HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/31/88SF-P & 966
TAPE #569
UNPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 31, 1988
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, August 31, 1988 at 5:30 p.m.,
with Council President Hank Waibel presiding. Council members
present were Lon Overson, Spencer Horning, C. R. "Tiny" Collins,
Morrie Dawkins, Shirley Marry Crutcher and Russ Johnson and A1
Colvin. Councilman Lynn Horton 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 Hank Waibel and Invocation was given by Reverend
Michael Grimshaw of the Church Of the Nazarene
048
.063
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting held - August 17, 1988, #AB88-211
M/S/C/U(Horning/Crutcher) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the
required by RCW 42.24.080, and those
claims certified as required by RCW
recorded on a listing which has been
council.
auditing officer as
expense reimbursement
42.24.090, have been
made available to the
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on August 31, 1988, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 38322, 38328 through 38444 in the total amount of
$141,187.10 and Retirees' Payroll in the total amount of
$50,589.64.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Colvin commended Kitsap County Fair officials for one of the
best fairs he has ever artended in Kitsap County. Mr. Colvin
requested the City Clerk to read a letter in to the record which
he received from a group of constituents in his district.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, read into the record a letter
received from 19 residents in District #1 indicating their
support of the Brem-Air Disposal, Inc., dura can type garbage
cans. They cited merits for the cans which included: ample
space, close tightly, bird, cat and dog proof. And, they have
noted a cleaner community in the area where the cans have been
used on a trial basis.
Mr. Collins called Acting Police Chief Joe Hatfield to give an
update on cruising in the downtown area. Actina Chief Hatfield
reported that as a result of discussions held with the Council a
few weeks previous, the Police department had taken steps to
control and curb cruising and introduced Lt. Dennis Plumb to
explain the measures taken over the past four weeks. Lt. Dennis
Plumb,Bremerton Police Department, explained that on the weekend
of August 5/6 an emphasis patrol was set up in the downtown area
with approximately 8 uniformed officers patrolling on foot down
Pacific Avenue and on 6th Street. During that emphasis there
were 49 traffic citations and 8 physical arrests. The following
week, August 12/13, a barricade system was set up which
curtailed cruising, allowing only traffic with specific needs
within the downtown area. During this effort there were 16
traffic citations and 7 arrests. On the weekend of August 19/20
there were no barricades placed, however, the cruising traffic
was drastically reduced with about 1/2 of the number of citations
written from the previous week. During the weekend of August
TAPE #569
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 2 of 20
26/27 barricades were again placed which basically shut down any
cruising. He noted that a plan, based on this experience, will
be continued but possibly not to as great extent. He anticipates
setting up a two-man patrol to see if it will be adequate to
control the reduced number of cruisers. He stated there would be
periodic greater emphasis patrols along with some barricading.
Actina chief Hatfield noted that Police efforts to reduce
cruising had been successful without having to resort to adopting
an Anti-cruising Ordinance. Mr. Hornina questioned if the
reduction in cruising vehicular traffic had an effect on foot
traffic in the downtown area? Lt. Plumb stated when the vehicle
traffic left the individuals sitting along the streets soon
vacated. Mr. Collins thanked Acting Chief Hatfield and Lt. Plumb
for their presentation and noted that the Police Department had
done what they had been asked to do by the Council.
Mr. Waibel reported he attended the Kitsap County Fair and was
favorably impressed. He also read a letter from City Attorney
Ian Sievers to Brem-Air Disposal, Inc., which stated that the
City cannot, per City Charter, enter into contract negotiations
prior to two years from the expiration date of the contract. Mr.
Waibel explained that Brem-Air Disposal Inc., had requested
opening the current 10 year garbage collection contract in order
to start use of the Dura Can type garbage receptacle, which would
bring about an increase in cost to the consumers and allow Brem-
Air to reclaim some of the operational costs incurred. Mr.
Siever's legal opinion stated that the City cannot initiate
renegotiation of that contract until November 1, 1989. Mr.
Waibel suggested that Brem-Air Disposal, Inc., talk with Mayor
Lobe about other options that may be used to initiate use of the
Dura Can as well as recycling efforts. He noted that the City
Council is not holding up use of the Dura Cans.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Gene Lobe announced that Dave Hiestand, Director of
Personnel was leaving the City after five years of service. He
noted that Mr. Hiestand had performed exceptionally well and
thanked him for the great service he had given to the City of
Bremerton during his tenure. Dave Hiestand stated it was time to
say good bye, thanke~ the City Council for the opportunity to
work for the citizens of Bremerton. He noted that he had served
in a difficult role, however, he had great hope for the City's
future years and noted that it would demand the best from
everyone.
Gordon Hackler, 2121 E. 19th, representing 39 condominium owners
on 19th and Naval, spoke in reference to the Dane property and
the need for some type of action requiring that it be cleaned up.
Bob Stier spoke on the issue of the Dura Cans and gave his
support to future use of the Dura Cans and felt that having a
garbage company monopoly was in the best interest of the City.
Dr. Dennis La~er, 3620 Jack Pine Drive., Rehabilitation Program
Administrator at Frances Haddon Morgan Center, spoke in favor of
the Dura Can garbage cans. He noted the benefits were: easily
rolled to curb, large enough to hold extra garbage, as well as
easier dumping for the garbage collectors - he felt that the
citizens should have the right to purchase them and use them.
Cherly McCallouch, Bremerton landowner, spoke in favor of the
Dura Can noting properties are maintained cleaner, the resident
does not have to purchase them and they will be replaced in the
event of damage. She hoped that the City would find some way to
change the contract so that the citizens will be allowed to use
the Dura Cans.
.224
TAPE #569
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 3 of 20
Ed Rollman, 1331 Elizabeth Avenue, announced Howard Duff, the
actor, would be appearing in Seattle on September 17. He stated
he would like to attend that event as a representative of
Bremerton, recognizing the fact that Mr. Duff was born in
Bremerton and is a native son.
Mr. Overson requested the City Council issue a letter to Mr.
Lindgren to re-initiate negotiations and encouraged citizens to
contact Mr. Lindgren to work with the City to resolve the issue
of the use of the Dura Cans. Mr. Johnson stated for
clarification the misconception - no one said people can't buy a
Dura Can...they are available in the City of Renton for $65.00.
Also, there are other types of garbage cans with wheels or carts
to transport garbage cans to pick up point. Mr. Colvin stated he
did not want to intimidate citizens from coming before Council
with their concerns and encouraged the citizens to keep
contacting Mr. Lindgren and urge him to open communications once
again. President Waibel reported that the City Attorney had
written a letter to Mr. Lindgren's attorney in which he stated
that due to the City's Charter a 10 year contract cannot be
opened for renegotiation until two years prior to expiration
which would make it November 1, 1989.
City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey read a Proclamation in which
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Volkswagen United
States, Inc., have designated Saturday, September 3, 1988, Labor
Day Weekend as the second annual DRIVE FOR LIVE DAY - with Mayor
Lobe so declaring September 3, 1988 to be celebrated in the City
of Bremerton by joining the national campaign to prevent drunk
driving fatalities.
6A - CONFIRMATION OF DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL - CAROLINE MARSHALL,
#AB88-212
Ordinance #4005 requires confirmation of appointments to
management positions. On 6/17/88 the position of Personnel
Director was posted and advertised for application. Sixteen (16)
applications were received, of which the six (6) "best qualified"
applicants were interviewed by a panel of three (3) Personnel
Directors and a representative from the Mayor's office. Caroline
V. Marshall ~s selected by the interviewing panel as the top
candidate for the position of Personnel Director. She has
thirteen (13) years of personnel and labor relations experience
and holds a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration.
Mayor Gene Lobe announced Caroline Marshall was present after a
west coast-wide search. He noted Mrs. Marshall came with a very
impressive resume as well as extensive experience and several of
her references noted that they would gladly rehire her if they
had the opportunity.
President Waibel questioned if the contract was a boiler plate
document? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated that there was one
exception - that being exemption from Civil Service. At present
the position is in Civil Service and a personal waiver has been
provided by Mrs. Marshall, which is similar to the clause used by
Chief Coney. President Waibel raised the issue of who would rate
her performance, noting that the contract should be corrected to
reflect the Mayor as responsible person for the performance
evaluation.
M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Colvin) to confirm Mayor Gene Lobe's appointment
of Caroline Marshall as Director of Personnel and approve the
Personal Services Contract with correction as stated: "Section 6
Performance Reviews: Performance reviews shall be completed
annually by the Mayor".
Caroline Marshall, new Personnel Director, thanked the Mayor,
TAPE #569
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988 ,
Page 4 of 20
City Council and Dave Hiestand for being so courteous and having
produced for her a lot of time in bringing her up-to-date on
current personnel issues. She noted she is looking forward to
moving to this area and working with everyone. Mayor Lobe
presented Mrs. Marshall with a "Bremerton" hat and lapel pin.
6B - GRANT AGREEMENT TO ACCOMPLISH AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) WITHIN BREMERTON, #AB88-213
DNR manages State Tideland Leases. In order to achieve a
proactive management, DNR wishes. to identify what types of
activities are appropriate for DNR-managed tidelands in the City.
As part of its Community Development
Development, Environmental Protection and
City desires an updated listing of
activities.
Process (Economic
Urban renewal), the
suitable waterfront
A joint effort will assure coordination between zoning, shoreline
planning and economic development marketing.
The City expects one of the products to assist in marketing
shoreline locations to business in and out of the City.
The City's share of the $12,500 budget will be $2,500 and will be
primarily in the form of administrative staff hours.
The project will be managed by the City
use of a consultant.
and accomplished
by the
Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated Council is
being asked to authorize submittal of application for the grant
and to authorize the Mayor to negotiate and sign a contract which
has been forwarded for the City's consideration. As far as the
product, the City does have adequate waterfront which should be
marketed and this would assist the city by providing some raw
material to use in marketing the waterfront.
Mr. Johnson questioned what type of tidelands are not DNR
tidelands? Mr. Pratt stated there are some exclusions - some
tidelanCs were sold to private ownership years ago and still
remain in private ownership. Mr. Johnson questioned the type of
uses listed, noting that they reflected a commercial aspect and
how would that relate to the fishing pier, etc.? Mr. Pratt
stated they were looking at economic development when developing
the preliminary list and he was open to adding public use to the
list for consideration and review. He stated one of the things
the study would have to do is look at the Shoreline Master Plan
which is adopted and see where development is permitted. And,
where development is permitted look for the types of activities
that can be permitted. In a sense there is a preliminary screen
because public places may not have been made available for
development in the City's own ordinance.
Mr. Colvin questioned the City's share of the cost for the
study... $2,5007 Mr. Pratt stated in order for the City to
receive $10,000 back from the State documentation of an
expenditure of $2,500 will have to be made on the grant of the
City's money ...termed soft cost. He noted that making the
presentation to council provides an opportunity to "clock
expenses" on the contract.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if Kitsap Lake would be included in the
study? Mr. Pratt stated the intent, like Lake Union which is
urban waterfront and becoming more into non-water use - some
marine industries are being displaced by businesses paying higher
rents and the City will be looking at some of the marine
industries and possibly relocating them to our area.
TAPE #569
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988 ~
Page 5 of 20
560
Mr. Crutcher expressed concern that by adding recreational uses
Mr. Pratt's work load will be increased and would this have a
negative affect? Mr. Pratt stated to his understanding of the
amount of money to make the study - adding the recreational uses
should not add a significant amount.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to authorize the Mayor to negotiate a
contract with DNR and the City of Bremerton to include the
commercial uses listed in the agenda packet and non-commercial
uses as appropriate for those tidelands and to include the copy
writing provision recommended by the City Attorney and City
staff.
6C - PROPOSED CITY CHARTER CHANGES, #AB88-210
On March 30, 1988 the City Council established the Ad Hoc
Charter Review Committee and tasked them to review the City's
current Charter and present recommendations for change.
The proposed changes to the City Charter entail six ballot titles
related to four sections of the City Charter. The four sections
are: Section 7 (Vacancies); Section 16 (Ordinances...when
effective); Proposed Section 40(Boards and Commissions - member
qualifications; and Section 23 (Finance).
Mr. Johnson noted all the changes discussed the previous week
were written in italic in material provided in the Agenda packet.
Also, as a result of last week's meeting Mr. Johnson presented
new information regarding "filling the vacancy of the
Mayor/and/or City Council positions" (note: 11 of the 12 Charter
Review Committee members had been polled on this change as well
as a memorandum being provided to the Mayor and City Council
members.).."modify the City Charter to fill the vacancy of the
Mayor and City Council by appointment by the City Council until
the next General election at which time a person will be elected
to serve out the term". Mr. Johnson urged the City Council to
carefully consider any changes they may desire considering the
time and effort put in by the Charter Review Committee members.
President Waibel stated each
addressed separately.
individual Title Ballot will be
Bill Amo, 6524 Lake Drive, stated his strong support to require
Bremerton city residency for members on the Planning Commission
and Parks Commission.
Cecil McConne11, 3245 Almira, member Charter Review Committee,
stated he wanted the Charter Review Committee's recommendations
to go to the voters just as they were written by the Committee.
He noted if Council choose to make changes to the proposals next
time they try to form a citizen committee they may have
difficulty finding anyone to volunteer.
Jim Adrian, 621 Washington Avenue, member Charter Review
Committee, stated his support of the "residency requirement for
boards and commissions". He did not believe it would have an
adverse affect on the City as there were only seven committees it
could affect nor was it an unusual requirement...other cities in
Washington have such a requirement as well as other cities in
other States. Mr. Adrian pointed out that Bremerton was one of
the few cities which had not previously addressed the residency
requirement for Boards and Commissions through a Resolution or
Ordinance. In response to the issue of having difficulty to
fill vacancies he felt that a different approach to marketing,
such as using Cable Access, civil organizations, advertising in
the local newspaper, etc., would bring forth volunteers.
TAPE #569
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 6 of 20
~845
:883
Jim Strait, 6530 Harlow Drive, representing Kitsap Lake
Neighborhood Association, supported placing all of the proposed
Charter changes on the ballot as written. He noted the ones he
was most associated with was the working of the Planning
Commission and Parks Board and strongly urged keeping the
membership to residents of the City.
E. L. Sturdivant, 3231 Halverson, member Charter Review
committee, stated all the proposed ballot titles were viable and
that it should be up to the vote of the people to decide if they
want the recommended changes. Mr. Sturdivant pointed out that
voter turn out during a Presidential Election is generally high
(about 80~ of registered voters). Also, he volunteered to assist
in recruiting and screening volunteers to serve on Boards and
Commissions.
Georae Allan 1300 NE Dawn Rd., Bremerton property owner, stated
even though he lives outside the City but is a property owner,
does not give him the right to serve on Boards or commissions
Pat Carey 108-B Oak Street, stated
proposed ballot titles should be placed,
voters.
his concurrence that the
as written, before the
Glen Vockrodt, 1409 Marolow Avenue, stated his support that
members of Boards and Commissions be residents of the City of
Bremerton so that decisions made affect their neighbors as well
as themselves.
Allan Fry, 3207 Halverson, spoke in
requirement for Boards and Commissions.
favor of the residency
Terry Bow, 1930 Snyder, member of the Charter Review Committee,
supported the residency requirement for Boards and Commissions
and noted that provision was made to deal with instances where
exceptions can be made to best serve the City. He noted that
this was the first time he had ever served, as a volunteer, on a
committee for the City and he questioned previous City efforts to
seek out volunteers for Boards and Commission members within the
residency of the City of Bremerton. He also stated he was proud
to have served on the Charter Review Committee and supported
placing the Ballot Titles before the voters as recommended by the
Committee.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin to approve Ballot Title #1 - Add a section
to the City Charter requiring the removal of an elected official
upon a plea of guilty to a felony.
M/S/C(Overson/Colvin) to approve Ballot Title #2 - Modify the
City Charter to require all members of City boards and
commissions established by ordinance or charter to be residents
of the City, unless otherwise stated in the ordinance or Charter.
Mr. Collins expressed concern that property owners who live
outside the City should not be excluded from membership on boards
and commissions - noting that they may have just as great or
greater economic interest as someone who lives inside the City.
Mr. Hornina stated this is the time of cooperation and if the
City excludes those outside the City Limits to serve on boards
and commissions it will be difficult for the City to ask them in
- a form of isolationism. He stated he would support placing the
issue on the ballot so that the voters may decide. He did
emphasize the importance of working cooperatively with the County
and other agencies within the County/City area.
PE
208
TAPE #~0
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 7 of 20
#570 Mr. Dawkins questioned if the City had something already in
ordinances or the Charter regarding memberships on current
committee/boards and did the proposed change provide a vehicle
for exceptions? Ian Sievers, City Attorney stated he was not
aware of any membership restrictions at this time and the
proposed change does include a vehicle to use in the came of
exceptions. Mr. Johnson noted that the proposed ballot title
provides a method for the City Council to get their procedural
house in order.
President Waibel supported having the majority of memberships be
residents of the city. He felt that the largest financial
contributors to the City are the businesses and by restricting
all memberships to residents it will preclude business owners
from serving unless Council takes affirmative steps when filling
vacancies.
M/S/F(Waibe1/Collins) an amendment to the motion to modify the
City Charter to require that the majority of membership of the
City's boards and commissions be residents of the City.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern that the amended motion would
cause procedural problems due to staggered terms. Mr. Sievers
noted he did not see a problem with the terms, however, it would
limit options on new appointments.
Jim Adrian, 621 Washington, stated from a procedural stand point
it was a slap in the citizens face to come up with an amendment
after the extensive period of time spent on the issues by the
Charter Review Committee and makes a mockery of citizen efforts.
The Committee provided a procedure where by the City council
could have the flexibility to appoint non-residents if deemed in
the best interest of the City which could be handled through the
ordinance process.
Terry Bow, 1930 Snyder, concurred with Mr. Adrian's comments
regarding flexibility of the recommended change and noted that in
the past the City has been directed by ownership and he felt it
was time the citizens took control of issues and concerns that
greatly affect them.
E. L. Sturdivant, 3231 Halverson, encouraged the Council to vote
down the proposed amendment because he felt it was an affront to
the committee and that there was plenty of opportunities for
resident and non-residents to give input to boards and
commissions on any issue.
Bill Amo, 6524 Lake Drive, cited his strong concern over past
events of spot zoning throughout the City which was allowed
and/or recommended by members on the Planning Commission who were
not residents of the City and who did not always serve the best
interest of the citizens in making their city livable.
Cecil McConne11, 3245 Aimira Drive, stated that business people
living outside the City have Bremerton more at heart than
citizens inside the City. He noted business operates on
profitability and that profitability is diminishing in the
downtown area as is some of the livability of outlining areas
diminishing. However, he supported letting the citizens of
Bremerton determine who will be allowed on boards and
commissions.
Mr. Crutcher expressed concern that this
him as well as citizens.
issue is confusing to
President Waibel stated he did not intend to affront any one by
his making the amendment but he did remind everyone that the
979.
004
050
TAPE #570
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31,1988
Page 8 of 20
Committee was asked to bring
council - not asked to write
amendments.
"recommendations" to the City
them without Council making
Mr. Dawkins stated his support for the original motion noting
that the City should be concerned with business people who live
in surrounding areas of the City that may be annexed in the
future.
Vote: In Favor: Collins, Waibel
Oppose: Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Crutcher, Homing,
Dawkins
Motion failed.
Vote on Original Motion:
In Favor: Johnson, Overson, Crutcher, Horning, Collins,
Dawkins, Colvin,
Oppose: Waibel
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Horning) to approve Ballot Title #3 - Revise the
Finance Section of the City Charter to summarize the original
Charter language and to reflect State law and the Mayor-Council
form of government.
M/S/C/U(johnson/Horning) to approve Ballot Title #4 - Add a
procedure to the City Charter for filling a vacancy of the Mayor
or a City Council member by appointment by the City Council
until the next General Election at. which time a person will be
elected to serve out the term.
M/S(Johnson/Colvin) to approve Ballot Title #5 - Modify the City
Charter to redesignate the City Attorney as an ex-officio, non
voting member of the City Auditor Committee and remove charter
language "The independent consultant shall be an elector of
Kitsap County".
Mr. Overson questioned why this item was recommended by the
Committee due to the fact that by removing the City Attorney
from a voting position it creates the possibility for "tie vote"
without a way of resolution. He supported leaving the committee
structure as it currently stands.
Mr. Crutcher stated his disagreement with the Charter language-
he felt that the City Attorney should be available for
independent legal opinions and not be in a voting position.
Mr. Collins stated the Audit Committee is functioning well under
the current structure. He noted that the Committee had recently
gone through some trying times but was stronger due to the
Committee makeup and he did not support placement of this item on
the ballot.
President Waibel stated he believed the proposed committee
structure would load the committee in favor of the Council. By
eliminating the City Attorney, who reports directly to the Mayor
and City Council, the balance will be affected in making it
independent and in balance. By taking the City Attorney out of
the committee - it would be tampering with the original intent of
the creation of the Audit Committee.
Mr. Dawkins stated after
years he felt that the City
crucial.
serving on the Committee for three
Attorney's input on issues w~s
Mr. Crutcher questioned, from a legal standpoint, if the City
Attorney remained on the Committee could he give legal advise to
the Auditor as a City employee? Mr. Sievers stated he was not
the attorney for each employee as individuals - does serve as the
.697
.987
]215
TAPE #570
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31,1988
Page 9 of 20
attorney for the City as a municipality. Mr. Sievers explained
that he felt it presented the opportunity for conflict between
the Mayor and City Council in the event the City Attorney offers
advice to one or the other and the other disagrees.
Mr. Hornina called Jim Adrian to the podium to address the
Council on this item. Jim Adrian, past Council member and member
of the Charter Review committee briefly outlined his involvement
in developing the Audit Committee through a previous Charter
Review Committee and serving on the Committee itself for two
years. He noted that from a historical point the previous City
Attorney was involved with the formation and function of the
Committee, requests from Municipal Research during formation of
the Committee did not address this particular issue to reflect a
negative impact. Mr. Adrian stated he did not support having the
City Attorney serve as a voting member of the Committee, however,
he did feel the importance of having him available for legal
opinions. In relation to the possibility of a continual "tie
vote", he had suggested to the current Charter Review Committee
to bringing in an additional citizen to serve on the Committee.
Mr. Hornina expressed his concern and did support
citizen on the Committee.
adding another
Mr. Collins strongly urged the continuation of a five member
structure for the Audit Committee.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that with the removal of the City
Attorney from the Committee it places all the votes with the
elected officials and citizen - leaving out the staff
representation. He felt in the long run that the recommended
change will improve the Committee function and he supported the
recommended change. Mr. Johnson also stressed the importance of
legal input to the Committee.
M/S/C/(Horning/Colvin) moved to approve an amendment
motion to include at the end of the word "Committee":
include a second citizen of Bremerton in his place".
to the
"and to
President Waibel questioned the exact wording of the Charter
language for this change - who will be responsible to provide it?
Mr. Hornin~ stated he would leave that to someone else.
Vote On The Amendment:
Vote:
In Favor:
Abstain:
Collins, Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Crutcher,
Horning, Waibel
Dawkins
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to continue the main motion until
September 7th City Council meeting, at which time the Charter
language can be amended to reflect the above noted change.
Mr. Sievers questioned if the second citizen
selected by the membership of the Committee?
stated that did not have to be included in the
should be included in the text.
member would be
President Waibel
Ballot Title but
M/S/C/(Johnson/Colvin) to approve Ballot Title #6- Modify the
City Charter to allow the City Council by a majority plus one
vote of the members in attendance to change the waiting period
for a non-emergency ordinance to take effect from 30 days to no
less than 10 days and Charter text with the insertion of a
"comma" after the wording"[and passed by unanimous vote],"
Mr. Hornin~ stated that he believed the City council could
function on a majority vote of those present at the time a vote
451
TAPE #570
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31,1988 ,
Page 10 of 20
is taken.
Mr. Colvin questioned if an amendment can be made by just
striking the works "plus one"? Mr. Johnson stated that the
proposed Charter change is a compromise from the Charter Review
Committee. Currently an ordinance passage is by a simple
majority plus two readings and 30 days. There are instances
where items need to be addressed quicker - necessitating a
unanimous vote - 0 days. The proposal provides another option by
having one extra vote it could be enacted more quickly, and
within a 10 day period. Mr. Hornina believed the major
compromise was in the 10 day vs 30 day enactment period vs zero.
Mr. Hornina requested anyone sitting in the audience who served
on the Charter Review Committee to come forward and speak on this
issue if so desired. (Note: no one responded.)
Mr. Collins explained that currently the City only has an
Emergency procedure which has 0 days for enactment. He stated
there are times when items come up which need to be addressed in
a more timely manner than the required 30 day enactment period.
The proposed change offers a flexibility to carrying out City
business and still give the citizens time to object if they so
desire.
Mr. Crutcher did not support inclusion of the "plus one" as it
creates a situation where the public could be short changed. He
supported keeping with a "majority vote".
M/S/C(Horning/Crutcher) moved to approve an amendment to the
motion to exclude the wording "plus one" from the text in Section
16.
Mr. Overson pointed out that he would not support the amendment
due to its not being presented as written by the Committee.
Cecil McConnell, member of the Charter Review Committee, stated
he personally supported Mr. Horning's amendment ..."to a
majority"...in that he has a valid point that by a majority vote
of the Council members they would be carrying out the wishes of
the people.
Vote On The Amendment:
In Favor: Crutcher, Horning, Waibel, Dawkins, Colvin
Oppose: Johnson, Overson, Collins
Vote On Main Motion:
Vote:
In Favor:
Oppose:
Overson, Crutcher, Horning, Waibel, Dawkins,
Colvin, Johnson
Collins
7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REZONE FROM R-1 TO B-2 (FILE RZ-2-
88) LOCATION: 834 AND 840 CALLAHAN DRIVE, #AB88-214
On August 3, 1988, the City Council approved the subject site to
be rezoned from R-1 Residential to B-2 Business subject to
certain conditions. Before such action is legally in effect, the
new ordinance for subject rezone must be read two times by the
City Council, published in a local newspaper and have a 30 day
waiting period (Article III of the Bremerton Charter}. The
conditions applicable to the rezone are contained in the
ordinance under Section 2 - Specific Conditions.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the revised draft Ordinance
was handed out prior to Council meeting, reflecting two changes:
(1) deletion of the "condition on the rezone that the property
will be rezoned something at some future date". Mr. Sievers
851
TAPE #570
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31,1988 ~
Page 11 of 20
noted this is an unlawful condition and should be removed; (2)
incorporation of the restrictive B-2 uses into the ordinance and
should be recorded on the property records of the subject
property.
President Waibel noted the changes are in line with the spirit of
the motion as the list was discussed prior to the motion.
Mr. Dawkins expressed is reservation on the safety aspect of the
intersection. President Waibel noted for clarification that
staff had been previously directed to look at the safety of that
intersection.
Mr. Johnson questioned what would happen to Concomitant
Agreements when the new Zoning Ordinance is passed? Mr. Sievers
stated unless the new Rezone and Map carry those forward as
current zoning for those parcels, the properties would be rezoned
by the new rezoning action and map. They would become non-
conforming uses, still controlled by the Concomitant Agreements.
If the zoning was more liberal then they could take advantage of
that more liberal rezone and map. If no actions are taken to
implement Concomitant Rezone, there is no-conforming use vested.
Mr. Johnson questioned for clarification - if the Council passes
the proposed Concomitant Agreement does it mean anything once
passes? Mr. Sievers stated in this case probably not because it
is likely to be zoned the same as the Concomitant Agreement but
if it were to be different .then it would have a non-conforming
use.
M/S/C/(Horning/Colvin) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
for Dr.'s Kenneth Cogen and Paul McCullough's request for rezone
from R-1 to B-2 with conditions.
Vdte:
In Favor:
Abstain:
Crutcher, Horning, Waibel, Collins, Dawkins,
Colvin, Johnson
Overson
aPE #571
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - BREMERTON FERRY TERMINAL, ~PPLICANT:
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The City Council, as the Shorelines Hearing Board, is requested
to approve a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the
construction of a new concrete trestle, transfer span, transfer
span towers, a new bulkhead paving, traffic control islands, and
barriers at the Bremerton Ferry Terminal.
Council action is required because the proposed development is
located with in 200 feet of Sinclair Inlet in the Bremerton
Shoreline Management Master Program jurisdiction.
President Waibel asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members present being seated.
Ed Davis, Current Planning Manager, Community Development
Department, began staff input with a slide presentation which
showed location of the proposed project. The Special Use Permit
being requested is different from the one previously requested
about 1-2 years ago which ventured north in approvals of the
Ferry terminal expansion and encompassing the old YMCA site. Mr.
Davis also provided a view graph which outlined the designated
areas encompassing the proposals for construction and a detailed
engineering drawing showing the replacement bulkhead. Approval
of a Shoreline Substantial Development permit must be based upon
the following criteria:
(1) Consistency with the policies and procedures of the State
TAPE #571
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988 ,
Page 12 of 20
Coastal Management Act;
(2) Consistency with
(BMSP);
the
Bremerton Master Shoreline Program
(3) Consistency with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
Staff report reflects:
(1) Consistency with the State Coastal Zone ManaGement Act:
The Shoreline Management Substantial Development process,
including public notification and public hearing before the City
Council, is consistent with the'Coastal Zone Management Act.
(2) Consistency with the Bremerton Shoreline ManaGement Master
ProGram (BSMMP):
The BSMMP, adopted in 1977 and recently amended by the City
Council (amendment still awaiting state approval, designates the
site as an Urban Commercial Environment.
Part IV of the BSMMP, Page 15, describes the Commercial
designation:
Commercial
This designation is primarily for those areas which range from
the high intensity business district and small light industry to
the small commercial operations located in the various
neighborhoods. The intent of this designation is to encourage
commercial development that could enhance public access to the
shoreline either physical or. visual, and provide a setting for
the commercial operation that will be of economic benefit.
Ports, piers and docks, shore defense works, including bulkheads
and commercial development as identified by the use Compatibility
Chart (Part VII, page 23 of the BSMMP), are permitted uses within
the commercial designation.
The appropriate sections of the BSMMP regarding Goals, Policies
and Regulations for these Shoreline Use activities are attached
at the end of this report as Ex. #III. The proposed development
is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the BSMMP and
complies with the regulations.
3. Consistency with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the ferry terminal site as
Public/Quasi Public Facilities. The Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan text supports the construction of a new
ferry terminal that accommodates the needs of the ferry and bus
users at the present site (Transportation Element, Water
Transportation, Objective 6). The proposed application is
consistent with this aspect of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Davis stated that staff recommends approval' of the request
for Shoreline Permit subject to the following conditions:
(1) Stormwater runoff shall be collected and then passed through
oil/water separator(s) prior to being discharged from the site.
The oil/water separator system design shall be approved by the
City Engineer.
(2) The oil/water separator system shall be regularly maintained
by the applicant/developer to insure its maximum efficiency and
operation.
(3) The Washington State Department Of Transportation shall work
with the Director of Community Development or his appointee to
incorporate materials, colors, and landscaping that are
consistent with existing ferry terminal and proposed development
of the City's downtown waterfront.
TAPE #571
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 13 of 20
Jerry Daniels, P.E., Terminal Project Development Engineer - WSDT
- Marine Division, read into the record the following statement:
The existing Bremerton landing slip and trestle were built prior
to 1950 and have had numerous repairs done since that time.
Inspection of the facility in 1985 revealed a large number of
structural deficiencies which were serious enough to require some
immediate repairs and enforcement of weight restrictions to keep
the facility in service until permanent repairs could be planned,
budgeted and implemented.
In 1986 some necessary repairs were made to the trestle to allow
for installation of the temporary passenger-only facility. In
1987 the YMCA building was purchased and plans started for its
removal. As a part of the permanent improvements, the old
terminal building and a portion of the overhead passenger loading
facility were removed in early 1988 and replaced with the
current, interim terminal building.
There are three projects scheduled for completion in the current
biennium, ending in June, 1989. The first is a contract to
remove asbestos from the YMCA building in preparation for its
demolition. A contract has been awarded for the project, which
is expected to last about 50 working days and cost approximately
$67,000. The second project is for demolition of the old YMCA
property and expansion of the vehicle holding area. The expanded
holding area will accommodate 120-150 vehicles and be accessed at
a new toll plaza on Washington Avenue. Other features of this
project are new exit lanes direct to the intersection of 1st
Street and Washington Avenue, traffic and pedestrian facility
improvements for safety and efficient operations and a public
park facility at the corner of 1st Street and Washington Avenue
adjacent to the Ferry Terminal. Plans are being prepared for
this project with a start of construction possible about January,
1989, at a cost of approximately $725,000.
The third project, the subject project for this hearing, will
address the deteriorated trestle and inadequate vehicle loading
equipment. We propose to replace the existing timber trestle
with concrete construction, extend the trestle 10 feet further
offshore, build a new sheet pile bulkhead 3 feet in front of the
existing timber bulkhead, install a new vehicle bridge with new
support structure and extend the existing passenger-only trestle
to connect with the new concrete trestle.
The primary purpose of this project is to perform required
maintenance. The Shoreline Permit is required because of the
proposed 10 foot expansion of the trestle which is to provide
adequate areas for staging of transit vehicles, pedestrian
loading areas for transit and passenger-only and sidewalks.
Without the proposed widening, this project would be exempt from
the Shoreline Permit requirement.
Construction of this project has been divided into four phases.
Each phase is for a different area of the trestle and is planned
to present the least possible disruption to operations and
service. The second phase addresses replacement of the vehicle
bridge, bridge seat, towers and approach trestle. A closure of
the facility to vehicle service will be required while this work
is in progress, an estimated 42 working days. Some level of
passenger service will still be possible during this time. The
other phases of construction will not require closure of the
vehicle loading facility.
Current schedule for the project is to advertise for bids in late
September and start construction about January, 1989. Work would
begin on Phase 2 about February and last approximately 42 working
days. However, we plan to offer the contractor substantial
TAPE #571
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 14 of 20
financial incentives to complete the Phase 2 work as quickly as
is possible. The project is scheduled for 180 working days at a
cost of $1.8 million.
The current six-year plan for the Bremerton Ferry Terminal
includes improvements to the passenger-only facility in 1989-91
and planning for the permanent terminal facility in 1993-95.
Robert Smitter, 1511 Park Avenue, questioned why the ridership
had not been informed of the proposed construction by DOT and
what will happen to the ferry riders during construction. He
noted that the rebuild will mean severe delays for both passenger
and vehicle traffic.
Armin Tiberio, Director of Vessel Operations for the Washington
State Ferry System, stated while it is correct to say that they
have not unveiled a plan of operations during the closure - it
does not mean that there has not been any serious consideration
given to what can be done. As mentioned, the impact for the
riders will be a negative impact for those driving vehicles.
During the closure the Ferry System will not be able to load and
unload vehicles. An optional route will have to be implemented
for vehicles. Currently they are looking to the possibility of
adding a third boat to the Winslow route which means those who
normally ride the Bremerton boat could use the Winslow vessel.
Another option would be the possibility of having a direct route
linked from Southworth to downtown Seattle - again to take care
of the impact and Kitsap County community use the Bremerton
facilities to access downtown Seattle. For the passenger traffic
they do not expect any major disruptions by providing a
combination of passenger- only service and also using a car ferry
for transporting passengers back and forth. He did not feel that
there would be any negative impact for the passenger-only
ridership, however, that does not mean there might not be some
delays due to construction and changes in sailing times.
Mr. Crutcher questioned "you were looking at options" does that
mean you might not provide this as a viable option? Mr. Tiberio
stated he was almost certain that a third vessel will be placed
on a route to compensate for the traffic. He noted that Winslow
ferry route is already impacted and with an additional boat could
mean delays.
Mr. Collins stated he felt that there is a conspiracy going on-
that the City of Seattle doesn't want cars dumped in the
downtown area. What is being proposed is to take 42 days without
vehicle traffic - this is time for people to change their habits.
He believed there has to be other ways to handle this whole
situation than the one presented. Mr. Tiberio stated that from
an operations standpoint the 42 day closure will disrupt lives,
however, if the repair work is not undertaken there will not be a
usable ferry service that can be used at all. There may be other
engineering methods, however, the key element is to get this
facility fixed. Mr. Collins stated that possibly the best thing
that could have happened would have been to have a ferry run into
the dock 10 years ago.
Mr. Hornina stated if we don't do something soon Bremerton will
never get back trucking services via the Ferry System. He
encouraged Mr. Daniels to look at other possible ways to lower
the number of closure days. He urged everyone to understand and
work with the system to try and make it work. He did not feel
that the City had a choice in this matter. Also, Mr. Horning
suggested that possibly Kitsap Transit could help out in
supplying buses to transport people to the Winslow Ferry.
Mr. Johnson stated he did not trust the Ferry System, the
TAPE #571
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 15 of 20
construction period is at the worst time of the year and was
concerned that the 42 day closure was shortsighted in that
projects generally run over rather than are completed early. He
suggested that the Ferry System come up with a plan and come
back to the Council for consideration. Mr. Tiberio stated that
total service is not being shut down...only vehicle use. Also,
the construction will be during a time when there is the lowest
ebb of usage, except for the commuter runs and commuters will be
provided through optional mode. The only two options are to
either do the construction of not do it. President Waibel
questioned if the Ferry System had improved any trestles at any
other port of the Ferry System? Mr. Tiberio stated for those
that remember Slip #2 in downtown Seattle was shut down 4-5
months for the same work that Bremerton is looking at; Edmonds is
due for a weeks closure this coming fall for similar type work;
President Waibel stated this type of construction is done at
other ports, none of the disruptions have been longer than one
week, there are other options (in Seattle there was another slip
to use and in Clinton another trestle was built). And, the
Bremerton area cannot stand i and 1/2 month closure of vehicle
taffic. Mr. Tiberio stated that the major commuter runs are
averaging about 80 vehicles per boat.
Mr. Overson questioned for clarification what was meant by "42
work days"...does this mean 42 consecutive days? Mr. Daniels
stated that a working day is designated as a calendar day and
that is part of getting ~he job done as rapidly as possible-
working 7 days per week. As a point of clarification on using a
car ferry for passenger service, the contractor will be working
on the slip and it will be necessary to back out the contractor
during time period during the day to allow the ferry to dock and
off load passengers. What is being looked at right now is that
overhead loading would be used for commuter traffic only 6-8:30
AM and 3:30 - 6:00 PM on week days. Mr. Johnson suggested that a
smaller ferry be docked at the passenger-only space. Mr. Daniels
explained that the Express passenger-only ferry will also be
available for transporting riders during this time. President
Waibel questioned if the trestle would be poured on-site? Mr.
Daniels explained that it would be poured off-site in slabs and
the only thing that will have to be poured on site will be the
caps. There is a 30 day curing time for concrete and
construction can be started on top but cannot be loaded until the
curing time has lapsed. President Waibel expressed extreme
concern over the 42 day closure and questioned if all ways to
reduce that time frame have been explored. Mr. Daniels stated he
has a group of structural engineers who work for him who have
advised him the 42 day closure is required to perform this type
of work. President Waibel questioned if the caps could be
poured while construction is going on with the testle? Mr.
Daniels explained that the caps go underneath the existing
trestle. Also, he preferred a shut down during January/February
rather than June/June due to increased tourist traffic in
addition to the commuter traffic. President Waibel stated that
two options have been given - (1) do nothing and let it fall down
and (2) disrupt vehicle traffic for six weeks. Mr. Daniels
explained the do nothing option amounts to attemping replacing
with kind...spot repair. Phases 1,3,4 are away from the off
loading area and will not distract vessel service. Doing phase 2
with timber repair had been looked at, however, one of the
problems run into is the existing transfer span and the need to
replace it so that it could meet current load standards. In
order to put that in a new bearing structure has to be installed.
President Waibel questioned if he had with him the instructions
given to the engineers when they were requested to design this
project - was direction given to minimize disruption or whether
it was to try and design eliminating disruption. Mr. Daniels
stated he gave the engineers direction to do the project in the
TAPE #571
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 16 of 20
most economical way and with the least amount of shut down and
build something that will provide long- term benefit. President
Waibel raised the issue if they were to look into a process
requiring no shut down? Mr. Daniels explained. that it would be
impossible to do the work needed without a shut down. Presiden~
Waibel stated that only providing a second temporary trestle
would aid in providing no shut down for the project. Mr. Daniels
stated it would be a way to do it, however, it would be more
costly. The engineers were asked to come up with all
alternatives and a second slip was looked at and it was not
chosen because from their standpoint it was not economically
feasible. President Waibel stated it may not be economically
feasible for the City to grant a Shoreline Permit if it means
shutting down vehicle service for two months.
Mr. Colvin stated from a practical standpoint the City could
accomplish what is proposed without some kind of shut down.
President Waibel stated his concern that an area as small as
Clinton can support two trestles when Bremerton won't. The City
should use this opportunity to work toward a back up system with
a second slip. Mr. Daniels stated that Clinton has a substantial
number of vehicles using the terminal and at times there are
three vessels assigned to it, as well as it being a 15 minute
crossing vs 55 minute crossing for Bremerton.
Mr. Collins supported building a second slip and questioned if
the existing area could support one? Mr. Daniels stated the
overhead loading ramp would have to be removed and anything is
possible given the money is provided. From his standpoint he can
build anything he is directed to do. Mr. Collins questioned if
everything that is there presently will be removed? Mr. Daniels
stated the overhead loading trestle will remain - with it
scheduled for replacement of older portion in the next biennium.
Mr. Dawkins suggested that this
additional week for an opportunity to
Parker.
issue be continued for an
discuss it with Admiral
Mr. Colvin acknowled~3d Mr. Sturdivant to speak before the
Council. E. L. Sturdivant, 3231 Halverson, stated that the State
has adopted the ferries as part of the highway system and he
feels it has been long over due having the best ferry system the
state can have with no excuses. He noted that there have not
been any loss of lives due to ferry accidents but there have been
thousand of lives lost on the highways. Me supported the idea of
building a second slip and then renovating the other. President
Waibel stated that the Ferry System has not been adopted by the
Highway System - the ferry system by constitution is part of the
highway system.
Mr. Colvin questioned what would be the impact if the Council did
not grant approval of the Shoreline Permit at this time? Mr.
Daniels stated there are two options - do nothing and go back to
the drawing boards and come up with something that is acceptable
to the City and the Ferry System, the other is do nothing and let
it fall down and then close it for as long as it takes to fix it.
If it become in serious condition where it presents a
endangerment to the people who use it can be declared as an
emergency and proceed without a Shoreline Permit or the expansion
could be eliminated from the project and proceed with the project
as a maintenance project which they can do legally without a
Shoreline Permit. Mr. Overson stated from his understanding as
an engineer it is more cost effective to build a new facility
than tear down the old and rebuild - he supported building a new
slip and leave the older slip and do maintenance work as needed.
Mr. Daniels stated he believed they did look at this but could
TAPE #571
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 17 of 20 '
not give an answer at this time on that point.
Mr. Tiberio stated from an operations standpoint it is advisable
to have two slips at each terminal, however, from a budget
standpoint that is something else.
Mr. Dawkins questioned if there were critical time elements that
had to be met and what would be affected if Council delayed a
decision for a week or two? Don Pratt, Director Community
Development Department, stated it just adds two weeks to the
permit process - after Council action there is a 30 day review
period in Olympia and work can be started immediately after
Council action but they would be at risk if DOE overturns the
action to tear it all out. Mr. Johnson questioned if the Ferry
System officials be willing to sit down Council members and City
staff to try and mitigate some of the objectional things that
have been presented? He also expressed concern that there had
not been discussion with people on the peninsula on the proposed
project. President Waibel questioned why the West Side Corridor
Steering Committee had not been informed of this proposal - he as
a member of that Committee was hearing the information for the
first time. Mr. Pratt stated there had not been a lot of
discussion on the proposed closure and at some point in time
there will be a critical point as far as funding being available.
Money allocated for this project is available through June 1989.
At this time there is not a critical point...do it now or loose
it...however, at some point that phase will be reached if stalled
too long.
.149
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horning) that this item be continued for not more
than one month and request the Ferry System to make a
presentation to the West Corridor Steering Committee and the City
Council prior to the one month period.
8B - PUBLIC HEARING - TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE
PROPOSED NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF
BREMERTON, #AB88-191
By Resolution #87-1, the Bremerton Planning Commission
recommended the City Council's adoption of a new Zoning Ordinance
and map. During the past four months, that document and map have
been the subjects of nine City Council Study Sessions and two
public hearings. A number of amendments to both the text and map
have been considered and given tentative approval in this process
of fine-tuning the ordinance and map for adoption. This public
hearing provides another opportunity for public comment and
Council discussion prior to final approval.
Ron Houah, Planning Department, noted that at the last Study
Session one zoning map issue was resolved at the north end of
Snyder..."changed property from SF-3 to SF-2 and eliminated a
small duplex residential district that included three or four
lots". Also there were five minor text amendments to the text of
the Zoning Ordinance and four issues were discussed but
postponed. Discussion of hazardous waste treatment and storage
and time limitations on process of applications and responding to
citizen complaints were postponed and staff was directed to bring
back during the Corrections Of Errors within six months after
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff expects to bring those
two issues within two months of the affective date of the
ordinance. Zoning at the north end of Highland Avenue and
zoning around Smith Cove are areas being addressed at this time.
Mr. Houah provided a view graph showing the areas - noting that
the Smith Cove property area had been an oil storage facility
for a number of years, which is currently being removed. Recent
discussions with the owner disclosed that they had been
approached by someone wishing to purchase the property for a
TAPE #571
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 18 of ~8
purpose that was not industrial. The adjoining property is
utilized for an office complex. Staff's recommendation to
maximize the potential of both lots was to include them in the
Highland District, which extends to the south. At that point the
discussion continued around Smith Cove to include other
industrial uses, such as Brem-Air Inc., several smaller uses
south side of Sheldon Blvd. - currently being proposed for CBR
which is primarily a residential zone but does allow small scale
commercial and office uses. Some of the property owners were not
satisfied with the CBR zone and would like something more
considerable - such as heavier commercial or small/light weight
manufacturing. At the Council Study Session it was decided to
direct staff to bring back a proposal to include that area in the
new Business Park Zone (BP). A map, showing the staff's
recommendation for applying the BP zone was included in the
Council packet, including the oil facility (owned by Chevron
USA), Sexton Office Building, Brem-Air Disposal, Inc., All In One
Boating and along the south side almost entirely commercial uses
at this time, etc. Mr. Houah noted that one piece of property
was shown as a split zone...included in the BP zone is an
automobile business and the part on the from of the property is a
Martial Arts Studio to be a CBR zone. This would keep the BP
zone from coming on to Park Avenue. A six months correction of
errors process will follow the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance,
which will allow property to request review their zoning for
possible error; and if an error is found there will be no charge
to the property owner. During this time staff will be bringing
some changes and improvements'to the ordinance that Council has
recommended for future review. Mr. Hough pointed out that staff
is requesting that the City Council make a motion to approve the
Zone Ordinance, which will allow them to bring back necessary
paperwork for first reading and also to put into effect the
"correction of errors" process.
C.E. McConne11, 3245 Almira Drive, President of the View Ridge
Neighborhood Association, expressed concern over the strip of
property belonging to the Kitsap Regional Library on the south
side of E. 33rd Street. He noted the proposed Zoning Map shows
the property at SF-3 (which is 4800 sq. ft. lots). He noted, if
the LibrarV desired, could convert that property to residences.
He requested that the Library and Post Office property be changed
to something other than single family residents. He suggested
that both could be included in the P&S, which is across the
street from E. 33rd extending along Sheridan Road and it would
prevent the Library from selling off the property zoned SF-3.
Also, he expressed concern that day care facilities had been
eliminated from SF-1 zones - he felt it would be the most
appropriate place to have them considering the 15,000 sq. ft.
lot designation. He also questioned why family day cares are not
being allowed in all but SF-1 and SF-2 zones. Mr. McConnell
stated he would like to see the family day care treated similar
to the Home Occupation designation. He suggested that under the
Home Occupation use the requirement for appointment and single
person at a time restrictions should be deleted.
E. L. Sturdivant, 3231 Halverson, expressed concern why the area
south of the Post Office on 33rd Street and east along the alley
are designated SF-3 - he requested an explanation addressing that
designation. Also, he questioned the zoning for day care
facilities considering the areas with larger lot size should be
more desirable and park like setting. He felt that SF-2 should
be more in line with 7500 sq. ft., rather than 7200 sq. ft.
Another area of concern was the greenbelt directly behind Value
Giant/K-Marry Shopping Center, which acts as a buffer between the
residents on Almira and the shopping center, being designated as
SF-3. He did not believe this would be following through with
the agreement made with those residences previously.
TAPE #571
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
\
Page 19 of J9
PE #572
Eric Bosley, Attorney 600 Kitsap Street, representing Don
Lindgren and Brem-Air Disposal, Inc., stated his client would
prefer the area along Smith Cove designated as Industrial General
with the modifications being proposed under the BP designation as
proposed by the Planning Staff; and that the BP designation with
modifications was far better than the CBR designation previously
recommended by the Planning staff. He stated the need for some
type of commercial use for the property because failing that you
loose both the historical property uses over the past 40 years or
it has been zoned a combination either commercial or industrial
and because of the conditions of the property, cannot be used for
residential purposes. Mr. Bosley requested set it to Industrial
General and change the Industrial General to include designation
to include marine uses proposed for the Business Park.
Kathleen McCluskev, City Clerk, read into the record a letter
signed by 18 individuals who live in Pinewood and members of the
Sheridan Park Community, in which they voiced their objection to
having the zone changed in the area of Pine Road/Sylvan Way.
They wished to have the zone remain the same as it is citing that
they already have adequate shops/markets in their area and do not
feel it would add to the safety and welfare of the neighborhood
to bring in additional business traffic.
Mr. Hornina stated he would like to stand by the BP zone
including marine uses on the Smith Cove area and questioned why
the Library property was designated SF-3? Mr. Houah stated
currently it is zoned R-1 and Libraries fit into the R-1 zone as
it presently is. In making the transition from the old zoning
map to the new the intent was to not take away zoning from people
but to make a gradual transition over to new zoning - R-1 zoning
is similar to Single Family zoning being applied. Libraries are
still permitted with Special Use Permit in the Single Family -3
Zone. Mr. Hornin~ asked if the Libraries were moved into the
Parks and Schools designation? Mr. Houuh stated no, that PS is
only for public parks and schools. Mr. Hornin~ asked for a
reason why there shouldn't be a "Library Zone". Mr. Hough
stated there is a whole range of uses in the quasi-public sector
that might include libraries, post offices, Puget Power,
utilities, churches, fraternal lodges/halls - there is not a
special zone for these uses and they do require Special Use
Permits. Mr. Hornina requested that this item be brought back
for discussion at a later date. Mr. Overson questioned why new
pages 10-21 did not reflect a PS and why public schools are still
allowed in SF-1, SF-2 and CBR through Special Use Permit
considering previous Council consideration to make a PS
designation for such uses thereby eliminating the need for a
Special Use Permit? Mr. Hough stated he did not recollect
discussion removing those from those districts. And, there is
not a column for Public School on the chart because the list of
uses is so restrictive.
Mr. Johnson stated the public school issues needs to be looked
into and reviewed and can be addressed during the first reading
process.
Mr. Colvin questioned is a convenience type store permissible on
the Corner of Sylvan and Pine under the current or proposed
zoning ordinance? Mr. Hough stated the proposed zoning is
multiple family with medium density. He noted that he artended
the Sheridan Park Neighborhood meeting where a Silverdale realtor
addressed the group on the idea of having a convenience store at
that location. The response from the group at that time was loud
and clear that they did not desire a convenience store at that
location and the map reflects that choice.
TAPE #572
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
August 31, 1988
Page 20 of 20
Mr. Overson questioned if a procedure is in place which requires
the City to respond in writing to a request made by a citizen?
Mr. Houuh stated by policy it is being done. Mr. Overson
requested that this issue be addressed in the ordinance.
.919
M/S/C/U(Collins/Horning) to approve the proposed new Zoning
Ordinance and Zoning Map which was recommended by the Planning
Commission as Draft #5, and as tentatively amended by the City
Council during recent study sessions and public hearings. It is
further moved that staff be directed to prepare the necessary
adoption documents, including an ordinance to implement the
Correction Of Errors Process, and schedule same for First
Reading.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
LEEN L. MCCLUSKEY,kCITTCLERK
APPROVED
HANK WAIBEL, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/HW/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault