Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/89TAPES #691, #692 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1989 #0010 #0024 #0034 #0048 #0070 #0095 #0116 #0152 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 8, 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, and Russ Johnson. Council member A1 Colvin was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horning and the Invocation was given by Deputy Clerk Johnson. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting Held - October 25, 1989, #AB89-314 M/S/C/U (Waibel/Crutcher) presented. to approve the Consent Agenda as CLAIM/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 (Crutcher/Overson) on November 8, 1989 the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: check numbers 101169 - 101285 inclusive in amount of $181,165.17 and payroll in amount of $361,382.60. COUNCIL MEMBERS REPORTS Mr. Johnson, reminded everyone this weekend if the Veteran's Day Holiday and stated there are a number of ceremonies in the area. At 1:00 p.m. on Saturday at Ivy Green Cemetery is one ceremony. Mr. Dawkins, stated he will be attending the Veteran's Day celebration at Retsil on Saturday morning and discussed the various celebration activities. Mr. Waibel, briefly discussed recent newspaper articles and stated regarding the Admiral Theater, most people don't realize the agenda bill for that time directed the Council not to take action but to make comments and it would come back to Council at a later date. Mr. Waibel stated he does have a crowbar and shovel and will help with the demolition and landscaping on the waterfront. Ms. Horton, stated she received a memo from Connie Devaney that Bremerton has received a grant for $75,000 from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account to assist in building of the boardwalk from 1st to 2nd streets. She felt it is a positive for the community and dollars the community can use wisely and everyone is looking forward to this. Mr. Crutcher thanked everyone for their hard work on the election and appreciated their efforts. He stated there is a great deal of talk about the Admiral Theater and wants people to know he strongly supports this issue. Regarding the waterfront parking issue, Mr. Crutcher stated he went to Port Orchard to observe their waterfront parking and he felt that area proves that waterfront and parking go to together. Mr. Overson, stated this Thursday, promptly at 5:00 p.m. Council starts budget sessions and they have a very short time frame to deal with the budget. He asked all Council members to become Tape #691 City Council Meeting Minutes November 8, 1989 Page 2 of 11 #0180 #0209 #0268 #0390 #0443 familiar with the budget. Mr. Overson stated there is much detail, staff has done an excellent job and he asked Council to recognize it is a very austere budget and to think how this one will be worked through. Mr. Horning, congratulated the winners in Tuesday's election and challenged everyone to pull together for the good of Bremerton, and committed his full and complete cooperation to that effort. Mr. Horning congratulated Mr. Mentor personally and feels Bremerton has spoken and will now go forward in a new direction. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Cecil McConnell, 3245 Almire Dr., addressed a recent editorial in "The Sun", and felt some words were taken out of context made a decisive article which has upset many people. He stated people feel the attack was unfair and unwarranted. He stated the appellant wanted more restrictions on the permit but the paper made it seem as though he wanted the permit denied. Mr. McConnell felt the editor owes City Council an apology. Lena Swanson, 2123 Snyder Ave., also addressed the editorial and felt it was uncalled for. Ms. Swanson stated if Council acted on what she heard they acted in good faith. She stated after last week's meeting, she talked with Mr. smith and he explained that the foundation was in the process of being formed, and felt if that had been presented at the meeting she would have been in favor of purchasing the Admiral Theater. As far as the parking issue, Ms. Swanson was distressed by the reaction of the press and felt those buildings should be torn down but supports what Council did last week. Ms. Swanson stated the Bremerton Theater is built on City property and that foundation came to Council already formed before the City purchased the property. She suggested "The Sun's" editor study the history of Bremerton. She stated her concerns are shrinking revenues and police and fire protection. She contends downtown cannot save Bremerton, the waterfront cannot generate enough revenues to save the City. Ms. Swanson stated if property values drop and decrease below a certain level the taxes will automatically increase. She's concerned that at sometime the City will have to generate bonds to support police and fire because of the shrinking revenues. Ms. Swanson stated it is one thing to have a beautiful theater and a nice touring facility, but tiny shops will not be enough to save Bremerton. Marshall Miller, representing the Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce concerning the downtown waterfront, stated the Chamber recommends City Council reconsider their decision to reject the Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit, #SL4-89. He stated the permit is to demolish the old lumber yard building and receive a temporary 5 year parking permit. The Bremer Trust also agrees to do whatever is necessary for beautification and enhancement of the area. The Chamber believes this permit is vital with the waterfront redevelopment project, and in fact, without this action the development of the City's most beautiful asset is impaled. The Trust has made land available for a boardwalk and has agreed to landscape and beautify the waterfront area in coordination with the parking design. The Trust has provided access to 2nd Street and has agreed to being a partner in the important elements of the waterfront area, which is going to be the gateway to the City. The Chamber urges City Council to reconsider and approve the permit request. This positive action will allow continuation of the revitalization of downtown Bremerton and the waterfront area. Robert Schneidler, 921 Pershing Ave., stated he has a business in the City and just signed a new lease and plans to be in the City and anticipates paying B&O taxes for a long time. As Chairman of Tape #691 City Council Meeting Minutes November 8, 1989 Page 3 of 11 #0510 #0053 #0640 #0744 #0767 the Bremerton Planning Commission, Mr. Schneidler stated they approved the Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Permit under the normal process, and without an appeal that special use permit would have gone into effect. He stated apparently it was remanded back to the Planning Commission, but there has been no additional information revealed since that remand. The Commission voted 7 - 0 in favor and approved it with the conditions that were established, and he stated it is not clear why the remand is taking place, what additional information exists that would case them to come to different conclusions than they already reached. Gerry Reed, Real Estate Broker in Bremerton, thanked Council for the time they spend on City business. He stated in the past he spent many years on a board and knows at times decisions are tough to make and those decisions are made given the best information members have. He stated at times he found they did make mistakes and after reflection felt they should have acted in a different manner. Mr. Reed stated his input to Board members at those times was "lets go back and reconsider". He felt Council working with the community and waterfront may find from time to time they may not have made the best decision and asked Council if that happens to go back and reconsider. Ray White, representing Economic Development Council of Kitsap County, stated his agreement with Mr. Reed and felt since he was not at the last meeting and having heard different version of the editorial, it is difficult to know what was said, but felt if Council did not embrace purchasing the Admiral Theater and if Council did not intend to approve the demolition of the old lumber building, Council did themselves and the community a disservice. Mr. White stated being concerned with the economic outcome of the downtown area, it is difficult, if not impossible for Flagship, EDC or Main Street to overcome damage that a group such as Council might present. He stated if there are questions of the business community, affecting what might be good for the downtown area, he asked Council to approach the business people for answers. Andrew Parypa, 1122 Hayward Ave., stated he felt public recognition is not being properly used. Mr. Horning stated this is the opportunity for the public to comment on anything not on the agenda. Mr. Parypa also stated he felt that signatures and addresses should be on the board or announced, that question was not asked. He addressed the editorial and felt it was a slam to Council. As far as the Admiral Theater, he felt Council made a good decision. As far as the waterfront parking issue, he stated his concern is that once there is a 5 year permit on one, it will continue on and on. Mr. Parypa stated as parking rates go up that land will be prohibitive for a developer to buy, 5 years from now it could cost $5 a day to park; that property could cost $1,880,000 and that is his concern with a long 5 year term. He concluded Council made a right decision to remand back. Ms. Horton, stated in light of last week's decision by Council and in light of some comments by Mr. Pratt, she asked Mr. Pratt to come forward and elaborate on some points that were not brought to light last week. Mr. Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated he discussed several things with Ms. Horton relevant to Council's decision: 1) Within land use law, it is important that economics not be used as a criteria or as findings on which to base a decision. 2) In the matter of how you deal procedurally and reasonably with property owners, if talking about not permitting certain uses that are permitted under an eliminate of the zoning code or Shoreline Tape #691 City Council Meeting Minutes November 8, 1989 Page 4 of 11 Master Plan and in fact limit the kinds of uses even more than what the zoning code permits, typically we would be obligated to move into the Urban Renewal Plan, which then says if you won't do what we would like you to do even though you can do other things, we are obligated to take the property and we can take that property legally. Mr. Pratt emphasized that the permit as submitted by Bremer Trust was the result of extended negotiations. He stated he asked for many things, some of which he didn't get and he got other things he didn't ask for, some are in the body of the permit and some committed by letters. Ms. Horton stated based on that information she felt there were discussions last week that probably were not pertinent to making a decision. M/S/C (Horton/Crutcher) to rescind last week's previous decision to remand back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Horton felt that from Mr. Schneidler's remarks there is nothing new to add and secondly, to pave the way to make a motion to set a new public hearing to take additional testimony. Mr. Overson stated he has a question regarding procedures, this seems to be something new. Ms. Horton has checked with the City Attorney and according to Robert's Rules of Order, which Council has adopted, this is procedurally correct. Mr. Collins requested clarification; how is this being revisited? Mr. Sievers stated the proper motion, when the time for reconsideration can be brought is the only motion that can be brought, but that time has passed and it's only available during the same session or a meeting on the following day. Mr. Collins asked if there could be no additional votes taken between the time that decision is made and when it is reconsidered, it has to be immediately following, is that correct? Mr. Sievers responded yes, however, once that time has expired the motion is no longer to reconsider but to rescind which is the motion on the floor. Mr. Collins asked if it is necessary that a person making the motion be in the affirmative? Mr. Sievers stated no, that requirement is only for motions to reconsider, any Council member can make a motion to rescind or renew. Mr. Johnson asked if Council does this, when will it return to Council? Mr. Horning responded first Council must rescind, then they need to set a new hearing date. Mr. Johnson inquired what will Council do when it gets back to them? Mr. Horning stated it will be a new hearing, without the economics issue. Mr. Johnson asked why is zoning done if it isn't economics, why do economic development if it isn't economics? Mr. Sievers stated economic vitality of the community is one of the driving motivators behind all zoning that provide that vitality in a non-conflict situation, but case law is concerned with an impropriety in Council acting for the corporation's own saving of those dollars; example: down zoning in the City is going in with a project to fulfill a municipal purpose in the Urban Renewal Zone, we would have municipal obligation in that we've declared that blight and want to straighten that out and that is a recognized municipal purpose for which we can exercise condemnation if we choose. He stated if Council was holding up a project or taking zoning action to save City dollars, that would not be a legitimate purpose. Mr. Johnson stated Council said it is the policy of Urban Renewal and downtown redevelopment there will be no large parking lots on that property. If going into Urban Renewal and trying to implement Tape #691 City Council Meeting Minutes November 8, 1989 Page 5 of 11 #1284 it you've got to talk economics. He stated the discussion has to come out in the open and he wants it discussed that way. Ms. Horton stated there was discussion regarding; if we allow the parking lot to expand and sometime in the future the City has to take steps in the Urban Renewal Plan to condemn that property it will be too expensive for the City to do that; and felt that wasn't appropriate discussion and they were guilty of the appearance of fairness. Question: Affirmative - Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Horning, Dawkins, Johnson Opposed - Waibel, Collins M/S/C (Horton/Crutcher) to set a new public hearing date of November 29 1989 to take additional testimony on the appeal presented by Mr. Paul Schmidt. Mr. Waibel asked if the Planning Commission makes a decision at their next meeting that is acceptable to the appellant would this still come back to Council? Mr. Sievers responded no, if there is no additional appeal. Mr. Waibel asked how items get from Council to the Planning Commission? Mr. Pratt stated the next regular meeting, November 21st, unless a special meeting is requested. Mr. Waibel asked when are they notified something will be on the agenda? Mr. Pratt stated they need two weeks to effect the 10 day notice. Mr. Waibel asked if it has not been delivered to them until notice is delivered? Mr. Pratt stated they are aware of Council's action of last week and there's time to put this on the agenda. Mr. Waibel stated the City Attorney said once it is delivered to them Council cannot entertain a motion to rescind, and asked if it has not been delivered to them after a whole week? Mr. Pratt stated the Chairman was notified immediately, beyond that no notice is required until publication and posting of the property and the packets send out. Mr. Waibel asked has it been delivered under the rules? Mr. Sievers stated when the City is rescinding it is acting like any applicant with an item on the agenda. Question: Affirmative - Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Horning, Dawkins, Johnson Opposed - Waibel, Collins 6A - CONTRACT RENEWAL; CITY OWNED PARKING FACILITIES #AB89-315 The City has contracted with Diamond Parking for management and operation of City owned parking facilities since May, 1986. The recommendation to continue with the incumbent contractor through 1990 is based on the following: 1. Overall parking plan for downtown has not been fully resolved. 2. Rebid would require a 3 year term for contractor to achieve return on investment. 3. By the end of 1990 the City will be in a better position to decide whether to contract long term or to self operate. Mr. Johnson stated another consideration was given which deals with the issue of in lieu from the State Department of Revenue, namely being the leasehold excess tax imposed when a government owned property is leased to a private firm or organization, as there is no property tax on government owned businesses, SDR exercises a leasehold excess tax to recover some of those taxes. Under the current agreement, Diamond Parking has been collecting the revenue, depositing in their account and the City has been receiving a percentage of that revenue. SDR has interpreted that the taxable base for a leasehold excess tax in the amount of money has been in turn leased the facilities to Diamond, which is about $96,000 a year. By turning this into a management fee operation and the City collecting all revenue and depositing in their accounts, #1418 #1460 #1513 #1550 Tape #691 City Council Meeting Minutes November 8, 1989 Page 6 of 11 the leasehold tax is exempted from all, except those stalls in this parking garage that have a rent greater than $20.83 a month of $250 a year. The others continue to have a sales tax. Under the current contract, approximately $13,000 a year is passed from the contractor through the City to the State Department of Revenue. By going to a contracted fee management or a service, the City will make it's leasehold tax payments and collections to the State by approximately $10,000 a year. Mr. Johnson stated Diamond Parking has agreed to the contract extension. Mr. Crutcher stated he's been concerned with this project during his term. He discussed this with Mr. Johnson and feels by the end of 1990 the City will be in a better position to decide whether to contract long term or to self operate. He supports operation by the City, but feels this time is needed to complete other things and supports this contract extension. Mr. Crutcher strongly feels the City should consider self operation and stated the City can't afford to pay others when they can do it cheaper themselves. Mr. Dawkins agreed with Mr. Crutcher and feels the City should be able to handle the parking plan. He stated there are complications and supports this contract extension. M/S/C/U (Dawkins/Crutcher) to approve the contract with Diamond Parking for parking facilities management and operation on a management fee for the term ending 12/31/90 in an amount of $2,312.50 per month or 15% of gross revenues, whichever is greater. Mr. Collins stated this contract with Diamond Parking is one of the best things the City has done, it's the first time in the history of the parking garage it's making money. Mr. Collins supports this contract. 7A - ORDINANCE #4249 - REZONE FROM MULTI-FAMILY (MF) TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO), APPLICANT: LES FOWLER, LOCATION: 2755 CLARE AVE. #AB89-310 M/S/C/U (Horton/Crutcher) to pass on second reading An Ordinance rezoning, subject to conditions, a lot located at 2755 Clare Avenue, Bremerton, from multi-family (MF) to Professional Office (PO). 7B - ORDINANCE (1ST READING) AMENDING REGULATION OF GARBAGE ACCUMULATION AND DISPOSAL #AB89-316 The City has been experiencing enforcement problems on properties where the owners do not voluntarily abate garbage complaints. The Mayor's office and members of City Council have requested revisions to our existing garbage ordinance to provide for better enforcement. The abatement procedures of Chapter 6.20 of the BMC have been revised and consolidated in Chapter 6.04 GARBAGE AND REFUSE. Dick Mumma, Building Official, stated there was some concern with some language. Ms. Horton and Mr. Mumma met with the City Attorney and they feel they've corrected some of the language that was causing problems, specifically the word "remove" has been removed. They are attempting to redefine the definitions of garbage and refuse and to specifically identify problem areas which they are experiencing and to address those areas in the ordinance. Also they are attempting to establish a procedure that is more in line with the abatement procedure in the RCW, and to increase the time for a tenant or owner to comply with the order. Previously there was a 24 hour time limit on compliance and that has been increased to 72 hours. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Mumma stated they've defined what garbage and refuse are: garbage includes all putrescible wastes, in other words it rots; refuse or rubbish is nonputrescible, it #1825 #1958 #2035 #2140 Tape #691 City Council Meeting Minutes November 8, 1989 Page 7 of 11 doesn't rot. Mr. Mumma stated if the Building Department receives a complaint they investigate. If the condition exists, they give 72 hours minimum time to respond to the complaint. If the owner does not comply, the Building Official has the authority to remove the debris and charge the property owner for cost of removal. Elizabeth Buell inquired if items cannot be saved toward clean up week? Mr. Mumma responded items cannot be saved outdoors. Mr. Sievers stated there is one amendment they would like to make, under Section 3 item #6 to read: "A statement advising the owner and occupant or tenant, that failure .... "striking the words "or agent". Ms. Swanson raised the issue of absentee owners and asked if the owner cannot be located is there a provisions for that? Mr. Mumma stated there is a provision for the City to abate if there is no response or the owner cannot be located. Ms. Buell discussed clean up week and asked if the ordinance says people have only 3 days to prepare for it? Mr. Mumma responded there is no time limit for preparation, but you can't store items outdoors. He stated the Building Department does not do active investigating, they respond to complaints. Mr. Overson inquired if the ordinance addresses owning of a large number of penned birds and those pens collecting a large amount of bird refuse which is unhealthy, etc? Mr. Mumma responded that "animal awful" is contained in the ordinance. M/S/C/U (Waibel/Crutcher) to approve on first reading An Ordinance amending regulations for the deposit and removal of refuse, and amending BMC 6.04 and repealing Chapter 6.20. 7C - RESOLUTION #2278 - SETTING FORTH STANDARDS FOR THE DELIVERY OF INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES The Indigent Defense Act, SSB No. 5960, became effective on May 13, 1989. This act requires that each county and city shall adopt standards for the delivery of indigent defense services. The proposed resolution addresses these standards, including compensation of counsel; duties and responsibilities of counsel; case load limits and types of cases; responsibility for expert witness fees and costs associated with representation; administrative expenses; support services; reports of attorney activity and vouchers; training, supervision, monitoring and evaluation of attorneys; substitution of attorneys or assignment of contracts; limitations on private practice of contract attorneys; qualifications; disposition of client complaints; cause for termination of contract or removal of attorney; and non- discrimination. Mr. Sievers stated there are two amendments they would like to make: 1) To change the number of cases per month from 35 to 45. He explained they used the State BAR guidelines to estimate the 35 cases as a rough estimate of our own local mix, misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, for which indigent defense must be provided. On further input from the Count Administrator and Judge, they felt 45 cases per month can be handled by the City's defense counsel. 2) change in subsection i, end of last sentence add "followed by a written withdrawal". Mr. Sievers stated although this sets forth the termination of the City's requirement to pay defense counsel, the Judge felt they should be reminded that they also have an obligation to formally withdraw from the case, so that is added for clarification. Kathi Johnston, Director of Municipal Court, stated they are ready to go to bid on the public defender contract and this Resolution needs to be passed. The standards as proposed, after review of Tape #691 City Council Meeting Minutes November 8, 1989 Page 8 of 11 #2364 #2455 #2530 suggested standards from the Washington State Defender Association and input from Judge Rainey, Ms. Johnston and City Attorney's staff, is a workable document and provides a good bid document. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Sievers what is the average case load of his attorneys? Mr. Sievers stated they took into account the type of defense and also the disposition and how many go to jury trial. They also looked at the number of cases of the City's Attorneys. The City has more than one attorney dedicated to criminal work, there's an overflow, there are appeals. They also undertake a certain group of infractions indigent counsel is not assigned. They determined there is probably one full time person the City supplies where indigent counsel would be assigned. Mr. Johnson stated there are minimums throughout the contract but no maximums. Ms. Johnston stated some minimums refer to training requirements. Mr. Johnson stated he's referring to compensation. Mr. Sievers stated highly paid attorneys would not be hired as they'd be weeded out in the bid process. M/S/C/U (Crutcher/Waibel) approve Resolution #2278 setting forth the standards for delivery of indigent defense services as required by the Second Substitute Senate Bill #5960 (SSB No. 5960). Recess 6:45 - 7:00 p.m. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING/MAYOR'S PROPOSED 1990 COMITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM #AB89-312 This is a continued hearing from the November 1, 1989 City Council meeting. Mayor Lobe stated many people would like more from Block Grants and they are all deserving. The problem is there is not more money and if funds are added in one area funds are taken from someone else. He stated the Advisory Committee did what they felt was the best interest of everyone and hoped Council would accept the proposal as is. Carol Dickinson, agreed with Mayor Lobe and stated she's available if there are technical questions. Mr. Horning asked the standard conflict of interest, appearance of fairness question with Mr. Waibel stepping down and all other members remaining seated. Mr. Crutcher stated out of respect to everyone who worked on this proposal, it would be to Council's benefit not to move funds from one area to another. He stated the Committee has spent many hours on the proposal and feels it should be accepted as is. Ms. Horton discussed a previous comment about CDBG and Housing Administration and the necessity for two pots of money for administration costs, pertaining primarily to Capital Projects and Weatherization and matchmakers and asked Ms. Dickinson for clarification. Ms. Dickinson stated, 1) administrative money from CDBG Administration and Housing Administration together fund 100% of Community Services office for the City with three full time staff. Cap on the amount of money set by Congress that can be devoted to administration of Block Grant monies themselves, time is limited to what is absolutely necessary to administer the Block Grant Program. The other part of the office is dedicated to a Housing Rehab Program, which includes CDBG funds, State Rental Rehab money, liaison with Washington State Housing Finance Commission, to attract additional housing monies to the community and other Tape #691 City Council Meeting Minutes November 8, 1989 Page 9 of 11 #3140 federal, state and local funds. 2) Whether over a period of time next year, if Housing Rehab monies are not spent down as quickly as proposing and anticipating, they can come back to Council and perhaps reallocate a portion of those funds to the Weatherization Program, keeping in mind the services provided to extremely low-income people to live in energy efficient homes is very important and in fact those dollars attract dollar for dollar from the State additional money coming into the community for weatherization. Mr. Overson asked Ms. Dickinson when would she expect that decision to be made, he wants to put that in an SLI. Ms. Dickinson stated the end of the second quarter of 1990. Mr. Dawkins suggested that next year they go back a year or two. Ms. Dickinson stated they can do that. Mr. Collins stated after serving on a Board as citizen, he appreciates all that work that has gone prior to this meeting. M/S/C/U (Collins/Crutcher) to authorize the Mayor to submit to HUD an application for 1990 Community Development Block Grant funds consisting of the projects and allocations approved by same; to authorize the Mayor to accept 1990 Community Development Block Grant funds authorized by HUD: and to authorize the Mayor to execute contracts with Subgrantees for the use of those funds. Council further directs the City Treasurer to administratively distribute Community Development Block Grant funds in the 1990 City Budget, and direct staff to return to City Council at the end of the second quarter, 1990, with a report on progress of the Housing Rehab Loan Program, and if the Program is not performing up to expectation they consider moving a portion of those funds to the Weatherization Program. Mr. Dawkins asked Ms. Dickinson if she has an update on what Congress is doing in this area. Ms. Dickinson stated Block Grant funds nationally have been reduced 80% since 1980; nationally Block Grant funds are at $3 billion, Bremerton's estimated entitlement has been steady at $350,000 a year. She anticipates the City can count on that for one more year. Mr. Johnson stated due to discussion on the Weatherization funds, there is a possibility he may be able to bring something to the December study session, which may make some of this money grow. He asked Ms. Dickinson if they can open the budget anytime and reallocate in HUD's rules? He stated this would not affect tonight's allocations except to increase. Ms. Dickinson stated they absolutely can open the budget for any increase. Mr. Waibel returned to the meeting. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING/APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXTAMENDMENT FROM (PUD) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO (A) ALLOWED PRINCIPLE USE UNDER (GB) GENERAL BUSINESS IN LAND USE TABLE NO. 5, APPLICANT: GARY SCHERFENBERG #AB89-313 On September 19, 1989 the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 recommending approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow certain motor vehicle sales activities as an "Allowed Principle Use" in the General Business district. The City Council is required to hold a public hearing and act on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr Horning asked the standard conflict of interest, appearance of fairness question with all Council members remaining seated. Tape #692 #0150 Tape #691, #692 City Council Meeting Minutes November 8, 1989 Page 10 of 11 Jack Allingham, Current Planning Division, stated as it now exists, the use for car, truck, motorcycle and R.V. sales, new and used, is required when in the General Business zone district, to undergo the PUD process. The applicant has requested the use of a piece of property, which is zoned General Business, to establish a used car sales on that property. After reviewing the land use table and determining that it required a PUD, Mr. Scherfenberg opted to change the law and proposed that it be allowed with one condition, that the landscape provisions of Chapter 8 be acquired. Using an overlay, Mr. Allingham discussed various business areas in the City and stated if it is amended the used car sales will be permitted in various areas as permit outright in the general industrial area. The Planning Commission recommends approval and if Council approves first reading of the ordinance can be heard at this time. Mr. McConnell stated he is not opposing car lots going in General Business, but opposed to them being outright allowed, as that removes City control of where they go. He discussed the corner of Sheridan Road and Wheaton Way, which could be converted to a car lot. He felt that would be a poor choice for the City to have a car lot at that location, and stated a car lot is a parking lot that is always full. Mr. McConnell recommended that Council approve car lots in General Business area but with a special use permit so the City has some control over where they go. Mr. Waibel asked staff to comment on Mr. McConnell's suggestion. Mr. Allingham stated the Planning Commission did consider those comments and recognized that car, truck and rental and commercial parking lots are allowed outright and those types of lots are always full and also recognized that basically there is very little different between commercial parking lots use and car, truck and rental use and car sales use, and felt there should basically be a consistent use within that General Business zoning district. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. McConnell and discussed the area on Kitsap Way close to the cemeteries and felt those areas may not be appropriate for used car lots. He also felt in some instances a special use permit would be more appropriate. Mr. Dawkins asked Mr. Allingham how difficult it would be to get a special use permit, and stated he has the same concerns as Mr. Johnson. Mr. Allingham discussed a special use permit hearing for a day-care which was difficult to obtain. Since a revision of the zoning ordinance there is an administrative special use permit process which greatly cuts the bureaucracy of the SUP. Mr. Dawkins stated in some areas a car lot could go in without any problems but in other areas it would not look good and he felt they should consider the lighting effect of car lots. Mr. Collins stated while marine craft has not been discussed he felt it relates. They are located in the industrial area and felt the whole thing should be looked at. Mr. Allingham responded the premise is the community feels most auto sales are going to be an outdoor use, highly visible, lighting impact. He stated there are other forms of marine craft and auto sales, such as antique cars, that could be an indoor sales use, in such a case it would be prohibited in the business core zoning district, where there might be adequate retail space for showing, perhaps the zoning ordinance could be interpreted to provide for second hand sales. He stated Council did recently review the marine craft sales and is allowing it in the general business zoning district with a SUP. Mr. Overson stated he generally does not feel the government extension is positive or contributory, also consider the message being sent with an SUP. Is it okay to have an SUP for auto sales, but you can have car rentals without a problem, or you can have liquor stores with no problem. He felt that is not a right Tape #692 City Council Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 message. Mr. Overson felt they should accept it the way the Planning Commission recommended. Mr. Crutcher agreed with Mr. Overson. M/S/C (Waibel/Collins) to allow with a Special Use Permit car, truck, motorcycle, and R.V. sales (new and used), as well as car and truck rental, and approve the Ordinance on first reading. Question: Affirmative - Horton, Waibel, Collins, Dawkins, Johnson Opposed - Overson, Crutcher, Horning With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to a Special Executive Session regarding Labor negotiations. 'GiL~BER~N ,~ - Deputy City Clerk ATTEST:  ~/~j~~~resident SPENCER HORNING, Counci GWJ/SH/eh cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault