Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/89TAPES #688, #689, #690 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 1989 #0010 #0024 #0046 #0068 #0124 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, November 1, 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, A1 Colvin, and Russ Johnson. Council member Morrie Dawkins was 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 the Invocation was given by Councilman Colvin. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting Held - October 18, 1989, #AB89-305 M/S/C/U (Waibel/Colvin) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECKS 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 November 1, 1989 the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: check numbers 100904 - 101116 inclusive in amount of $457,821.90 and retirees payroll in amount of $49,901.02. COUNCIL MERS REPORTS Mr. Overson discussed building activity on the waterfront and stated there is also activity going on in the downtown core, however, that has been slowed due to the asphalt machinery failure. He stated we will see a significant improvement and have good transportation downtown shortly. Mr. Waibel stated they spent time today with Kitsap County Executive Council and other Boards, including Kitsap Transit Board. They did approve the purchase of 44 used buses from Golden Gate in California. They will be replacing approximately 8 - 10 current buses and supplementing the fleet in terms of new passengers and new annexed areas. Mr. Waibel stated they also met with Cencom Board; fire calls for Bremerton continue to go down, but aid calls for Bremerton continue on the rise. Mr. Johnson stated the DOE is still attempting to find out what happened with the grant they lost after the money was given out. He is still hoping Bremerton will get some consideration for that grant. Mr. Johnson stated they might get special consideration, DOE staff is embarrassed and worried about what their liabilities might be. That $70,000 grant was destined for economic development in the solid waste area, which is critical in Bremerton. Mr. Johnson stated this Council has always been concerned that during the election process, Council meetings might become a forum for political activity and complimented everyone on Council for not taking advantage of TV coverage in this respect. Mr. Johnson discussion promises sometimes made by candidates not to raise taxes. He stated Bremerton's budget is structured so that 90% of costs is in salaries and debt service, out of $14 million in the General Fund budget, that leave approximately $1 million that is not set aside, If something new is built, more police and fire personnel are hired, it will come at the expense of something else. #0236 Mr. Colvin stated the senior residents of Pinewood Manor are still Tape #688 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 2 of 19 #0255 #0285 #0343 #0514 seeking a flagpole so they can fly the flag that have been donated. Mr. Horning stated part of the Executive Planning Council Transit was to open the second year of the food drive. That will start the day after Thanksgiving, the 24th, and for a can of food you get a free ride on transit. He stated the food goes to food banks in the area in which it is collected. Last year's food went into this past summer before running out. Mr. Horning stated it was an excellent food drive and encouraged people to participate. Mr. Collins referred to all the recent discussion regarding Roosevelt Field and stated the one sad event is that Arvilla Ohlde, Parks Director, is leaving the City. Mr. Collins, Mr. Waibel and Mr. Del Knauss presented Ms. Ohlde with a plaque made from the stump of a 145 year old tree inscribed ROOSEVELT FIELD - FOUNDED - APRIL 27, 1926 PUBLIC RECOGNITION Lena Swanson, 2123 Snyder Ave., stated her disapproval of Councilman Johnson's remarks; she felt that was policiting for TV. Ms. Swanson discussed the ethics ordinance and stated it is her understanding several Council members have been doorbelling for Mr. Horning and expressed concern that if elected, he will be approaching these same people for legislation. She felt while it may not be illegal, it has the appearance of conflict. Ms. Swanson stated she has driven past the treatment plant several times recently during the evening hours and assured Council the chances of winning the lawsuit are very slim, due to the smell. She stated her understanding that Seattle Metro has not come on line with their secondary treatment plant. She stated Bremerton and Port Orchard were charged by law to put in our plant and we have done so. Ms. Swanson stated the largest polluter of Puget Sound is Seattle. She suggested Council get together with the 60 families who brought the suit, and she recommended Council sue the State for failure to force Seattle Metro on line in compliance with State law and the pollution act. She further stated she would request a subsidy that Port Orchard and Bremerton be subsidized financially until such time as the Seattle Metro secondary treatment plant is on line; she felt those 60 families should join Bremerton and Port Orchard. Ms. Swanson stated she has grave concerns about the designers and builders and whether or not they complied with the proper code and instructions. Ms. Swanson stated the City has a tax revenue problem, the budget is shrinking, primary concerns of the residents are fire and police protection, and streets. She referred to Mr. Johnson's remarks that 62% of budget is for salaries and she suggest that if the City made a vertical cut to eliminate half of the managers, this would save a considerable amount of money. Ms. Swanson stated she was in favor of selling Roosevelt Field to Olympic College for a reasonable price. She wondered who is providing fire and police protection for the new shopping area just outside the City limits on the Brownsville Highway. Stan Kennedy, 229 Watson Court NE, discussed the two-hour parking zones and stated he is sensitive to the residents, but as a worker at PSNS, he questioned why when the two-hour zones were put in place there wasn't adequate parking provided as an alternative for those who can't park inside the PSNS fence. He felt Council needs to consider that and also felt Council needs to consider that some parking tickets are not holding up in court. He stated the parking ordinance was not uniformly applied throughout the City, discriminatory to shipyard workers and cited Olympic College exclusion. Mr. Kennedy requested response from Council as to what they feel is their responsibility to parking: i.e. whether the City should provide parking; if PSNS should provide parking; or if they feel it is primarily a private problem. Mr. Horning stated Council rA Tape #688 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 3 of 19 #0581 #0775 #1033 doesn't respond immediately at Council meetings and felt a response from the Mayor's office would be more appropriate. Gene Hensel, 1417 Park Ave, discussed the sewer smell coming from the storm system, and stated the Health Department took a sample from the storm drain and said there is raw sewerage in it. He stated the Street Department covered the manholes with plastic, but it still smells. Mr. Hensel submitted a petition with approximately 80 signatures questioning what is going to be done about this condition. Mr. Horning requested the Clerk to look into this and report to Council next week. Ruth Davie, 1511 Park Ave., stated she doesn't believe her residence is connected to the City's sewer, but to the storm drain. She discussed the treatment plant construction and stated the City didn't get the plant under budget. Ms. Davie discussed the street being opened when the big sewer pipe was installed for sewerage from the east side, and questioned why didn't the City inspect it then and make sure her lateral was connected? She stated she called this to the City's attention then and was told it was her problems, but she feels it is the City's problem. She stated she also thinks the State and DOE was involved in looking the other direction when they shouldn't have been. Ms. Davie feels since she pays high sewer bills she should be getting sewer service. Ms. Davie stated parking and Roosevelt Field are not the main problems for the City, the sewer treatment plant is. She stated if they can they will join the 60 families in the lawsuit. Raymond Reese, 3003-1/2 Porter Street, stated he is concerned with parking, primarily PSNS workers, residents and citations given to both. He stated his home faces on the 500 block of So. Lafeyette. That area has inundated by PSNS workers and has become difficult for residents to park in front of their homes. He stated the 400 block has a 4-hour zone while the 500 block has no time limit. Mr. Reese suggested the 500 block be signed for 4-hour also, or even 2-hour and the residents given stickers. He stated the 500 block is unique in that while there are four buildings, the northern two are addressed to Porter and the southern two to Preble, no one has an address on the 500 block of So. Lafayette. Mr. Reese stated it presented a problem for three of the four buildings which are multi-family residences, as most don't have parking on the street with their address. He stated he has lived there 3-1/2 years and until now has had no problem with citation. He feels the City has instituted two parking citation policies that are not reasonable. Mr. Reese stated the citations are being issued for vehicles with expired tabs. One reason for this is due to junker vehicles and he feels they should be towed instead of ticketed. He stated his car was ticketed and it is not a junker. Mr. Reese stated he has no off street parking, the only place to park is on a dirt strip. He stated the car isn't used now as he rides his motorcycle, so the tabs have expired. He doesn't have the funds now to pay for tabs, and now he has a $10 fine. Mr. Reese stated he is being charged with a situation he didn't create. He discussed the cost of going to court and suggested Council find another way to deal with junker cars. Mr. Horning asked the Clerk to follow up on this issue. 6A - ADMIRAL THEATER - POSSIBLE PURCHASE #AB89-306 The City has the opportunity to purchase the Admiral Theater for $75,000 to be paid from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund. The intent is to contract with a local non-profit foundation to perform all management and maintenance associated with the facility. The fact sheet provides further information. This item is presented for discussion only at this time. It will be presented with a request for approval at a future City Council meeting. Gene Lobe, Mayor, stated the City has the opportunity to purchase Tape #688 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 4 of 19 #1190 #1345 the Admiral Theater which is one of the older buildings in the downtown core. It has all the art deco of that era. He discussed a recent tour of the building and stated it is an excellent building, if there is an atomic attack or earthquake, the building will remain standing, as it is solid concrete. Mayor Lobe stated the Bremer Trust has offered this building to the City for $75,000. The current value is $280,000. He can't imagine a better buy for the City. It will be an anchor area for the future, people will go through the downtown area to get there. He stated there are a multitude of uses for the building. If purchased the worse that could happen is to have to sell it. Earle Smith, Director of Economic Development Council of Kitsap County, stated he is speaking for Joan Soriano to give an economic impact on the building. Mr. Smith stated there are numerous precedents of cities purchasing these types of theaters and being operated by non-profit organizations. He stated at the Governor's Conference on Revitalization, they learned this is the case throughout the United States. In every instance, culture and arts come up as one of the building blocks to make that happen. They stressed that isn't the only building block and it just won't happen, but quality of life is one of the top three in every redevelopment that has happened throughout the Main Street organization. He agreed that the worst that could happen would be to purchase and then have to sell and felt if that happened, the City would realize a profit. Mr. Smith stated they called the Columbia Theater in Longview, Washington Center Performing Arts in Olympia, and Capital Theater in Yakima to get information on whether it is a viable approach to use for the arts. They received 6 pages of responses that, "yes it is viable", they all do it through a contract signed with a non-profit organization. They were provided with the Articles of Incorporation and contracts that the City could use if Council sees fit. He stated all those cities have seen fit that culture and the arts should be a part of the revitalization effort. Mr. Smiths stated they also received information on how to get the building on the historical register, so they can receive funds in that area. He quoted from material received at the Governor's Conference "for the community to call itself a community, there are certain things it's supposed to have; libraries, sports facilities, colleges, arts facilities, etc." Another quote from a study "for every dollar spent for the arts, $4 - $7 comes back into the community, so while the arts may not make money, the communities usually do." He stated in Ashland, OR., the Shakespeare Festival budget is $6 million annually. The economic impact on the Rouge River Valley is $52 million. Jim Arsenault, Founder and Artistic Director of Opera Northwest, stated they are a semi-professional opera company which now resides in Bremerton. They are 2 years old and have performed throughout Kitsap County and outside the county and intend to perform throughout the northwest. He stated they hope to bring positive respect to this community as it does house a reputable performing organization. Mr. Arsenault stated he is representing a number of performing arts companies to say they would like Council to take the Mayor's recommendation to purchase this building. They need a place to perform. He discussed BHS Performing Arts Center and stated it is over booked and that is the extent of cultural activity in Bremerton. He perceives Bremerton as a cup half full and he stated there are two dance companies that need more performing space. He discussed a letter from Dr. Bidwell, Drama Coach at BHS, saying he cannot get into the high school because it is booked, he's been denied rehearsal space for a high school play. Mr. Arsenault stated he'd like to see the City purchase the Admiral Theater and a non-profit group willing and interested in seeing it converted to a multi-use facility so it can continue to show films, hold lecturs, have live performances, etc. He stated there are Tape #688 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 5 of 19 many types of activities the space lends itself to; it could also be a central ticket agency. #1533 Miles Yanek, Architect, stated Mr. Mumma and he reviewed the drawings of the building and the building and found no major problems to cause the building to be extremely expensive to rehabilitate for one use or another. He stated it is solid as a rock, requires no substantial structural changes, it is fire proof as is, capable of carrying the loads in terms of occupance as well as structural. Earle Smith stated Ms. Soriano has set up visits to the three theaters they contacted so they can get first hand information on how to make things work. If Council has questions they would like answered, they can forward those questions to Ms. Soriano through the Mayor's office, and they'll do their best to get the answers. Mr. Smith summed up with another quote, "we must be willing to invest in the heart of our cities or the rest of the city will suffer." Mayor Lobe recommended setting a hearing date, as soon as possible, as he would like to get this building added to the City's ownership. At the price of $75,000, he felt it is in the best interest of the City to go forward and purchase the building. #1650 Andy Parypa, 1121 Hayward, stated Bremerton is not Bellevue, but rather a bread and butter town and $75,000 and spending an unstated amount to rehabilitate the building may not be such a great deal. He suggested if it is such a great deal, the groups that want to perform there should buy it. He felt the City should not be in the real estate business or operating a business. Mr. Parypa stated if great sums are spent rehabilitating it and performing arts are not supported by the bread and butter community, who will pay the tab. He felt Council should take a look from an engineering aspect. #1723 John Pearson, Manager of Bremerton Symphony, stated his feeling this project is a wonderful idea. He felt the points about finance are valid and stated there are two traps people fall into when undertaking this type of project: 1) building isn't studied correctly and more money is spent or uses are different for the type of renovation done; 2) it turns out operational costs of the building is more than was expected. He stated another trap is going into a building before renovation funds are available and felt these are major questions that need to be addressed. Mr. Pearson stated the benefit to the symphony will not be to the symphony itself, but to the smaller groups that need a place to perform with seating for 150 - 500. The symphony, community concerts and Peninsula Dance Theater will continue in the high school, but feel they will be grateful for the relief from the pressure. He stated it should not be overlooked that the bottom line is not money or bricks and motar, it's having a place to meet, hold events, have good experiences in the arts which are for everyone. He stated most musicians and major orchestras did not get their start out of rich beginnings, but from humble beginnings and the arts here can easily become a light to moderate budget that's available for everyone. He expressed opinion this is an important mission the City can become involved in. The arts provide a place for people to develop various skills and many of those skills are taken into the business community. #1879 Ms. Swanson, stated for $75,000 it's a beautiful investment, but immediately becomes suspicious when the value was $450,000 and it's almost being given away by Olympic College. She questioned what do they want in return, and stated she is more bread and butter oriented and is interested in fire and police protection, streets Tape #688 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 6 of 19 #2005 and schools. Ms. Swanson stated she is not opposed to purchasing, but concerned with costs of renovation and what O. C. wants for that cheap sale and also interested that the State Education Board would allow such a sale by a college at such a loss. Mr. Overson stated when they were asked to support the Turner Joy they were given a significant statement that demonstrated evidence to give confidence that the investment would with positive results. In this case there is an excellent group in support and he believes that group can make it happen if anyone can, so trust that when this comes before Council for final review they will have financial document supporting it and to give Council confidence this is an investment. Mr. Crutcher strongly supports the purchase and thinks this is a wonderful thing to have and stated he always wanted Bremerton to have a civic center like Seattle. He stated if they are serious about purchasing they should also be as serious about supporting it as they are about police and parking. Mr. Crutcher stated taxes do not have to be increased to increase the police department, tax dollars are out there that the City isn't getting, revenue can be increased by charging what should be charged. Mr. Waibel thanked Mr. Pearson for pointing out some strong pit falls and stated before this is returned to Council, Mr. Pearson has pointed out information they need to make that decision responsibly; business plan is needed, make sure an organization is going to back this, they need to be in existence. He stated friends of the Historical Ships Society was incorporated prior to Council getting involved in the Turner Joy process and that needs to take place before $75,000 is committed. Mr. Waibel stated they need to make sure they are not going to renovate it incorrectly in terms of needs, much information is needed before committing this money. If the money is not used wisely, it may not be there to support redevelopment of the waterfront, and need to know this will be spent with local private organizations before they even consider having a hearing. Mr. Johnson stated his agreement with Mr. Waibel and Ms. Swanson's concerns. He stated it sound like a good idea but need to know for sure what type activities will be taking place. He felt that type plan can be put together quickly, the groundwork has been laid by other cities. Mr. Johnson stated the hotel/motel fund can't be used for police or streets. He stated Council's next move would be a package with a contract, business plan, etc., either buying it or not. He expressed concern with a series of hearings to decide if arts are more important than something else. Mr. Colvin stated it is a magnificent plan and he supports the arts, but some people are wondering about streets, potholes, lights and feel they deserve more of an explanation. He stated as the Mayor pointed out even if nothing is done with the building and the City sells they stand to make a profit. Mr. Colvin stated the cost of renovation has not been brought out. He took the tour and thought he heard it would cost $600,000 to renovate and people are concerned with where that money will come from. He stated his agreement with Mr. Waibel that it is a good concept if it can be done, but feels these questions need to be answered before a decision can be made. Mr. Collins stated his agreement with Mr. Waibel, the $75,000 for a $450,000 building makes him wonder. He stated his support of an arts center if there is a true plan, if a corporation is going to take this off the City's hands. He stated there are so many half done expenditures now; half funding part of waterfront, part of a ballfield, and they need to start looking at what the City is Tape #688 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 7 of 19 #2673 really going to do. If there is an organization that comes to Council with a marketing plan, organization plan, where the money is, he will agree, but to spend $75,000 of hotel/motel tax or general fund money now he can't support. Ms. Horton stated her agreement with comments that Council does need to know what it is that the City would be purchasing and a marketing plan is the way to go, much as with the Turner Joy. She stated they have been placing a great deal of emphasis on the waterfront, but can't turn their back to the main street and concentrate solely on the waterfront. In order to enhance the waterfront they need to include the main downtown area and the location of the Admiral Theater will help to do that. She stated they need to look at the viability of the numbers and if in the realm of possibilities, than they need to look at incorporating the rest of the downtown into the waterfront and develope the downtown as a whole. Mr. Horning expressed opinion it is a wonderful idea, but feel the need to see a good plan and an organizational set up and asked the Clerk and recording secretary to have all the questions passed on to the Mayor. He asked Council members if they have other questions. Mr. Overson asked when would the first performance be held in that building? Mr. Collins requested a signed contract from a non-profit corporation be established that they will accept the responsibility of the building. Mr. Pearson stated when people go to the San Francisco Symphony they arrive early to park and then do some shopping and most art centers now have renovated the surrounding area with various shops. He felt this location is hand made for that and would give people from Seattle a reason to come to Bremerton. Mayor Lobe asked if Council has a time schedule for a hearing? Mr. Horning stated if the Mayor wants to go back to the organization it is at his pleasure when to return this to Council. Recess 6:50 - 7:10 p.m. 8B - HEARING/APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'SAPPROVALOF SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT #SL-4-89;APPEIJa~NT: PAUL SCHMIDT, LOCATION: 117 SECOND AVENUE #AB89-313 On August 1, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit to allow the reconstruction of a parking lot located at the former Bremerton Lumber site. The Commission's approval was subject to 10 conditions. Mr. Paul Schmidt is appealing the decision. City Council when hearing an appeal shall either: 1) Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the approving authority for further consideration. Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent meeting. Mr. Horning asked the standard conflict of interest, appearance of fairness question with all Council members remaining seated. Jack Allingham, Current Planning Division, made an overlay presentation and stated the original application was by the John Bremer and Bremerton Consolidated Trust. Tape #688, #689 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 8 of 19 #2903 Tape #689 The location is between 1st and 2nd streets along the waterfront at the site of the old lumber building at 117 2nd Street. The site is zoned Business Core and has comprehensive plan designation of commercial. The Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Program designated this area as commercial, residential, tourist zone. The Shoreline Master Program also designated this site as downtown waterfront upland marine environmental. Mr. Allingham stated the proposal is to demolish the existing 10,500 sq. ft. lumber building, reconfigure and add approximately 35 parking spaces for a total of 160 spaces. An alternative landscaping plan is also being provided for in the application. It is required through the Shoreline Master Program to be viewed as a conditional use permit. He stated this part was granted by the Planning Commission for 5 years, subject to 10 conditions as stated in the Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission and Planning staff recommends upholding that decision. Paul Schmidt, stated the issue is not just the additional 35 parking spaces, it is bringing into conformity the 160 spaces. He stated they do not meet any criteria of the zoning ordinance, they do not meet criteria of the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan nor do they meet criteria of the Shoreline Master Program. He stated a research of records didn't reveal a Shoreline Management permit being issued for the first phase of those parking spaces, there was no demolition permit issued. The engineers had no record of a run off, paving or any of that phase, they were just constructed. Now the applicant wants to tear down another building for 35 more spaces. The question is should parking be allowed on the waterfront, Mr. Schmidt expressed opinion it should not. He stated he attended many meetings and felt they wanted to discourage parking on the waterfront except in the terminal area. He stated a year ago one of the goals was to require adequate parking, preferably underground or upper stories of commercial structures including the transportation terminal and remove most parking from service lots and streets. The Shoreline Master Program and Bremerton Downtown Waterfront states commercial lots are okay if the parking is managed for use by visitors and patrons of the downtown waterfront. Mr. Schmidt stated the Planning Commission interprets the uses as ferry parking and asked is it okay to have parking on the waterfront? He stated he doesn't believe it is. Mr. Schmidt stated the Planning Department recommendation says even though the proposed use must be discontinued if the permit is not reviewed every 5 years, it should be termed as long-term use, the goal should be that it will be an asset to the area regardless of the life span. He stated 5 years is not a short-term use. Mr. Schmidt is not suggesting it be denied, but requesting that Council put some restrictions on it to protect what will happen in that area. The Planning Commission restrictions are not enough. He suggested the permit not be assignable. He felt it isn't viable to be able to ask a developer to look at this as a parking lot and not as a palce to put up a commercial building. If it is sold and the new owner feels it is not financially feasible to develop the property, the City is stuck for 5 years with a parking lot. He also suggested that the Planning Department do an annual review to determine how many should be short-term and how many long-term. Mr. Schmidt stated they are setting aside 20 spaces for short-term parking. He felt there should be an agreement that Bremer Trust state they will not misinterpret this, that they do meet the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. If a permit is granted is the City then saying it doesn't comply with the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan? He stated the City should get a 12 foot easement along the waterfront, what they are getting is an assignment of the lease which expires in 1994. Tape #689 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 9 of 19 #0100 #e~89 #0395 Mr. Parypa stated if Council upholds Planning Commission's decision, using average daily cost of $2.50 per space, the annual income would be $114,000 and the value of this property would be at least $1,140,000. He stated the value will increase proportionately with parking rates and they will be going up, and for every dollar increase in parking rates the value and buy out costs will increase by $540,000. Legalizing this parking lot for 5 years will set a precedent, for other waterfront parking lots will also ask for a 5 year term and there goes waterfront development for 5 more years. He stated it is a safe assumption that parking rates will increase and the cost prohibitive for an investor to buy this property for anything other than a parking lot. Mr. Overson stated looking at downtown often, he notices empty buildings with trinkets in the windows which says there's not much business in downtown. Someone wants to do something and then there are other people who want to control what the owners can do. If you look at other cities where development has occurred, it has occurred for economic reasons. When economics support downtown waterfront being used for a higher and better purpose then parking can be reconsidered. This will help the parking problem and when it's time, when the other downtown buildings are turned into more productive purposes, and there is real activity, then economics will support this being turned into something higher and better than parking. Mr. Overson asked Mr. McDonald "why parking?" Rich McDonald, Bremer Consolidated Trust General Manager, stated the reason behind the project has several ingredients; they are trying to be a partner in the downtown changes and this is not just a parking lot project but an overall plan. He stated the trust is assigning the tide land leases to the Port of Bremerton and part of that agreement is that the trust is also contributing to the City the filled tide lands, with stipulation that the City will then use some block grant monies to improvement those tide lands and put in a boardwalk and waterfront part. In addition the park will go along the waterfront and continue up 2nd Street. They are providing twice the amount of landscaping that is required and concentrated that way it will have the most impact for the waterfront. He stated Mr. Schmidt is correct that it does not meet the current building code and this is an effort to do so. In addition to the beautification aspect, they're trying to eliminate a building that is an eyesore, but beautifying the entrance to Bremerton. This property will be going out for sale and hopefully a developer will develop this to a greater, better use. He stated it will take a great deal of capital to create a development at the site and the trust doesn't have that kind of capital. Mr. Overson stated this would be a better gateway to the City than we have now. Redevelopment of cities happens a step at a time, steps now in effect are the new pier development, marina, Turner Joy and now this proposal for another project. Mr. Crutcher stated he strongly supports this proposal. He discussed the downtown parking problems and wonders which way the people want to go. Most cities have parking on the waterfront. No businesses will want to come in if there is no parking. He stated it is an improvement in the right direction. Ms. Horton stated she doesn't have a problem with the parking lot but has a problem with the length of the permit since this is in the midst of the Urban Renewal Plan. The applicant is soon to put this property up for sale and she;s afraid that whoever purchases would not purchase to do Urban Renewal but to keep the parking lot. She stated they need to keep on with the Urban Renewal Plan and allowing parking to go in there is not a goal. Tape #689 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 10 of 19 #0454 #0494 #0550 #0610 #0699 Mr. Waibel discussed a study session when Mr. Connolly berated Council for not having sufficient incentives for developing downtown waterfront. He stated this plan is a disincentive, the better parking does in that area, the less likely it will be developed. He stated this is an opposite direction they want to go, even if it is short-term and he can't see why they are considering this for 5 years. Mr. Waibel stated they should look at assignability, one year review, one year renewable, all conditions Mr. Schmidt suggested are not only good but mandatory if we're going to get on with downtown waterfront development. Mr. Collins concurred with Mr. Waibel and stated by giving this permit for 5 years there will be nothing built for 5 years. Also in the Urban Renewal the City has the ability to condemn or eminent domain. If a developer and Bremer Trust could not come to an agreement on price the City has the ability to step in. If this is a parking lot that is making money at a considerable rate, then the price goes beyond what the City can pay and asked Mr. Pratt if this is given for 5 years that increases the price of the property beyond a year to year, what are the powers of eminent domain by the Urban Renewal Plan the City enacted some years ago. Mr. Pratt stated the Shoreline Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance are forbidden from considering economic impacts when looking at land uses. His understanding of how property is valued is from a potential income stream, if property can support a money making business that property probably assumes some of the value the business can make. In his view, the property has two potential sources of income; a parking lot; and waterfront for commercial development, both are high revenue yields in Puget Sound. Eminent domain is a activity which we are setting the Urban Renewal Plan up for, eminent domain works when a city adopts a plan and then requires a developer or property owned to met the standards of that plan in schedule and type of development. We have adopted a plan and are in the process of bringing in eliminate that will allow the City to protect eminent domain and this administration's policy not to protect eminent domain because we found the property to be taken reasonable steps to improve the property and found that process to be more cost effective than to buy the property and sell it. Mr. Johnson stated all the studies he has reviewed didn't recommend parking for this area. He stated when they went through the site plans and parking requirements as part of the urban development were extremely restrictive on the amount of parking a building could put on the first block next to the water. He had some concerns that maybe they were being overly restrictive but Council's thoughts were they could park across the street and keep the waterfront for people activity and commercial development. When those plans were presented the strategy was they would stick to this plan and developers who came in would do this or they will condemn. Mr. Colvin asked Mr. Pratt if this is inconsistent with the Downtown Waterfront Development Plan as Mr. Schmidt stated? Mr. Pratt stated the Planning Commission approved this 5 year Conditional Use Permit on the basis of finding it to be consistent with the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program and in compliance with the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. In response to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pratt stated the Urban Renewal Plan and Bremerton Shoreline Master Plan do allow for some parking to continue on a limited basis and that's what they granted. Mr. Colvin asked what would be the alternative if this permit is not allowed? Mr. Pratt responded he'd have to assume the alternative is what Mr. Schmidt has requested, he hasn't said he doesn't want the permit granted, he wants different conditions on the permit: non-transferrable permit; annual review of short-term, long-term parking ratio; and Tape #689 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 11 of 19 not interpreting the 5 year conditional use permit to fulfill the requirement should eminent domain be requested. Mr. Pratt stated Mr. Schmidt talked about bringing into conformity the 160 spaces and lack of shoreline permit, lack of demolition permit and lack of drainage. In the first instance there is a questions if that is a legal use. It is not a cut and dried issue and when the time comes it will be addressed. There are such things as continuing uses, that was a lumber yard, there was an eliminate of parking in that yard and it was a non-conformity- They're allowed a certain eliminate of use. There has been no demolition, what was demolished didn't require a permit. The drainage that is there now is what was there previously and is the drainage required by City and State ordinances. He stated it is a goal of the Shoreline Master Plan and Urban Renewal to remove most of the parking from shoreline uses, however, when the City adopted the Urban Renewal Plan and Shoreline Master Program they did accommodate some continuing uses of parking on the waterfront. The specific mechanism Council approved was a 5 year conditional use permit and that is what was approved by the Planning Commission. There is an eliminate in the Urban Renewal Plan and Shoreline Master Plan that parking lots must be developed by waterfront users. This is a valid question and subject to policy. It is this administration's interpretation to use if literally in order to facilitate some development on the waterfront. The people using the parking lots are using the ferries and by definition they are waterfront users. It may not be the definition they'll want to use in 5 years, but is the definition they found most advantages today to expedite some movement on the waterfront. He stated Mr. Schmidt asked for three items of relief: 1) non-transferable - whether this is a waterfront issue, simple rezoning or conditional use in any other part of the City, it is our policy not to issue land uses to specific individuals, but to apply that use to the property. 2) annual review - it's a valid question and interesting issue, can only say the Planning Commission said to let it go for 5 years at 20 spaces short-term. Primary basis is we feel this application at this time furthers the efforts toward development of the waterfront as outlined in the Shoreline Master and Urban Renewal plans and giving accommodation for waterfront access with release of the lease to the Port. 3) misinterpretation - another valid question and understands we can find beyond just granting a 5 year conditional use permit, that there are other conditions attendant on the proposal on which the City can base eminent domain. Mr. Colvin asked Mr. Pratt if this is approved and it is used as a parking site for 3 years and ownership is transferred, will the new owner have 5 entire years? Mr. Pratt responded this is a 5 year conditional use permit with the property from the day it is finalized. Mr. Colvin stated 5 years is the consensus of the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Horning stated he understand the possible benefits but is more concerned with redevelopment of the waterfront and afraid this would increase the value of the property to the point where it would be too desirable to keep in this form. He's not in favor of allowing this permit and stated he feels it is not beneficial to the community in the long run. Mr. Waibel stated this permit is not in line with downtown waterfront development and the appeal be upheld and the permit be denied. He suggested this application go back to the Planning Commission for additional restrictions. M/S (Waibel/Johnson) the appeal of the request for Shoreline Substantial Development Conditional Use Permit be upheld, the request for the permit be denied. Tape #689 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 12 of 19 Mr. Overson expressed opinion the appeal was for some additional conditions, not to deny the permit. He stated he is unhappy with Council who hasn't done a thing with downtown dictating to those who are trying to do something. Mr. Crutcher agreed with Mr. Overson and stated one reason there has been no building on the waterfront and businesses are leaving downtown is because Council doesn't support the businesses, when Council supports downtown they will see development. Those ugly buildings will stay there because Council refuses to take action. Mr. Waibel reiterated this will retard downtown development, not enhance it. He discussed Council's options as stated on the agenda bill. Mr. Colvin stated Council didn't listen to Mr. Schnmidt, it was not his intention to keep from tearing dilapidate buildings down. His request was to modify the permit. Mr. Schmidt responded he is not opposed to tearing the building down or the permit being granted if enough restrictions are put on it to protect the waterfront plans. Mr. Colvin stated that is a reasonable request and they should move forward with those suggestions. The City doesn't own property downtown, if it is condemned how will the City develop it? He suggested Mr. Schmidt and Bremer Trust get together and proceed. Mr. Johnson reminded Council they spent much money in hiring the best business expert they could get, they brought back a plan, and Council should stick to it. Mr. Waibel stated Mr. Pratt pointed out problems with the conditions Mr. Schmidt suggested, Council is not in a position to engineer those conditions further. Council needs to deny and let them come back when it's right. Mr. Horton stated she is not opposed to granting the permit, but believes there should be some restrictions placed on the permit. Not in favor of the non-transferable, but would be in favor only as long as it could take for a new owner to go through the process to put up a new facility on the property. Mr. Horning stated his concern is if sold and it is making money the desire to put up a new structure will be delayed and this is not the time for delays. Mr. Johnson asked the Mr. Sievers if Council can waive the 365 day rule? Mr. Sievers responded there is a moratorium on re-submittal. He stated Council's comments are inconsistent; if Council wants to deny, but then intends to take up another motion for some sort of directives, that probably would not be possible. Discussion followed regarding amendment that would take away the 365 rule and allow them to come back at whatever time other agreements may be made. Mr. Sievers stated the rule is in an ordinance and apparently incorporates the zoning ordinance procedures by reference and doesn't know that ordinance can be supplemented by a motion. Discussion continued regarding adding a paragraph to the ordinance that it is waived in this case. Mr. Sievers stated that can be done, but this would have to be tabled so that ordinance could be amended and takes effect, which wouldn't be immediately. Mr. Horning stated there must be a procedure that would allow them to come back in less than one year. Mr. Sievers stated the answer is to remand. Mr. Waibel stated if they can't come back with something Tape #689 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 13 of 19 substantially different he isn't interested that is why he moved to deny. Mr. Sievers stated the remand would have guidelines to the Commission to finish some conditions which Council expected to be placed on this permit. Motion and second withdrawn. M/S/C (Waibel/Johnson) to remand this Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit #SL-4-89 back to the approving authority, the Planning Commission, for further consideration that the plan be an incentive for development rather than a disadvantage. Mr. Collins stated if it comes back in less than 365 days with something different then we're back in business. Mr. Sievers stated yes, it would have to be measured by something substantially different. Mr. Pratt stated if this is remanded to the Planning Commission and ask them to read the minutes and that they make adjustments on the order of Mr. Schmidt's appeal is based on, it is clear that the way it was passed by them is not acceptable and it better come back with changes according to the basis of the appeal. Mr. Crutcher stated it is possible there will be 3 or 4 new Council members when this comes back with different questions and may take 3 or 4 years to get this done. Question: affirmative - Horton, Waibel, Horning, Collins, Colvin, Johnson opposed - Overson, Crutcher #1757 6D - ZONING NAPREVIEW/TOMAKE FINAL DECISION ON THE MAUPIN ZONING MAP REVIEW, LOCATED NORTH OF KITSAP LAKE AT 2001 NORTHLAKE WAY #AB89-309 Willard Maupin suspected an error in the SF-3 zoning of his 8-unit apartment building at 2001 Northlake Way and requested a Zoning Review in accordance with the Correction of Errors process. The Zoning Review Committee conducted its review on 3/28/89 and concluded that an error had occurred. The committee recommended that the property's zoning be corrected to Multiple-Family (MF). City Council conducted a public hearing on 4/19/89. The matter was tabled to allow the applicant and staff to discuss options. The review is now returning to Council for a final decision. Staff recommends that Council approve the correction to the Zoning Map as recommended by the Zoning Review Committee to be changed from Single-Family (SF-3) to Multiple-Family (MF). Ron Hough, Planning Manager, made an overlay presentation and stated the property is 12,500 sq. ft. which includes an 8 unit apartment building built in 1975. It was approved by the City than and zoned R-l, Current zoning is SF-3. An error was suspected and the Zoning Review Committee felt an error had occurred and recommended it be corrected to multiple-family (MF). This would provide the greatest degree of zoning protection should the building be destroyed. Under the SF-3 zoning it is considered a legal use but it is non-conforming, if destroyed it could possibly be replaced with two single family homes but not an 8 unit apartment. As recommended by the Planning Commission multiple family zoning would allow for replacement with a 6 unit building. Mr. Maupin thought they might consider a mixed-residential zone which is the highest density for residential. That would cover it but would Tape #689 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 14 of 19 #1927 #2040 also provide for expansion, possibly 12 units. The Zoning Review Committee felt that was excessive and they were also concerned with the height limit in the MR zoning which is 120 ft. as opposed to 40 ft. in the MF zone. They felt an error did occur and they felt the MF zone was most consistent with the area. After Council tabled action in April, 1989, to allow Mr. Maupin to talk with staff, the City Attorney's office reviewed the case and discussed it with Mr. Maupin. It was felt that higher density zoning would require a rezone and he could come back for that later. He stated Mr. Maupin agrees and will accept the Zoning Review Committee's recommendation for MF zoning and that is the recommendation before Council. Will Maupin, owner, stated when he was last before Council he did think he'd come back with restrictions on higher zoning that would allow the 8 units as is and it is still his desire that the final result that the property be zoned to allow the 8 units that are there. He doesn't feel it is inconsistent with the uses of the surrounding property. Mr. Maupin stated he has agreed to the Zoning Review Committee's recommendation to go with the MF zoning, but it is still his intent to apply for a rezone with restrictions to limit in height. M/S/C/U (Waibel/Colvin) to approve the correction of the zoning map as recommended by the Zoning Review Committee to change the zoning to multiple family (MF) zoning. Recess 8:22 - 8:28 p.m. 8A - HFARING/MAYOR'S PROPOSED 1990 COMITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM #AB89-312 Each year the Mayor submits recommendations for use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to the City Council for consideration and public hearing. These recommendations are based on an application process open to the public and applicant interviews conducted by the Mayor's CDBG Advisory Committee and city staff. City Council review and approval of the annual CDBG Program is required prior to the City submitting its annual CDBG Application to HUD. Mayor Lobe stated he is presenting the 1990 Block Grant projects to Council. Each year the City receives CDBG funds administered through HUD. In 1990 Bremerton will receive an estimated $350,000 entitlement and there is approximately $50,000 unspent making a total of approximately $400,000. Mayor Lobe stated in addition to the federal objectives for CDBG projects they must be consistent with one of four policies referencing priorities for use of the 1990 funds. These policies are defined to best direct the impact of limited funds on improving Bremerton. - Provide a range of social/human service projects to meet the needs and improve quality of life for low income City residents giving priority to existing services which have performed successfully, but not to the exclusion of new programs servicing previously unmet needs. - Improve through rehabilitation and weatherization the physical condition and maintain affordability of existing housing stock for low and very-low income people. - Eliminate slum and blight conditions in the Waterfront Urban Renewal Area defined in Resolution #227. Tape #689, #690 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 15 0f 19 #2243 Tape #690 - Promote economic revitalization of the downtown core through projects that meet the needs of business people, provide goods and services, and provide job training opportunities for low income. Carol Dickinson, Community Services Manager, stated CDBG funds come with some rules and must be met. Each project must meet one of two federal objectives and must benefit low income people or reduce or eliminate slum and blight. In addition no more than 15% of the 1990 entitlement or $52,000 is available for social and human services. No more than 20% of the 1990 funds or $70,000 is available for planning and administration. At least 60% or $210,000 must be used to fund projects directly benefiting low income people. She stated these rules come directly from Congress and there is no administrative latitude to do other than comply. In addition funds reprogrammed from prior years, bring these rules forward with them in time. Of the $50,000 reprogrammed, $30,000 comes from rehab loan repayments. Since rehab loans go to directly benefit low income, reusing rehab loan funds must go to projects that also directly benefit low income. The remaining $20,000 come from capital projects not directly benefiting low income and have been reallocated according. The 1990 program recommendation are formatted to so comply with those CDBG rules. Although limited and restrictive those funds are an important resource to the City. They represent one of the last sources of direct federal assistance to cities. Nationally, CDBG has been reduced 80% since 1980. At the same time reporting requirements have increased by at least 180%. The emphasis on direct benefit to low income people has also increased. Outreach two and participation of minorities is monitored by HUD. HUD also emphasis community involvement, via the Mayor's CDBF Advisory Committee. They provide a good balance to technical support and between what is good common sense recommendations. CDBG is an important scarce resource that challenges Bremerton to use it most effectively as possible, to keep the lead in community objectives, those priorities reflected in the Council's own goals for 1990. The Block Grant funds recommended tonight are divided between projects in three major categories: Social and Human Services; Planning and Administrative; and Capital Projects and Programs. Mr. Horning asked the standard conflict of interest, appearance of fairness question, with Mr. Waibel stepping down. All other Council members remained seated. Beth Wilson, Kitsap County Project Family - Recommended $3,000. Funds will provide for administration of six projects directed towards parents and designed to teach skills to prevent child abuse and neglect and to improve parenting. She urged to Council to fund this organization at the requested amount of $11,000. Tess Hunter and Cynthia Conrad, Kitsap Sexual Assault Legal Advocacy - Recommended $7,000. Funds will provide legal advocacy to victims of sexual assault; a volunteer staffed 24 hour crisis line; training for community service agencies; monitoring of assault cases; and statistics. They requested $12,000. Pam Hewgal, YWCA ALIVE Shelter Program - recommended $10,500 and YWCA Child Support Program - recommended -0-. Funds will provide a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week counselor in the ALIVE shelter for battered women and their children. Requested $15,000. Tape #690 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 16 of 19 Funds will provide for administration of a program to assist local low income custodial parents with advocacy and education in pursuit of collecting unpaid child support. Requested $6,000. Fran Moen, HOSPICE - Recommended $5,000. Funds will provide for administration of program for comprehensive hospice care to individuals and their families. Requested $5,000. Mary Scott, Kitsap Community Clinic - Recommended $18,500. Funds will provide direct primary health care services to low income residents without health care benefits (medical indigent). Requested $30,000. Pat Tennis, Bremerton Foodline - Recommended $5,500. Funds will provide for administration of an emergency food program for low income people without food and income. Requested $8,000. Helen Osterman, Literacy Council of Kitsap - Recommended $3,000. Funds will provide for a portion of administrative costs for a program to match volunteer tutors with low income illiterate adult residents to acquire reading, writing and speaking skills. Requested $8,730. Larry Eyer, Energy Matchmakers/Weatherization Project - Recommended $26,500. Funds will be matched dollar for dollar with State funds to provide grants to weatherize homes occupied byvery-low income renters and owners. Requested $75,000. Arvilla Ohlde, Kiwanis Park Improvements - Recommended $13,000. Funds will be used to develop a walking exercise path around the perimeter of this multi-use athletic field, install playground, provide park entrance sign and landscaping, construct off-street parking, and repair fence, and demolish vacant boiler room. Requested $36,400. Don Pratt, Downtown Waterfront Boardwalk - Recommended $57,000. funds will be used to construct a boardwalk/park from the First Street Dock to the Second street terminus as a component of downtown redevelopment and waterfront park system. Requested $70,000. Dick Mumma, Derelict Housing Abatement Program - Recommended $20,000. Funds will provide for demolition of privately owned unoccupied buildings (prior to 9/30/88) not suitable for rehabilitation, causing health, safety and public welfare problems, in order to foster redevelopment in housing rehab target areas. Requested $50,000. Carol Dickinson, Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program - Recommended $100,000. Funds will provide low interest loans to low income homeowners in certain target areas to rehabilitate their homes, Requested $200,000. Ron Hough, Zoning Ordinance Refinement and Publication - Recommended $5,000. Funds will provide for staff to refine certain sections of the City's new zoning ordinance e.g., sign and landscape requirements, parking standards and to publish the Zoning Ordinance for distribution. Requested $6,000. Mr. Horning stated due to the late hour Council could accept the recommendations and complete this item at the next meeting. Tape #690 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 17 of 19 #1610 #1663 #1862 #1939 Mr. Crutcher stated he supports the recommends 100%. Mr. Collins stated the Advisory Committee and staff have done an outstanding job with one exception. Mr. Collins felt the elimination of derelict houses are more important than playthings and recommended the $13,000 for Kiwanis Park be eliminated and added to the $20,000 for removal of derelict houses. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Horning that this should be tabled one week. Mr. Overson agreed with tabling for one week, and stated the money has been given to Bremerton and the Committee has recommended giving it to Kitsap County. He also stated there are four separate programs supporting battered women and children and wondered why there can't be one program to take care of these type of needs. Mr. Horning asked Ms. Dickinson if there would be a problem with a one or two week delay? Ms. Dickinson responded these people have been awaiting this process and a week's delay would be better than a two week delay. M/S/C/U (Colvin/Horton) to table the discussion of the Block Grant procedures for one week. Mr. Waibel returned to the meeting. 6B - AUTHORIZE THEMAYORTOSIGN CONTRACT WITH STATETRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION #AB89-307 City Council approved grant submittal to State Traffic Safety Commission. The grant application was successful and the City has been awarded $39,000. Council authorization is required for Mayoral signature of the contract. Connie Devaney, Grant Procurement Officer, stated a few weeks ago the Council authorized submittal of a grant application to the State Highway Safety Commission, the application was successful and the City has been awarded $39,000. The majority of the money will be utilized to hire a full-time coordinator who will be responsible for staffing a new Traffic Safety Task Force and the DWI and Victims Panel, both County wide programs. She stated it will be renewed based on performance and funding available for a three year period. The Board of County Commissioners has written a letter of support for the program. Ms. Devaney is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract which will allow the program to began on December 1, 1989. M/S/C/U (Waibel/Colvin) authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with the State Traffic Safety Commission and direct staff to implement the County wide Traffic Safety Task Program. 6C - MUSEUM BUILDING LEASE #AB89-308 The lease with Lou Weir for the Museum building expired in July and contained an option to renew for an additional two years. The proposed extension is for a period of one year to July, 1990. The one year extension was at the request of the Museum Directors. In response to an earlier inquiry, Ms. McCluskey stated it didn't come up in July was because it was indicated on the tickler system as an automatic two year renewal, however, the second year was an option. The Museum Board felt a one year renewal was more appropriate. She stated this has been sent to Mr. Weir, he has not responded and she felt it was best to bring it to Council at this time. Discussion followed regarding the two year extension and Tape #690 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 18 #2083 #2146 #2295 continuation of operating without a lease. Mr. Sievers stated it would be deemed a month-to-month lease without a long-term lease after July. M/S/C/U (Waibel/Crutcher) to approve the one year extension of the lease with Mr. Lou Weir under the same terms and conditions. 7A - ORDINANCE (lST READING) REZONE FROM MULTI-FAMILY (MF) TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO), LES FOWLER, 2755 CLARE AVE. #89-310 On September 13, 1989, City Council voted 5 to 4 recommending conditional approval of a proposed rezone at 2755 Clare Avenue. Before such action is legally in effect, the new ordinance for the subject rezone must be read two times by Council, published in a local newspaper and have a 30 day wait period. M/S/C (Overson/Crutcher) to approve on first reading An Ordinance rezoning, subject to conditions, a lot located at 2755 Clare Avenue, Bremerton, from multi-family (MF) to Professional Office (PO). Question: Affirmative - Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Horning, Collins, Colvin, Johnson Opposed - Waibel 7C - RESOLUTION #2277, AMENDING CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP IN AN AREA WEST OF GORST AND SOUTH OF SR-3 #AB89-311 The City and Puget Western are considering an exchange of properties. A rezone of a 20-acre City-owned parcel near Gorst has been requested by the City Water Utility and an adjacent 10-acre Puget Western parcel is being considered for annexation. On September 19, 1989, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and passed Resolution #89-8 recommending a Plan amendment to apply the designation 'RESIDENTIAL, 0-7 UNITS PER ACRE' to both properties. City Council conducted a public hearing on October 11, 1989 and agreed with the Commission's Plan Amendment recommendation. Mr. Johnson stated he takes strong exception to changing the Comprehensive Plan with a Resolution, he feels it is a bad precedent and feels this should be an ordinance. Mr. Sievers stated often times Comprehensive Plans are by Resolution. Mr. Hough stated our Comprehensive Plan was adopted and amended by Resolution. He emphasized it is a policy document. Mr. Hough stated the Plan was adopted in 1986 and is due for review next year at which time they plan to totally review the Plan and bring back possible changes as a package. Mr. Johnson asked if they plan to do this by Resolution? Mr. Hough responded in the affirmative. M/S/C (Crutcher/Colvin) to pass Resolution #2277 amending the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan map in an area west of Gorst and south of SF-3. Question: Affirmative - Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Horning Opposed - Collins, Johnson Abstain - Waibel 7B - ORDINANCE #4248, REZONE PROPERTIES LOCATED WEST OF GORST AND ON T~E SOUTH SIDE OF SR-3 #89-301 M/S/C/U (Crutcher/Horton) to pass on second reading An Ordinance rezoning a 20 acre parcel of City-owned property, located within the City limits west of Gorst and south of SR-3. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Tape #690 City Council Meeting Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 19 of 19 APPROVED: KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, Clerk SPENCER HORNING, Council President KLM/SH/eh cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault