. She felt the trade off received through the sale of the property was of benefit to the City. M/S/C/U(Horton/Crutcher) to approve execution of the proposed park property sale and allocation of proceeds to capital improvements to SR 3 Park with any surplus funds to capital improvement of other underdeveloped GSA park properties. President Hornin~ pointed out the purchaser requested that the closing date time be extended from 20 to 60 days and questioned if Council desired to make this change? Mr. Sievers stated there was no problem extending the closing date by 40 days. M/S/C/U(Horton/Crutcher) to extend the closing date by 40 after the date on which the City of Bremerton signs the agreement (Section 17). #2154 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE CITY OF BREMERTON 1989 BUDGET, #AB89-143 Actions taken by the City during the first months of 1989, together with circumstances not foreseen at the time of preparation of the budget, require certain additions and corrections in order that the budget continues to accurately reflect the financial operating plan of the City. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated there are a number of budget adjustments that have been approved to date by the Fiscal and Budget Committee, most of the significant ones have also been before Council seeking approval of the related actions. He noted none of the adjustment constitute any fundamental change to the budget as originally adopted but rather reflect relative minor unforeseen circumstances that were not anticipated at the time of budget adoption. The actions included are: (1) bringing forward the retro fit of the swimming pool HVAC project; (2) movement of Ron Hough from Planning Department to Mayor's Department in order to coordinate annexation; (3) the Flagship contract with the City; (4) distribution of the Manager's merit pay; (5) movement of a portion of Kitsap Lake Park project from 1988 to 1989 budget; (6) replacement of several Fire Department vehicles; (7) transfer of ending fund balances in Community Development Block Grant Fund to reflect the actual rather than projected ending cash balances; (8) replacement of a vehicle lost due to accident by the Building Department. M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Horton) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, amending Ordinance #4181 relating to the budget of the City of Bremerton for fiscal year 1989. 7B - ORDINANCE #4211 (SECOND READING) RELATING TO PARKING CONTROL, #AB89-133 Mrs. Horton stated Council approved first reading with amendments to remove restrictions on "parking" strip parking. Upon further clarification of Council intent, planting strips have been isolated from sidewalks which, until now, have both been included in Bremerton's definition of "parking" strips (BMC 10.09). With changes to Section 1, 2, 5, 7 and 9 of the ordinance on second reading, there will be .no parking on sidewalks but with continued parking on planting strips. Note the MTO definition of planting strips has been modified to allow parking on shoulders adjacent to the roadway where no curb has been constructed. Members of the Parking Committee raised concerns about sidewalk definitions. We have already adopted a definition which is legally adequate. Mrs. Horton stated during the first reading of the ordinance what was #2967 TAPE #641 TAPE #640 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 8 of 12 requested was to remove any reference of "parking strip" from this ordinance because the Parking Committee plans to bring back a composite package with Parking Advisory Board and parking on Planing strips. Now, she requested that Section 5 be totally removed from the Ordinance and the Parking Committee will come back with a package deal at a little later date. Andrew Parypa, 1122 Hayward, stated he had researched several definitions that Council had requested and provided the following: what is meant by parking next to curb within 12 inches...RCW 46.61,575 defines this stating: wheels must be parallel to the curb within 12 inches. Mr. Parypa handed out a list of definitions gathered through his research effort. Mr. Parypa also provided the Council a copy of a newspaper article dated 21+ years ago which speaks to the same issue regarding parking that is being discussed this date. He urged the City Council to approve the Parking Ordinance as presented. Mr. Collins questioned the meaning of Section 6.020 -Free Parking By Disabled Person? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated this is exactly stated as it is in State law except for one clarification which has been added and which he believes should have been included in State Law: "people with a Handicap Decal can park without regard for time limitations except as provided in RCW 46.90,103; and that is the provision that relates to abandoned vehicles over 72 hours. He feels that regardless of the decal if left that long it should be subject to tow for an abandoned vehicle. Mr. Collins questioned, under Section C, if a Guest Permit would come under this section? Mrs. Horton noted a Visitor Permit is a guest permit and is different than a Parking Permit. Mr. Collins questioned, under Section D, why should it be unlawful to manufacture counterfeit tokens as long as they are not used? Mr. Sievers stated it is desired to cite people at every stage. Mr. Collins questioned, under Section F Unauthorized Handicapped Parking, why can City Police personnel come on private property and cite someone who is parked in Reserved Handicap Parking without a Handicap Decal? Mr. Sievers stated there are a number of State WACs under the Human Rights Commission Laws and Building Code where commercial buildings are required to install and reserve these stalls for handicapped individuals - this would be a meaningless regulations if there were no enforcement powers. For this reason, even if the owner may not complain, law enforcement officers can enforce customer usage on private lots. Mr. Crutcher questioned if parking on sidewalks would now be included in the ordinance? Mr. Sievers explained yes, if Section 5 is removed that leaves the chapter in the current ordinance which defines a parking strip including sidewalk area. Mr. Crutcher expressed concern over a number of areas where the shoulder of the street runs up the sidewalk and then people park on it - if this is no longer allowed, the citizens need to be advised so they don't get in trouble. Mr. Sievers again pointed out the problem if Section 5 is removed ...it begins with a repealer of the current chapter but if all of Chapter 5 is removed the repealer is gone as well and that leaves the current Chapter which defines our parking strip including sidewalk areas and states that parking is allowed on them. M/S/C/U(Horton/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance #4211, on second reading with the exclusion of Section 5. 7C - ORDINANCE #4212 (SECOND READING) ANNEXING 17.5 ACRES KNOWNAS #0140 TAPE #641 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 9 of 12 THE LILAC LANE ANNEXATION IN THE VICINITY OF LILAC LANE AND HARLOW DRIVE INTO THE CITY OF BREMERTON, REZONING SAID PROPERTYTO SINGLE- FAMILY (SF-2) AND FIXING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANNEXATION #AB89- 139 President Horninu asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated except Councilman Morrie Dawkins. M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Collins) to pass Ordinance #4212, on second reading, annexing approximately 17.5 acres known as the Lilac Lane Annexation in the vicinity of Lilac Lane and Harlow Drive into the City of Bremerton, rezoning said property to Single-family (Sf-2), and fixing the effective date of annexation. Councilman Morrie Dawkins returned to the meeting. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - SYLVAN WAY BAPTIST CHURCH ZONING REVIEW - TO A ZONING REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ZONING OF A SINGLE LOT OWNED BY THE CHURCH IN EAST BREMERTON, #AB89-144. Upon adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, the City council established a "Corrections Of Errors" process to find and correct errors in the text of the Ordinance and in the application of zoning to specific properties or areas. The Baptist Church requested a review of the subject property to determine whether the SF-3 zoning was applied correctly, or whether it should have been included in the adjacent SC (Shopping Center) zone. The Zoning Review Committee conducted a review of this property at its April 25, 1989 meeting. The Committee's conclusions and recommendation are being forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and final decision. President Horninu asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ron Hough, Planning, provided a view graph of the subject property, noting it is located north of Sylvan Way and west of Wheaton Way and is south of Pearl Street. Sylvan Way Baptist Church is a major complex on approximately seven acres, not including the subject parcel, which will be referred to as Lot #1. Access to the church property is from Sylvan Way, with pedestrian access also available to a portion of the property used for a "tot lot" (playground) on Pearl Street. Lot #1 was zoned B-3 (Business) under the previous zoning and the site is also along the western edge of the Wheaton Way "Commercial" designation on the City's Comprehensive Plan. When the new Zoning Map was adopted the zoning of Lot #1 was changed and the lot was included in the Single-family (SF-3) zone along with the rest of the church complex. Lot #1 is a flat undeveloped plateau that is used for outdoor sports and games. Access to the lot is through the church property from Sylvan Way and parking is also on church property. The eastern edge of the site slopes steeply upward an estimated ten to twenty feet to the rear of the shopping center to the east. There is a barrier of trees and vines along that bank that discourages access between the two properties. There is also a thick growth of vegetation (mostly blackberries) separating the site from Pearl Street to the north. The site is open to the west and south. The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan designates a large area northwest of the intersection of Sylvan Way and Wheaton Way "Commercial" That area is now the site of a shopping center that includes Pay- N-Save, Safeway and Ernst as the major tenants. Lands to the west of the commercial area, including the church complex, are TAPE #641 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 10 of 12 designated "Residential 7-15 Units Per Acre" Lot #1 is presently zoned Single-family Residential (Sf-3) along with other adjacent church properties. The shopping center to the east is zoned "Shopping Center (SC)" Prior to adoption of the City's new Zoning Map in 1988, Lot #1 was included in the business (B-3) zoning district with the shopping center but was not developed or used for a commercial purpose and was not included as part of the shopping center. It is likely that the SF-3 zoning was the observations during the preparation of the including the following: result of several new Zoning Map, ...The lot was in a recreational use and clearly not used for any commercial purpose. ...The shopping completed. No anticipated. center had been developed and appeared to be further westward expansion was proposed or ...Lot #1 had no access other than through the church property. ...The topographical features of the site and vegetative barriers to the north and east gave Lot #1 a clear relationship to the church and not to the shopping center. The SF-3 zoning is consistent with the zoning of the residential neighborhood and the church complex. This zone is appropriate for a recreational facility or for a vacant lot in this location. In either case, the SF-3 zoning is consistent with the present use of the site. Based on the criteria on which this review was conducted, it is the conclusion of the Zoning Review Committee that an error in the zoning of Lot #1 did not occur and that the residential (SF-3) zoning was applied correctly. The owners of the shopping center may wish to purchase and develop this lot for commercial expansion. However, there are apparently no such plans or commitments at this time. To zone this property for shopping center use in advance of any actual need could prove premature and lead to other land use problems. Since this site is not clearly a "commercial" site, the more appropriate procedure would be for the owner to request the rezone of the property when a commitment of some sort is made to purchase and develop the site. A specific development proposal would allow the City to better assess the impacts and to apply any conditions of approval that might be necessary to ensure minimal adverse impacts. The Review Committee's recommends NO CHANGE to be made to the City's Zoning Map for the following reasons: 1. The present use of the property is primarily for outdoor recreation and is not commercial. 2. The site appears to be physically oriented toward and related to the church complex, of which it is currently a part. That complex is appropriately zoned SF-3. 3. Lot #1 has no direct access to a public street. Access is currently gained through the church property to Sylvan Way. If the shopping center didn't use the property for its future expansion, the commercial zoning would permit other types of commercial uses on the property, some of which may not be appropriate for that location. TAPE #641 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 11 of 12 4. Commercial zoning of this lot would allow further commercial encroachment into this neighborhood and possibly add commercial traffic to Pearl Street, which is narrow, steep, and not a commercial thoroughfare. Harold Wischhoefer, representing Sylvan Way Baptist Church, stated the church had been approached by a developer interested in a section of the subject property, however, no firm offer has been received. He noted the church would be in favor of selling off this portion as it is less usable for the church's needs and would be more easily used by the shopping center. Some indication has been given the shopping center desires to expand - Safeway Store - and if they are unable to at the currently location they may be looking to relocate in order to develop a Super Safeway size facility, which may take it outside the City limits. The reason the reconsideration of zoning was requested was due to the ending of the correction review process and they did want an opportunity for a review. The Church is tax exempt on the subject property and if it was sold it would then be placed back on the tax rolls. Prior to its becoming tax exempt, the assessed value was $210,000 and the church had to pay taxes on that amount. Mr. Wischhoefer stated if the property remains under the ownership of the church they having nothing against the SF-3 zoning designation. Mr. Overson stated the presentation made by staff was complete and accurate of the review given by the Committee. The consideration as to whether or not an error was made and based on the understanding the subject property was owned by the church, made it reasonable to support the SF-3 zoning designation. Plus, nothing has essentially changed or had changed in the interim of creation of the Zoning Ordinance to cause anyone to feel that an error had been made. Mr. Collins suggested possibly straightening the north/south property line, making it Shopping Center (SC) designation, thereby making it a nice straight block. If left as SF-3 there is no way anyone can build a residence on it or use as a residential area. He did not feel the previous zoning was appropriate in that it went over into the church property. And, he felt it was appropriate to "square up" the property line. Mr. Overson stated zoning is not based on lines and topography of a lot, it is based on use. Currently the subject property is used as an open lot to support a church function - not a commercial application. If another organization desires to procure that property and turn it into a commercial venture, then they should have it zoned appropriately. Mr. Crutcher noted he supported Mr. Collins suggestion and felt it would be more beneficial to the City. Mrs. Horton stated she felt the Zoning Review Committee's recommendation was appropriate and if a change in zone is desired then the church and/or developer should go through the normal rezone process. Mr. Dawkins pointed out that there are several businesses in the same general area of the lot off of Sylvan Way and felt it would be appropriate to include Lot I in the Shopping Center (SC) designation.Mr. Hough stated if it was included in the General Business zone, which is to the south, the only access is off Sylvan Way and through the church property...the use could be just about anything under the General Business Zone from an auto mechanic shop to a retail store. If it is included in the Shopping Center Zone, shopping center development requires a PUD so it would have to #0792 TAPE #641 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 24, 1989 Page 12 of 12 become a part of the shopping center. If the shopping center was not interested in subject property, it probably couldn't be developed on its own due to the lack of access from either Sylvan Way or Pearl Street. President Horninu stated he felt that initially Lot #1 should have been included in the Shopping Center (SC) designation, however, there is no direct access from the shopping center to the lot. Considering the information provided, he encouraged a rezone be considered and felt it would pass if it were tied to either General Business (GB) or Shopping Center (SC). M/S/C(Overson/Horton) that Council concur with conclusions presented by the Errors And Corrections Review Committee that an error in zoning was not made and a change of the Zoning Map is not justified. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Overson, Horton, Dawkins, Horning, Crutcher, Collins With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK APPR D NCER HO~I cil e cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault President