Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/89TAPE #690 1989 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 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, September 6, 1989 at 5:30 p.m. with Council President Spencer Horning presiding. Council members present were Lon Overson, Shirley Marty Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Hank Waibel, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, A1 Colvin, and Russ Johnson. 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 the Invocation was given by Rev. Mike Grimshaw of the Church of the Nazarene. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting Held - August 23, 1989. AB89-246 B. Bid Award Recommendation - Prepare and Fill Sand Bunkers at Gold Mountain Golf Course. AB89-247 M/S/C/U (Waibel/Crutcher) presented. to approve the Consent Agenda as 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 (Colvin/Horton) on September 6, 1989, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: warrants #45454 - #45550 in the total amount of $191,978.00, Payroll Register for period 8/16/89 - 8/31/89 in the total amount of $386,972.78, and Retirees Payroll Register in total amount of $50,373.53. COUNCIL MEMBERS REPORTS Mr. Overson stated while in Jackson Hole, WY, recently he discovered that City recognizing the value of parking has created a small visiter center with a large parking area for various size and type vehicles and free parking. He feels it is a progressive move and that Bremerton should follow this lead. Mr. Overson attended the Fiscal & Budget meeting Tuesday evening that was very interesting and Council will see the results of that next week when they discuss many funding issues. Mr. Crutcher attended a very good Operations Committee meeting this afternoon. Ms. Horton stated next Monday at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers there will be a public meeting on the City's housing rehab and at this time there are public monies that are available for housing rehab as well as home owners loans and also limited amount of money for refurbishing rental units. If anyone needs information but can not attend the meeting call the Block Grant office. Mr. Waibel attended the Kitsap County Board of Health meeting this morning and stated people should be aware there are 28 cases of active AIDS in this county. He stated in this county the count of AIDS has increased from 10 in 1988 to 28 currently. Mr. Collins stated his desire for Mayor Lobe to recognize a City employee, Carol Dickinson. He stated the Block Grant Coordinator has accomplished something that needed to be done for years. She developed a plan, a way of implementing it, and each Council Member received a complete copy of how people can get Block Grants, what has to be done and what they need to know. Mr. Collins felt it is Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 2 one of the finest write ups he has seen in a long time and requested Mayor to commend Ms Dickinson and to extend his thanks to her. Mr. Dawkins he concurred with Mr. Collins' statements. Mr. Colvin also agreed with Mr. Collins. Mr. Colvin stated he studied the preliminary transportation plans and the plans reveal that tourism is a vital component to the state's economy. It's the fourth largest industry in the state providing $4 billion annually with the annual revenue expecting to increase by several hundred million dollars each year. He stated he is pleased that Bremerton is getting into the position to take advantage of some of that revenue. Mr. Colvin congratulated the Mayoral candidates for their presentation on Channel 29 Tuesday evening. He reminded everyone the operators of Channel 29 are volunteers and felt they should be shown the appreciation they deserve. He also congratulated those ferry riders who are circulating petitions and getting many signatures and going to Everett to discuss this same issue. Mr. Colvin stated Tuesday, September 19 is the first fall NARC meeting. He stated there are many issues pertaining to senior citizens'and retirees and suggested they attend this meeting if possible. Mr. Colvin stated the demise of Bremerton did not start with this administration or even with this form of government, it's been going on for 20 years and to blame this administration is not accurate. Mr. Johnson stated sometime ago the computer system was installed in the Council offices as a remote bulletin board for citizens to use. There was an article in the paper which was picked up by AWC and then picked up by the International Association of Municipal Clerks. As a result this system is now being installed in cities throughout the U. S. and other countries. He stated the hardware problem earlier in the summer has been fixed and the interns are improving the menus. Mr. Johnson stated Friday a trip to Portland is scheduled to take a look at some of the recycling efforts being made with regard to plastics. They will be hearing speakers on recycling and visiting two places that perform different types of plastic recycling and learning about the pilot project by MacDonald's who have developed containers and are finding the public is willing to separate for recycling right at the source. Mr. Johnson stated there has been no response on the application for National Cemetery. They are anticipating a response in early fall. There has also been no response on the Solid Waste Grants. Originally a decision was to be made by August 24th, however, the City did hear it would be some time before a decision is made. Mr. Johnson felt Tuesday evening's forum was excellent and feels Channel 29 is a wonderful asset for the City and those individuals who are unable to attend forums and meetings. Mr. Johnson discussed lower NAD Park and barrier placement by the Parks Department in an attempt to control nighttime and weekend activities. He stated even with the barriers people are going in their 4 x 4's and trail bikers and ripping out the barriers or just driving over them. He stated Ms. Ohlde, Parks Director, is working with Chief McNeal and the Chief of Jackson Park patrols. He stated the Parks budget is not large enough to put $5,000 into barriers only to have them ripped out. Mr. Horning stated the forum of the previous evening was very good. He felt the questioners and questions from the public were representative of the issues that are at the forefront of this campaign. He stated the camera crews did a wonderful job. Regarding the petition drive, Mr. Horning stated Mayor Alice Tawresey of Winslow and a group of county and Bainbridge Island individuals are riding the commuter runs getting petitions signed asking for the return of the foot ferries to Bremerton and Vashon. Minutes City Council Meeting September 6. 1989 Page 3 They believe the ferry system will stay together or fall together and expressed his appreciation for that effort coming from the north end; Bainbridge Island, Commissioner Horsley and particularly Mayor Tawresey. Mr. Horning stated the State Carpenters are meeting in Spokane today and they had asked for 1,000 petitions. They see this as a jobs issue with people working in Bremerton, Seattle, Vashon; a tourism issue; a State issue. Mr. Horning stated he has been asked to speak to the State Labor Council at Convention on September 20th regarding the foot ferries and will be taking petitions there. He felt this is now a State issue and not just a Bremerton issue. Mr. Horning stated he attended the three meetings of Council of Governments; Transit, Board of Health and Kitsap Sub-regional. He stated there were lively discussions, no major decisions made but a great deal of business conducted. Mr. Horning stated at a previous meeting of PSG, Kitsap County was described as getting along and having common goals. He stated this is a testimony to the people of Kitsap County and he is pleased to be a part of it. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Andrew Parypa, 1123 Hayward, stated this administration did not start the demise of Bremerton, but this administration has not done much to help straighten out the situation of this City. He stated every 3-day holiday for the past 1-1/2 years, there's a dumpster on the east end of the Manette Bridge which is overflowing down onto the streets. Mr. Parypa expressed opinion there is a BMC that states if one pickup a week is not sufficient Brem-Air will pickup more than one time a week. He expressed opinion that in the City Charter this administration will fulfill the laws passed by this Council. Mr. Parypa stated across the street from city hall are two dumpsters. He discussed problems with lack of parking in downtown stating if a person is over parked for a few seconds s/he receives a parking ticket. He stated these dumpster take up a parking space. Two weeks ago he talked with Capt. Hatfield and was assured the dumpsters would no longer be sitting in the street but they are still there. Mr. Parypa stated this is not within Title 21 of the BMC. It states only self-propelled vehicles less than 6,000 pounds will be parked on city streets. He also stated according to city staff dumpsters on city streets must be under an insurance bond and must have a permit from the Engineering Department. Mr. Parypa inquired if the City has issued Lou Weir a permit? He also asked if City officials cannot see when a law is being broken? Mr. Horning asked the Clerk to look into this and report back at next week's meeting. Ruth Davie, 1511 Park Ave. submitted a petition with approximately 60 signatures and discussed problems in her neighborhood with sewer backup, especially during heavy rains. Ms. Davie contends the City did not receive a complete sewer system. She discussed a current suit against the City and stated because of sewer problems property is being devalued, new home owners are ready to move, due to traffic, rock houses as well as the stench from the sewer. Ms. Davie stated if City officials are serious about claims to improve the City they need to do something for the residents who live in the City's center. She stated they are paying high sewer bills but getting nothing in return. Mr. Horning asked Ms. McCluskey to look into this and stated Mr. Duffy is aware of some of what Ms. Davie has stated. Glenn Jarstad, 2823 Hefner Ave, stated after reading anti feelings on annexations he recalled that one of the main persons complaining of 80% annexation is because she wants a cow, although the City has installed a drain line, sewer line and water to the property. Annexations are always troubling when there are adverse groups that are expecting a geographical look, Bremerton has given them streets services, parks and recreation services, emergencies services. Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 4 Bremerton is the center of the County with all vehicles in the County using our streets and Mr. Jarstad gets tired of hearing people from outlying areas say how terrible Bremerton is. The City owns more fee title property as a City than any City on the west coast and Mr. Jarstad feels Council is doing a good job of managing that. He feels Bremerton is a wealthy City. He stated a problem is the Federal government the City has supported who doesn't pay anything in taxes so the City has to carry the full burden. Mr. Jarstad stated in The Sun's recent article on annexation they didn't give credit for the fine job that has been done in a City that supplies the largest Federal establishment and stated he is proud of the job Bremerton has done over the years. He stated the Parks Department beautification jobs this year look nice. Mr. Jarstad discussed the recent street improvements and stated there have to be street closures when this type work is being done. Mr. Jarstad discussed problems with groups and agencies when annexation attempts are under way. He stated in the past the City has received no help from the State legislature and now there is no help from the Boundary Review Board. He finds it hard to believe when 80% want to come into the City the press gives print to those who don't want to join. He stated they use City facilities and wondered if he pays enough taxes as a City resident to the County to support the Sheriff's department. Mr. Jarstad stated his hope that Council does not relax on their annexation procedures and feels there are many people that would like to receive City services. CO~CT APPROVAL TEMPORARY PLANNER/INTERN CONTRACT AB89-248 When Ron Hough, Planning Manager, was assigned to Annexation, a temporary planner was hired to fill the staff void in the Planning Program. The temporary planner has resigned to take a permanent position with the City of Poulsbo. A planning intern has been selected to fill the staff void. The intern works through the Center for Environmental Intern Programs and is supplied to the City through a contractual relationship with the Center. Council approval is required for the Mayor to sign the contract. Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated the Planning Department is looking to replace a planner assigned to current planning. Funds are in the budget. This is not a new position; as they will be replacing an individual. Mr. Pratt stated they are before Council as they are not going to replace on a full-time basis due to budget uncertainties. The contract with the agency will assign the individual with the City. Mr. Pratt stated the agenda bill is in error and is requesting an amendment to the contract allowing the contract to run through December 31st. Originally they were going to have a payroll position and payroll goes through the 15th, but on a contract the City can keep a person through the 31st. M/S/C/U (Crutcher/Collins) to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with CEIP amended to read "through December 31, 1989". Mr. Collins stated on page 21, duties of EIP under 3b - "per week on a bi-weekly basis for 14.8 weeks". The additional days should raise that to 15.3. Discussion followed regarding the dollar amount. Mr. Pratt stated there is no need to change the dollars. The individual is not able to join the City on a timely basis. ORDINANCE (1ST READING) CORRECTING ERRORS ON ZONING MAP BETWEEN CAMBRIAN AND SUMMIT IN VICINITY OF PREBLE ST (KASSAHN/FORDAHL ZONING REVIEW) AB89-249 Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated Items 7A and 7B are ordinances that follow public hearings on two zoning error corrections. Mr. Hough stated he had no further comments but is available for questions. Mr. Waibel stated he reviewed the ordinance and it does reflect the motion made at the public hearing on August 23, 1989. Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 5 questions. Mr. Waibel stated he reviewed the ordinance and it does reflect the motion made at the public hearing on August 23, 1989. M/S/C/U (Waibel/Collins) to approve on first reading An Ordinance changing certain zoning district designations and amending the official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton to correct zoning errors in an area between Cambrian and Summit Avenues in the vicinity of Preble Street. Kassahn/Fordahl Zoning Review) ORDINANCE (1ST READING) CORRECTING ERRORS ON ZONING MAP FOR NINE LOTS WITHIN THE COMMERCIALDISTRICT NORTH OF KITSAPLAKE (NESBY/RAY ZONING REVIEW) AB89-250 M/S/C/U (Collins/Waibel) that there was no error made in the original zoning of neighborhood business. Mr. Waibel stated this is an ordinance covering two hearings, one did correct part of the area and the other was left as not being in error. Mr. Collins stated that was the intent of his motion. Mr. Johnson stated for clarification, Council is fixing the north side of the street to be general business and leaving the south side. Mr. Hough stated the triangle is going to remain neighborhood business so there is no change there. ORDINANCE #4233 - FLOOD PLAIN PROGI~[ AB89-243 M/S/C/U (Crutcher/Colvin) to pass on second reading An Ordinance Amending Sections .250, 310, and .330 of Chapter 17.60 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. RESOLUTION #2265 - PROPOSAL FORADVISORY BALLOT CONCERNING SALE OF ROOSEVELT FIELD TO OLYMPIC COLLEGE AB89-251 City Council is requested to direct the City Clerk to coordinate with the Kitsap County Auditor to place on the November 7, 1989, General Election Ballot an advisory question relating to the proposed sale of Roosevelt Field. Submittal deadline to the County Auditor is no later than September 22, 1989. Ballot language should read "Should Roosevelt Field be sold to provide additional parking for Olympic College if the $465,000.00 sale proceeds are used to pay for the initial phase of a proposed $1,183,859.00 sports complex to be located at Werner Road, Bremerton, Washington". Roy McGinnis, stated "I'm surprised, or rather, shocked, that Council is discussing this item in this manner". Mr. McGinnis stated his disbelief that Bremerton residents selected these members of Council to be their representatives in matters concerning the City and yet he is hearing that the City is willing to give a piece of choice property away. Mr. McGinnis stated he has listened to people from the City and County during the entire issue and he is not speaking to whether the City should get rid of or keep Roosevelt Field, but from the stand point that Bremerton has gotten so rich they can give away a piece of property in the heart of the City. He stated his disbelief that Council accepted the challenge from the Mayor to put this proposal before the people. He discussed talk of people being against education and not wanting to help Olympic College and felt there is no one who doesn't want to see O.C. prosper and grow, but stated once this property is sold to the college it becomes State property. Mr. McGinnis has talked with people concerning this issue and most people are wholly against the sale. He supports putting this on the ballot and once the people turn it down hopes this matter can be put to rest. Dusty Rhodes, 2513 Reid Ave, stated his first thought when he saw this on the agenda was, here we go again. He stated this resolution is the first real effort made by Council. He stated his understanding this has to be in the Auditor's office by September 22nd to be on the November ballot, but wonders what use was it for Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 6 the BACON meeting of 9 members from different community districts to let the Parks Board know how the neighborhoods felt about Roosevelt Field. They are still holding this in obeyance as they have not come to a conclusion which will be on September 19th. Mr. Rhodes stated the Parks Board should be fully apprised by now of the wishes of the people to keep this open space and recreation area. Mr. Rhodes expressed opinion that Council knows this resolution is to find out how the people feel, its validity is questionable and simply has no power. He inquired if it means if it turns out the way Council wants it will be accepted and if not Council will not accept it? He stated the real crux is that only a few Council members have made a commitment so far. Mr. Rhodes stated the definition of advisory is recommend, notify, inform, concern, counsel, suggest, direct. He inquired which of these is Council seeking? He wondered what good was public input, what good has it been for asking the legal aspect and assign tasks to the Parks Board and Planning Commission if this is going to take place before the hearings are heard from them? He stated total cost of the sports complex should be stated on the ballot if this version of the measure is used. He stated there is too much in one measure, make it simple, tell the people the complex is in three stages for a total cost of $3,136,448 estimated at this time. If this measure for the sale of Roosevelt Field is to make a down payment on a complex, are the people going to be liable for the balance of $1,952,5817 If the City sells Roosevelt Field and cannot complete the complex and the money is gone, who's going to accept the responsibility, will that be someone who is out of office? Mr. Rhodes stated municipal bonds have to be paid back and they are not available at the present time. He is not against the college or the complex; he maintain it is Council members who cannot make up their minds. He asked why are the only three members running for office sponsoring this measure? Mr. Rhodes submitted a petition with 150 signatures of citizens who want to keep Roosevelt Field. Wallace Simpson, President of Olympic College, read a letter to Council members, "as you deliberate about the impending decision to support the Mayor's proposal to solve two pressing needs, additional, affordable parking for the people who attend Olympic College and give the City enough money to fund the core of a new athletic complex, I urge that you make that decision. We at Olympic College look to the Bremerton City Council as the decision making body, your willingness to hear public testimony in two open meetings is commendable and urge Council now to exercise your best judgement. Very soon the academic year begins at Olympic College and residents will be returning in increasing numbers. Our need to offer them the assessability of an education depends to a large measure on parking availability." Mike Connolly, Dean of Business Services at Olympic College, stated approximately a month ago Council was reminded they have a policy for the surplus of property and Council is following that policy. He stated that policy does not call for advisory votes. He asked Council to make a decision one way or the other following the policy Council adopted. Elizabeth Buell, 1722 High, stated other cities are looking for open spaces to buy for parks and recreation and Bremerton is thinking of selling Roosevelt Field, which has been there a long time and used a great deal. She stated she is not against the sport complex, but does not believe the City should sell that open space at this time. Mrs. Buell inquired since Olympic College students are parking there now why can't they lease? Del Kanuss, 139 Olympic, stated as Council members they were elected to represent the people of Bremerton and their views. He Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 7 stated some Council members have stated they have no or very little opposition to selling Roosevelt Field in their districts. As a result he spent five hours canvasing District #6 covering approximately 5-1/2 blocks and obtained 92 signatures opposing the sale and this included most residents on Council member Horton's block. Mr. Kanuss stated he feels he could easily have obtained 80% signatures opposing the sale just in District #6 and feels he could do the same in every district. Mr. Kanuss stated the residents have spoken, they do not want to sell Roosevelt Field. He suggested Council members canvas their districts instead of assigning this to committees; Council will find most people oppose the sale for any reason. Mr. Kanuss stated it's the citizens of Bremerton who own the park and felt the people have the right to vote on the issue. He submitted the petition with 92 signatures. Mr. Kanuss stated they would canvas all districts if necessary. Andrew Parypa, stated it is true, Council was elected to make decisions for the City, and discussed Mr. Zellinsky's statement during the Tuesday evening forum that Council should make their own decision, why then does Mr. Zellinsky send out 3 or 4 questionnaires a year inquiring how people feel on certain issues? He stated he told Ms. Horton the people do not want to sell and believes she found that out tonight. Mr. Parypa stated Bremerton is divided by this issue and if Council feels their constituents feel they should sell, what is holding them back from voting this on the November ballot? He advised them to find out how people in their districts feel. Mr. Parypa stated they can still vote it down November 11, as this is an advisory ballot. He stated there is no disgrace in asking for advise from constituents. Mr. Parypa expressed opinion there is no urgency, Olympic College has survived for years with 284 parking spaces at $3,000 a year and feels they can last through November. He stated there is plenty of time as the money doesn't have to be spent right away. He felt if a percentage of people want to sell, then sell, but if they don't then listen to the people. He advised Council not to listen to people from other areas. Mr. Parypa stated it would be a disgrace not to listen to the people. Glenn Jarstad, stated the worst learning environment in the State is Olympic College. He discussed dilapidated buildings 50 yards from O.C. and questioned how anyone in a State agency doesn't look to a plan and eliminate some of the buildings around Olympic College and make it a spot light of downtown Bremerton. He stated the $465,000, which would be challenged by appraisal figures, seems to be upper most in peoples minds, in the long range that money means nothing. He suggested a way to kick off the complex and sell G.O. Bonds the City could probably raise the yearly redemption on those for the first three years, so would have no effect on the budget until the City starts getting money from the complex. Mr. Jarstad stated he doesn't believe anyone should have free parking and if the City would put in a parking committee and sell Revenue Bonds on a low weekly fee to students, the City could move to take down some of those old homes, with a long range goal that when the Bonds are retired they could have practically free parking. But for the State to offer a token fee for 7 acres, when in the national surveys the highest priority is open space in heavily impacted residential areas, is a serious concern of the people. He stated if anything goes on the ballot, don't mix in funding for the sports complex, you have to get that money from the State, he expressed opinion the State has the money, and clean up those residences around the college. He feels it is an insult to the people in education that if they take over Roosevelt Field they have done nothing to eliminate those run down homes. Mr. Jarstad feels Bremerton should be a partner with them. He stated if Council puts this on the ballot make if simple, do citizens want to sell to O. C. That will be rejected by 80% and discussed Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 8 expanding the open space around the college by getting rid of the eye sores and the college's need to grow, and also discussed vacating streets around the college. He discussed the long term consideration of where will the college be in 15 years. He stated the City can raise the money for the complex if the people want it. It is a money generator as motels and restaurants are full when there are tournaments and those organizations will support that. Paul Schmidt, Manette resident, stated he owns rental property close to Roosevelt Field and when he advertises he says they are close to parks. He discussed an article in a Seattle paper where a developer was fined $225,000 because his building shaded one part of a park from sunshine for two months of the year. Mr. Schmidt stated some people around the college have put off making improvements to their homes because they thought the college would some day purchase their homes. There is a lot of property around the college for sale and feels Olympic College should purchase that property to solve their parking problem. He stated people affected by selling or not selling Roosevelt Field should make the decision. He urged Council to let the people make that decision. Gene Lobe, Mayor, thanked Council for again holding another hearing on Roosevelt Field. He reminded Council that when they made their last decision they told the Planning Commission, Parks Board and City staff to work on coming back with recommendations from the public. He stated Council has now brought back another issue, should they do this or go to the ballot. If they go to a ballot, there is a question if the Planning Commission and Parks Board can go forward with any kind of recommendation. It seems that would be in violation of what was set up here and Council not following its own rules. Mr. Lobe stated Council is changing rules. He stated what is the next decision Council won;'t be able to make? When it comes to the budget and they may have to lay off some employees, is Council going to say lets put it on the ballot and ask the people to decide if the City should lay off those employees? He acknowledged there are tough decision Council has to make, and stated they were elected to make those tough decisions. When Council is informed they are supposed to make decisions. Mr. Lobe stated Council held two public hearings and hope they will make the right decision tonight. Clint Schinkel, downtown businessman, stated he has heard some people say there have been insults to people of Bremerton and heard it said people are not stupid, heard promises of 7 or 8 years looking ahead, heard of support from the college. Mr. Schinkel stated he looks at this from the aspect that when looking around Bremerton, there is a lack of vision, he sees a City struggling to come back and sees Olympic College as one of the corner stones of rebuilding the City. What has gone on for 20 years has lead to the decay and deterioration. Council, elected by the people, are expected to look ahead and have some vision, expected to separate themselves from the emotion of the issue and try to do what is best for the City over the long term. He stated the City can wait 10 or 20 more years, but suggested the decaying would be incredible. Mr. Schinkel expressed opinion it is time for Council to look at this in a rational manner and do what is best for the community and support Olympic College in that endeavor. Hank Clark, 129 Sheridan Road, stated after hearing testimony so far, he feels there are wrong impressions. This issue is not a new one and he felt the people voiced their opinion clearly the last time. He stated he would like to believe Council polled their constituents as his Councilman did and it was clearly opposed to the sale of Roosevelt Field. He stated if Council has not polled their people how can they know what the people want? He stated they should put this to a vote of the people. Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 9 E. L. Sturdivant, 3231 Halvorsen, stated his belief that approximately 95% of those speaking on this issue are not residents of the City. Mr. Sturdivant believes that if Roosevelt Field is retained by the City, Olympic College will be better of for it, after they have used the other alternatives. He felt putting it on the ballot for the people to vote on is the right thing to do. He stated it is an advisory ballot and if the vote is close than possibly sell, if way out of balance against the measure than he feels Council should listen to the people. Mr. Sturdivant inquired what is wrong with being emotional? People are upset when the ferry terminal is closed and when one ferry is out of service, but no one talks about that as being emotional. He stated he is a professional in the recreation field and has not heard one person in that field say sell, not even the Parks Department has said sell. Mr. Sturdivant discussed the lack of recreation and physical education facilities if Roosevelt Field is sold. He felt the people should have a say and reminded Council national senators and congressmen poll their constituents to see how they feel about issues. He concluded when Council find out how the people feel the hard vote become the easy vote. Ruth Davie, inquired how much has the City made off the golf course and also inquired how much will they make from the sports complex? Ms. Davie expressed opinion that education had to do with the worth of the educational product, she feels the teachers and quality of education matter and all she is hearing is parking for students. She stated they are making the City into a giant parking lot. Ms. Davie stated Council is not here to make decisions for the people but to carry out the people's wishes. She stated the people have a perspective on this and they have a right to input in this issue. Ms. Davie stated this issue was brought to the people before and it was voted down. They are taking away from the center of the town when they sell open space making is easy for people to pass through town but not to live in the town's center. Ms. Davie stated the people have a right to vote on this issue. Ms. MsCluskey read a letter from Ralph and Betty Fuchs, 2519 Reid Ave, opposing the sale of Roosevelt Field and stating whether to sell of not to sell should be put to a vote of the people and should not be tied to a sports complex or parking for Olympic College. Those individuals speaking a second time were: Mr. Kanuss, Mr. Jarstad, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Parypa and Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes asked if the other two articles in the resolution can be read? Mr. Waibel stated one resolution ballot description was read which talks about the sale of Roosevelt Field and the sports complex. As an alternative they are separated into two separate issues. Mr. Waibel read the two alternative measures: "Should Roosevelt Field be sold to provide additional parking for Olympic College?" and "Should the City pursue the development of a sports complex?" Mr. Waibel stated the majority of tonight's discussion has not been if there should be a ballot issue but how people hope the ballot measure will turn out. His intent of putting this on the ballot is 1) they have been told by many people that they represent the people, Council has received petitions and letters and he feels a ballot measure is the only way to determine what are the wishes of the people; 2) Based on the Planning Commission and Parks Board, Mr. Waibel feels they can have a very informed electorate. The information from those two sources available to the people prior to the general election would allow the people to make an informed decision and inform Council very clearly what their wishes are. He has been a Council member for four years and there have been tough decision to make. He stated he is not afraid to make a decision but wants to make an informed decision based on an informed ballot. Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 10 Mr. Crutcher, stated the City's population is approximately 36,000, there are approximately 13,000 registered voters and less than 50% of the registered voters turn out at the polls. That means 6 or 7 thousand voting, less than 15% and concluded it is impossible to get a vote from the people on this issue. Mr. Collins stated during Mayor Jarstad's time in office the City sold or vacated a street parallel to the water to Brem Estate for use in their parking. Ten years later that street now becomes instrumental in a plan for the waterfront. Using $10 per sq. ft. and using the normal formula for future cost of money, that piece of property is now going to cost the City $22.99 per sq. ft. Mr. Collins stated the property of the City is the only asset the people of the City have. He stated he is in favor of the use of property at a cost, but when the people relinquish ownership what is going to happen to posterity? What about 20, 30 or more years from now, what will there be? He wondered if the City will have sold or given away every square foot of property the City can get a dollar out of? Mr. Collins feels Council has to look at the future cost of money too. Mr. Overson stated the issue is whether this is placed on the ballot. Mr. Collins stated he feels Council needs to go to the people for a second opinion. He stated two City sources are providing information to Council as they see it, but they also need to know what the average citizen wants. Mr. Colvin, stated he saw on a tombstone "if in life you would be worry free, lay down your cross and follow me". Someone came along and wrote "to follow you I'm not content unless I know which way you went". Mr. Colvin stated the people should know which way Council is going and they should have the right to tell Council which way they want them to go. He stated this is an advisory ballot, Council can still vote the way they want. Mr. Colvin sees this issue as letting the people have their say. He stated the hearings show more people are willing to sell, but he was told those people are not residents of Bremerton and feels Bremerton residents should have a right to say if Roosevelt Field is or is not sold. A survey was taken in his neighborhood and many of those people feel the citizens should be given an opportunity to speak. Mr. Overson stated if appears this is premature based on the process Council has begun and as far as Council knows, once that process is complete this will be a total non-issue and may not be a part of the recommendation coming back to Council. He felt the process should finish and than if it needs to go on the ballot consider it at that time. Mr. Johnson expressed opinion this is a wimpy item to put on the agenda. He stated Council gave the Mayor a list of questions to go to public boards, hold hearings, answer questions, have the Attorney get legal opinions, now it becomes simple; must have to do with elections; just place the issue on the ballot so Council can avoid the issue and ask the citizens to make the decision, which Council couldn't make without this additional information. Mr. Johnson stated there's no such thing as an advisory ballot, once the people vote Council had better listen and follow their wishes, if not this could become a legal issue. Mr. Johnson stated the issues should be considered separately and will come to a logical conclusion when they receive the information. He stated what do you do about Olympic College, parking problems, congestion, traffic, safety, neighborhood blight and deterioration, lack of support for a growing college. That doesn't address any of those. He stated he's not comfortable with putting this on the ballot at this time, because if it goes on the ballot, Council has to do what the citizen says. He concluded they should wait for the information from the Planning Commission and Parks Board. None of the advisory ballot proposals are clear except "do you want to Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 11 sell Roosevelt Field", and once you sell that could be to anyone. Ms. Horton stated she agrees with Mr. Johnson. She doesn't feel there is a good way as this time, regardless of how the Parks Board and Planning Commission rule, to get the information out to the voters for them to make a decision. She stated it is simple to say "do you want to sell Roosevelt Field, yes or no", but the issue is obviously more complex. If it were so simple as to say "yes" or "no" without thinking about it, Council would not have spent hours listening to public testimony, going over reams of paper to attempt to under this issue. She stated most likely in the early spring there will be a Bond Initiative on the ballot and at that time, after Council has received the input from those bodies and questions are answered, it can always be placed on that ballot. Ms. Horton concluded that now it is premature, that Council should follow through and get questions answered and at that time take a hard look and see where they want to go from here. Mr. Dawkins stated he agrees with other Council members that they are elected from districts and are making decisions for the whole City. He discussed his association with softball and the revenues that tournaments can generator. He stated he doesn't want to sell Roosevelt Field unless there's a replacement for it and if there is, it's going to give the City 3 times as many fields, they should take a long look at it. Mr. Dawkins stated the City has gone down a lot, but this is a chance to make a move in the right direction. They are not going to impact any district with the sports complex; it will be placed outside residential areas but close enough to use motels and restaurants in the City. He stated there have been complaints about the appraisal price of Roosevelt Field, it was done by a competent appraiser, but if they are not sure the price is right they can order another one. Mr. Horning stated it is a very complex issue and doesn't believe Council has received all the information they need to make this decision. He discussed Council's agreement to go through a process and feels they should follow that process. Mr. Horning stated if Council doesn't want to make that decision and put it on the ballot through some process, now is not the time. He stated he could not support any of the ballot proposals at this time. Mr. Waibel stated they will not get public hearings before the Parks Board, as they are not capable of handling them. The cost is $300 to put this on the ballot and they have to do it now in order to have it on the November ballot. If they wait until after reports are in it will cost $3,000 plus to ask the same question. He stated it is timely and all the information is available, and in order to make a rapid decision after the election so O.C. can get on with their business they need to put it on the ballot now. He concluded if Council doesn't like the wording, other options are welcome, but Council needs to let the voters speak. Mr. Colvin stated at this time the issue is not whether to sell or not, but should the voters have an opportunity to give their input, yes or no. He doesn't feel it's complicated. His position is to give the voters a chance to give input on the issue. Mr. Colvin stated O. C. deserves and should have parking, and the City should have the sports complex and he also feels the City should help O.C. with their parking problems, but those are two separate issues and should be kept separate. M/S/F (Collins/Colvin) adopt the second and third resolutions reading "Should Roosevelt Field be sold to provide additional parking for Olympic College?", and "Should the City pursue the development of the sports complex?", to be placed on the November ballot. Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 12 Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Sievers if the City can limit the sale of Roosevelt Field to O. C.? Mr. Sievers, City Attorney, stated the question could be phrased that way, in the value of the answer is, perhaps can the City force that condition through the sale. As has been represented they do not accept that deed restriction and then we don't know if the electorate meant for you to go through with that or not, their yes meant no if that condition drops out. The question could be phrased that way, this is non-binding,advisory only. Mr. Johnson stated once Roosevelt Field is sold to O. C. the state controls the property and could be used as they wish. He feels it is giving false hope just by the way the question is written. Mr. Sievers stated the city may not be able to fulfil that condition when the sale is made, they may not be willing to enter a sale with that condition and then what did the vote mean. He stated the more detailed the ballot, if one condition drops out the value of the ballot issue becomes less and less. Mr. Collins stated he would be willing to change that to "Should Roosevelt Field be Sold?". Mr.Horning stated there is a motion on the floor, the maker would like to change that motion but it must have the concurrence of the second and asked Mr. Colvin if he'd like to change it also. Mr. Colvin responded yes, he would be willing to make that change. Question: affirmative Mr. Colvin, Mr. Waibel, Mr. Collins negative Mr. Overson, Mr. Crutcher, Ms. Horton, Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Horning. Mr. Colvin inquired if that means the citizens will not have the opportunity to vote on the issue? Mr. Horning responded "not at this time". Meeting recessed at 7:35 p.m. - 7:55 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONSIDER ZONING REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION PERTINENT TO ZONING OF A SINGLE LOT ON SO. LAFAYETTE AVE. (CARTER) AB89-252 Mr. Horning asked the standard conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question with Mr. Collins stepping down. All other Council members remained seated. Ron Hough, Planning Manager, provided overview graphs and land maps known as the Carter Zoning Map Review. Larry and Rose Carter, owners of the property, felt an error had been made in the application of the single-family zoning district to their vacant lot on So. Lafayette Ave. The property had previously been zoned R-2. They requested a zoning review in accordance with the Correction of Errors process. On May 30, 1989, the Committee conducted its review and concluded that no error had been made, and is recommending that no change be made to the Zoning Map. Mr. Hough stated the map shows 3 properties with a house on the north property, a very small house on the middle lot with the south property being vacant, and is the subject of this review. He stated most of the area represents single family homes, the area is primarily a low-density single family neighborhood. The recommendation is for no change to the present SF-3 zoning. That will keep the Carter property in the SF-3 district that surrounds this property. Any other action to change the zoning could create an undesirable spot zone that could result in development that is out of scale or character with this neighborhood. Denial of a higher-density zone may also prevent the Carters from building an apartment building, as they had intended. The lot has 50 ft. of street frontage and is 100 ft. deep for a total of 5,000 sq. ft. Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 13 Previous zoning map shows a small island of R-2 zoning surrounded by a large R-1 district. This occurred in April, 1965 when the site was rezoned from R-1 to R-2 at the owners request. Apparently that owner's plans didn't materialize and the property was eventually sold to the Carters. The R-2 zone included the vacant parcel and lot to the north. Mr. Hough stated part of the intent of the new zoning was to help stabilize sound neighborhoods, smooth out zoning districts and eliminate spot zones where inappropriate. Subject property was partly within one of these spot zones that consisted of 2 lots and one single-family dwelling. Other than 3 duplexes there are no apartments in the immediate area and no justification for the R-2 zone. Under the SF-3 zone the owner may build a single-family dwelling on the vacant lot. If the duplex residential zone to the south were extended, it doesn't have the necessary 9,600 sg. ft. required to build a duplex. The new zoning SF-3 is consistent with the 2 lots that were previously zoned R-2. Previous R-2 zone of subject lot was a spot zone. The old R-2 zone resulted in no new development in 23 years. The owner's intent to use the property and its zoning as a long-term investment is not a valid reason to retain inappropriate zoning. The owner's intent to eventually build a 9 to 12 unit apartment building on 5,000 sq. ft. would not be possible in any of the City's new zoning districts. A lot this size could accommodate a maximum of 5 units if included in the mixed residential (MR) zone. The nearest other zoning district is the duplex residential (DR) zone to the south. Since the lot is smaller than 9,600 sq. ft. the application of the DR zone would not permit a duplex. This small pocket of high-density zone was eliminated intentionally in order to provide more consistent SF-3 zoning in this block and surrounding areas. Zoning Review Committee concluded no error was made in the zoning of subject property. The Committee's recommendation to City Council is for no change to the Zoning Map for this property. Larry Carter, owner, offered a map that shows this as a high- density area. He stated they purchased the property 15 years ago with the intent to build an apartment house. When they first purchased it was not 2 parcels but 3-1/3 and Great Northwest advised him to build 3-fourplexes instead of a 12 unit apartment. He paid and had the property platted and it was his intention when he retired to build the fourplex. At that time it was zoned for 12 units and would still like to build 2 fourplexes as they would fit in with the neighborhood. Mr. Carter stated according to the map he submitted, taking in more than the one block area, there is a good representative of commercial zoning and feels a fourplex would fit in. Mr. Carter had requested both lots be considered when he requested the review. Mr. Crutcher asked Mr. Hough if at the present Mr. Carter cannot build what he wants under current zone? Mr. Hough stated correct, at the present it is zoned single family and Mr. Carter can only build a single family home. Mr. Dawkins asked Mr. Hough if Mr. Carter could obtain a fourth lot to the north would there be enough room to build duplexes? Mr. Hough stated each lot is 5,000; 4,800 is required to build one unit, so in order to build a duplex, 2 lots would have to be combined. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Hough stated he could build one duplex and one single family unit using the 3 lots. Mr. Overson stated the Correction Committee looked at it technically and he understand Mr. Carter's intent, though the lapse in time doesn't demonstrate a positive step, and what was intended to automatic assumption that the SF-3 was appropriate seemed to be the correct analysis. He stated that is how they reached this Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 14 conclusion and there doesn't seem to be much substance to going in another direction. If Council sees this as an opportunity to say maybe we should have foreseen that means higher-density and should provide at the highest possible density given the combined real estate in these 3 lots, than Council can do that. Mr. Overson stated DR is the highest possible zone. Mr. Hough stated in order to build what he wants (12 units) it would have to have a MR zone, unless Council wants to create spot zoning. Mr. Overson stated a reasoning toward that is there are multi-dwellings in the area, given the City's primary purpose of creating density, Council could consider the highest density in the area, although some may consider that spot zoning. Mr. Waibel stated to rezone this to DR is impossible on each individual lot, unless the lots are combined. He stated this is the highest density those lots will handle now, SF-3 and that's the correct zone for those lots. Mr. Johnson stated through the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the policy was set out and staff did follow the policy correctly, so there is not an error. The question is whether it's appropriate to have some higher density housing in that area, which is beyond the policies set with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, may or may not be appropriate but that is a rezoning issue. He doesn't see where staff or Council violated any guidance that was set up in the plan. Mr. Horning stated that is the process and he supports that as well. Mr. Overson asked Mr. Hough for clarification to again present the slide that shows Mr. Carter's property. He stated there is a star on 1 lot in the agenda packet, however, on the slide, Mr. Carter owns 3 lots. Mr. Overson asked Mr. Hough if in previous zoning the R-2 included the 3 lots? Mr. Hough responded no, 2 of the lots were R-2. Mr. Horning stated the question is was an error made. Mr. Overson responded an error was made, they went to the lowest possible density. Mr. Colvin stated the question was did an error occur and he asked Mr. Hough if the Planning Commission followed the guidelines set in this area? Mr. Hough responded yes and outlined the Planning Commission criteria. Ms. Horton stated the duplex was excluded and that looks like an error was made. If they extend that DR boundary to include the other property than a change from SF-3 to the subject property doesn't look like spot zoning. She inquired if there was an error on both properties? Mr. Hough stated the duplex next to Mr. Carter's vacant lot shows as a duplex on the Assessor's rolls. They claim there is a small unit in the basement which may not have been used for years. Ms. Horton stated in that case it is not that difficult to change Mr. Carter's vacant lot to the DR zone. Mr. Waibel asked if it is a duplex would it be non-conforming? Mr. Overson stated it would be a conforming use of a non-conforming structure. Mr. Waibel stated if they didn't have any problems with inconsistencies with the lots and zones, the City would not now have a new zoning ordinance. M/S/C (Waibel/Colvin) to accept the recommendation of the Zoning Review Committee that no error occurred. Question: affirmative opposed Johnson, Overson, Horton, Waibel, Colvin, Horning Dawkins, Crutcher Minutes City Council Meeting September 6, 1989 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING & ORD. (1ST READING) - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO CERTAIN TYPES OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AND ALLOWING SAME BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AB89-253 The current Zoning Ordinance does not exempt or allow special consideration of signs such as "Welcome to Bremerton" or "Bremerton High School" signs. Such signs are treated under the same standards as commercial signs and may require placement in non- commercial areas when appropriate. This matter was discussed by the Zoning Review Committee and staff was directed to refine the identification sign proposal and take to City Council for consideration. Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated Council is also required to find there was an error committed in the zoning ordinance. He stated a civic group proposed erecting "Welcome to Bremerton" signs. He stated there were two considerations. 1) is there a reason to treat these type of signs any different, and 2) under what circumstances do we permit these signs? The answer to the first question is yes, we believe there is a need for welcome signs. The second question has several criteria. 1) Is there an overriding public purpose for these signs; 2) Is there minimal impact in putting the sign in an area that typically wouldn't receive signs. In order to respond to those two, a special use permit is being proposed to allow deviation from use and development standards and allow signs to be placed in areas where they normally would not be placed, providing certain criteria is met. The appropriate site for a welcome sign may be in a residential or other location that has severe restrictions on commercial signs. Current ordinance does not recognize this public need and treats public information signs as commercial signs. The use of special use permit, as proposed, to allow a reasonable deviation from established standards assures that Planning Commission and City Council reviews are possible either in the initial hearing or on appeal of an administrative or Planning Commission action. Mr. Pratt stated there are changes that will more specifically define public information/identification signs and reduce confusion with a similar but more commercial definition for identification sign, add the new category to the list of exempt signs, provided a special use permit has been approved, and amend the criteria for approval of administrative special use permits to better accommodate these signs and avoid adverse impacts. Mr. Pratt discussed size and placement of "Welcome to Bremerton" and "Bremerton High School" signs. Ms. Horton stated this was reviewed in the Operations Committee meeting and they found the City does need these type of signs. M/S/C/U (Horton/Colvin) that an error has been made and to approve the ordinance on first reading. Mr. Waibel stated if another error is found he recommends going back and looking at the sign issue to see if it fits in the zoning ordinance. /-~ With no further ATTEST: A~H~EEN L McCLUSKEY, City Clerk business meeting adjo ned at p.m. / OR ent