HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/88TAPE #588
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOV 2 2 1988
NOVEMBER 9, 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, November 9, 1988 at 5:30 p.m-,
with Council President Hank Waibel presiding. Council members
present were Lon Overson, Lynn Horton, Shirley Marty Crutcher and
Russ johnson, Spencer Horning, Morrie Dawkins and A1 Colvin.
Councilman C. R. "Tiny" Collins was absent. Also present were
Assistant City Attorney Laura Anderson 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.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes 6f Meeting held - October 26, 1988, #AB88-262
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Crutcher) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
CLAIMS/WARRANT REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as
required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement
claims certified as required by RCW 42.24,090, have been
recorded on a listing which has been made available to the
council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Horning) on November 9, 1988, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 39565 through 39704 in the total amount of
$114,033.20 and Regular Payroll in the amount of $331,896.32.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Johnson noted the high percentages for voters' favorable
response to the proposed Charter changes placed on the Ballot.
He felt that it was a good reflection of public's confidence of
citizen representation in City government and he thanked
everyone who served on the Charter Ad Hoc Review Committee and
Council's Summer Interns, Mike Bond and Todd Corelli.
Mr. Colvin commended Arvilla Ohlde, Parks Director, on her
presentation made to the Bremerton/Central Lions Club, which
covered Parks Department programs.
Mr. Dawkins reported he artended the Bremerton Symphony program
which was the first presentation held at the new High School
Performing Arts center. He noted that there was almost a sell
out crowd and that having this type of facility in Bremerton
will enhance the quality of life in our community.
Mr. Overson artended the Symphony program and it reminded him
that the City is starting to coming together, putting some
cornerstones down along with working on downtown development and
the ferry system.
Mr. Crutcher artended the NAACP Banquet this past weekend and
noted they had a good turn out...everyone had a good time.
Mrs. Horton reported she attended a Planning Workshop at Gold
Mountain Golf Course and found it to be very informative. One of
the topics discussed dealt with access to public beaches and
waterfront properties and the importance of erosion control and
methods available to help retard their washing away and/or
TAPE #588
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 2 of 13
developing beaches.
Mr. Hornina artended the Bremerton Symphony program and noted
that the new High School Performing Arts facility is excellent.
He congratulated Councilman Johnson and the Citizens Committee on
the very favorable response from the voters on the Charter
Changes. He noted the percentages of favorable voter response on
these Charter changes were the best ever.
Mr. Waibel echoed the comments regarding the Bremerton Symphony
program which he also artended.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION - None
President Waibel announced as public information - the City
Council Agenda is available to the public through Access Cable
Channel 29, may be viewed at the Central and Downtown branch of
Kitsap Regional Library, Bremerton Parks Department/Sheridan Park
Recreation Center, and copies may be picked up in the lobby of
City Hall. Also, he reminded everyone that Friday is a
recognized holiday - celebrating Veterans Day and parking meters
are free.
6A ' SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR UTILIZATION OF N.A.D. GUARD STATION,
#AB88-263
The City of Bremerton shall open a Bremerton Parks Department
Outdoor Recreation Information Center located at the NAD Guard
Station.
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks Director, briefly outlined the options
being presented to Council: (1) open up through the Outdoor
Recreation Division of the Parks Department an Outdoor Recreation
Information Center at the NAD Guard shack. To do this they have
looked at a Service Agreement with Boy Scouts Of America - where
they will man the facility, keep it up and provide opportunity
for City park information to be available for the public.
Pat Carev, Sheridan Neighborhood Association, stated he felt the
City was fortunate to have the Boy Scouts interested in
reconstructing the NAD Guard house. He noted it was a historical
building and restoration efforts would be viable through the
Scouts. Also, it will provide an education program for the young
Scouts. He also noted that Arvilla Ohlde should have a lot of
credit in doing the research and work on this proposal.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about wording in the contract where
it noted in Paragraph 4: "any proceeds payable to the City shall
be used for park and recreation purposes" He stated generally
income is deposited in the General Fund and is then
redistributed. He questioned what fund would these monies go
into? Ms. Ohlde stated they would go into the General Fund like
all other deposits for the City. Mr. Johnson stated Council's
general policy is not to specify funds go back to the generator.
Mr. Johnson questioned if the Risk Manager had reviewed the
agreement? Ms. Ohlde stated yes. Mr. Johnson noted that having
the Scouts be responsibility for the improvements on the
building would not negate them having to go through Planning and
Building for proper permitting, etc. Ms. Ohlde stated if in fact
there are improvements to the building they would be going
through the Building Department. Mr. johnson questioned if the
item of utilities was the same agreement the City has with the
Girl Scouts? Ms. Ohlde stated the Outdoor Recreation Information
Center is a division of the Parks Department and will be under
the Outdoor Recreation Specialist. In that, the City needs to
have the control and that is why the utilities for this facility
will come to the Parks system. This would be a different land
utilization, conditions and deed than the City agreement with the
TAPE #588
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 3 of 13
Girl Scouts. The Boy Scouts would be assisting the City in
providing outdoor recreation information to the citizens...an
extension of the Parks Department Program.
President Waibel suggested that Section 5 - Maintenance, Repair
and Alterations - be somewhat reworded so that the City is not in
a position whereby repayment would have to be made to the Boy
Scouts if renovation/improvements could not be completed within
six months. Laura Anderson, Assistant City Attorney, stated she
was concerned if it was properly written so that it is in
compliance with the terms of the City Charter, specifically
Section 24, which states as a condition of this action we have to
assure or know in fact that funds are available in the City
treasury to pay for this. In order to be in compliance with the
Charter, she suggested that a limitation of $5,000 for
restoration be included in the agreement along with Ms. Ohlde's
testimony that her departmental budget contains $5,000 to be
available for this cost should it arise. President Waibel noted
he was still concerned with the language in the third sentence of
Section 5 and questioned who will determine the improvements?
Ms. Ohlde reviewed her research into the possibility of
restoration of the facility and was quoted a price estimate in
May of $50,000 with a two year life span. In working with the
Boy Scouts, effort was made to protect the Scouts investment if
the agreement came to pass; and, a number of the conditions
previously considered have gone away. When the agreement was
first drafted it was not known if GSA would approve through the
National Parks System. As it stands, the plan of utilization
does match what they agreed to. The Building Department was
called in and they stated if it was occupied for non-public
assembly and the entrance door swung outward they would agree to
usage of the facility. Therefore, issuance of occupancy is not
as fragile at this point as it was at the beginning. Ms. Ohlde
noted that a building permit had been issued for the restoration
work, giving their approval of the plans submitted and if, at a
later date, they indicated additional improvements would have to
be completed, then the Building Department would put themselves
in jeopardy as a Building Department. President Waibel
questioned who would fund additional improvements if they should
be required? Ms. Ohlde stated the Boy Scouts would be fronting
the money needed for the restoration but if in fact the City did
not give them an occupancy then the Boy Scouts are asking for
assurance that they be reimbursed for funds expended. President
Waibel strongly suggested striking this provision. Mr. Colvin
questioned if the Scouts would be compensated for their 30 man
hours per week. 'Ms. Ohlde stated their compensation will be that
they will not be charged a rental fee - they are providing the
City a service. Ms. Ohlde explained that a calculation was made
on entering a 10 year lease and with them making improvements
plus the fair market value of what a monthly rental space of
similar size would be, it comes out to an equal benefit for them.
Mrs. Horton questioned under the "Termination Clause", if the
upgraded facility generated a great deal of use and necessitated
providing additional park improvements in order for their use,
who would be responsible for the cost of such improvements? And,
can the City, after 2,3,4 years, put in a termination clause for
the operator in the event there needs to be updating done to
parking, etc. Ms. Ohlde pointed out that the Guard Shack is only
800 sq. ft., so in that the only thing that can happen there is
handing out information. She does not anticipate there will be a
large impact, there will be no public meetings held there. On a
daily basis she estimated the largest number of cars stopping
might average 4. She also pointed out that the Boy Scouts would
be making a large commitment and they should be protected in the
event occupancy cannot occur; and in the event the Scouts
terminate (with a 60 day notice) the City has gained an improved
asset.
TAPE #588
City Council Reg. Mtg? Minutes
November 9, 1988 ~
Page 4 of 13
302
Mr. Dawkins questioned if the 'building will be made handicap
accessible? Tom LonG, representative of Boy Scouts Of America
and head carpenter, stated he was not sure if the door was
sufficiently wide and he would have to look into the possibility.
Also, currently there are no steps leading into the building. He
noted that the current Boy Scout Headquarters ~ffice is not
handicap accessible.
Mr. Overson questioned the following issues: (1) lack of any
standards of performance of the service to the City; (2) is there
a plan showing where directional signs will be placed directing
citizens to the facility; (3) is there a parking plan? Ms. Ohlde
stated the Outdoor Information Center will be a program under the
Outdoor Naturalist of the Parks Department and in that he will be
the one who will mandates and establish the procedures to be
followed for distribution of information. Mr. Overson pointed
out the statement within the agreement which specifically states
there are no other agreements...he felt this was extremely
limiting in the way it was written. Ms. Ohlde pointed out on the
first page of the agreement it states under Section 2, that it
will be operated by the Parks Department - they would not be
working independent of the department but would be under the
jurisdiction of the department. Mr. Overson questioned if any
coordination had taken place between the Bremerton/Kitsap County
Visitor and Convention Bureau for placement of tourist type
information? Ms. Ohlde stated she felt it would be a
coordination of all types of information available that relates
to outdoor recreation, such 'as Girl Scout programs, Campfire
programs, etc.
Ms. Anderson suggested that the third sentence under Section 5
read as follow (words deleted will be bracketed): "If a
Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Bremerton cannot be
issued, [without additional improvements to the structure prior
to occupancy of the building, and said additional improvements
are not funded and completed] through no fault of the o~erator,
within six months of this agreement the cost and materials
provided by O~erator to remodel the Guard House shall be
reimbursed by the City. The City shall be obligated to DaY no
more than $5,000 under this agreement.
President Waibel suggested changing one word in Section C, last
sentence to read: "The words "Equal Opportunity Employer" in
[delete is] advertisements shall constitute compliance with this
section"
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to approve the Service Agreement with Boy
Scouts Of America including the recommended changes (as
underlined in the prior text).
6B - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE A PEABODY MYERS VACTOR,
#AB88-264
The City Street Department is currently using a Vactor Model 810
mounted on a Ford chassis for maintenance of the City sanitary
and storm sewer systems.
The existing vehicle has reached its useful life span and is in
continual need of repairs. Considering the condition of this
vehicle, surplus and replacement of the vehicle is recommended.
Approval to enter into an interlocal agreement with the City of
Edmonds, Washington and the City of Bremerton for the purchase of
a new Peabody Myers Vactor is requested.
Cost of the replacement is $124,452.
TAPE #588
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 5 of 13
.788
.899
Ken Brees, Superintendent Of Streets, stated primarily the piece
of equipment has reached its useful life for the function it is
being used for. The primary use is for emergency sewer needs and
the Wastewater Utility contracts for the use of the equipment to
provide such services. He noted that it has a history of
repeated breakdowns.
Roy McGinnis, 2711 Maple Street, complimented Mr. Brees on his
carrying out his responsibilities. However, he was not
supportive of purchasing a new piece of equipment at this time.
He questioned the meaning of "it has reached its useful life
span". He questioned the age of the vehicle and the actual cost
being $154,952 not $124,452 as previously quoted. He noted that
a $30,500 trade-in value was shown on supporting documents. He
questioned if other options had been considered such as total
overhaul, partial replacement, etc.? Mr. Brees stated the
current equipment is a 1980 model and yes, they had looked at
retrofitting and the possibility of not trading it in. In fact,
not taking a trade-in was desired, however, it was not
economically feasible. The option to consider rebuilding the
piece of equipment would be very expensive. The best
recommendation they had was to get the most money out of the old
equipment via a trade-in and take ownership of a piece of
equipment that will perform, consistently, for the needed
services it provides. Mr. Colvin questioned what would be the
impact if purchase was delayed? Mr. Bress explained that the
City would probably not get as good trade-in value as that being
offered today.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, requested Council to include in the
motion a declaration of surplus for the 1980 model.
M/S/C/U(Horning/Colvin) to authorize the Mayor to enter into an
interlocal agreement between the City of Bremerton and the City
of Edmonds for the purchase of a Peabody Myers Vactor subject to
City Administrative Policy and Procedure and declaring the 1980
model as surplus and accepting the trade-in as stated.
6C - CONTRACT FOR RETAINED COUNSEL, #AB88-265
Elizabeth Reeve of Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt
retained in April to litigate a workman's comp.
Edi Parker, a former City employee.
& Lenihan was
claim filed by
B.M.C. 2.49.070 requires "all professional services utilized by
the City in excess of $5,000.00 in the aggregate for a single
year shall be approved by City Council". Assuming this means any
retained professional shall not receive more than $5,000.00 from
any department in any budget year, Council is asked to approve
the amended contract raising payment authorization to $10,000.00.
Hearings in this claim have now been completed, but with
extensive medical discovery and post-hearing briefing, the
$10,000.00 figure is more realistic than the original $5,000.00.
Mr. Johnson pointed out for clarification that all Personal
Services contracts for $5,000 or more must come before Council
for approval independent of any departmental separation.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Horton) to approve amended contract.
6D - EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT, #AB88-268
Two weeks ago the City entered into a lease with DTS Electronics
for the Tower Site on Gold Mr. previously leased by Tribune.
Tribune had a sublease-with Seattle Pacific for a small tower and
part of one building on the site. Under the terms of the
sublease Seattle Pacific paid the City directly. We have asked
that the sublease be modified to provide for payment to the
Lessee rather than the City. The lessee (soon to be DTS
044
098
177
433
TAPE #588
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 6 of 13
Electronics) then is responsible for payment to the City. The
intent is to have one primary Lessee at the site responsible for
all payments to the City as well as leasehold tax.
TPC Liquidating Trust, the successor to Tribune Publishing Co.,
has requested the extension and modification of lease agreement
with Seattle Pacific be signed. Upon closing' of the sale
(Tribune to DTS Electronics) on November 11th all of the assets
of Tribune on Gold Mt. including this sublease will be
transferred to DTS Electronics.
The sublease with Seattle Pacific actually expired 8/31/87. They
sent the required letter requesting extension of the lease,
however, the City refused to extend it at that time because there
was a dispute over payment of leasehold tax and Tribune indicated
they were selling and would modify and extend the sublease at
that time. The leasehold tax has now been paid to date, the sale
will finally be complete and Seattle Pacific has consented to
the modification.
Kathleen McCluskev, City Clerk, noted the reason this items was
an addition to the Agenda was due to the need to have this
modification approved prior to the close of the sale on November
11.
M/S/C/U(Horton/Crutcher) to approve extension and modification of
lease agreement.
7A - ORDINANCE #4176 (SECOND READING) ORGANIZATION OF PERSONNEL
DEPARTMENT, #AB88-256
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Horning) to pass Ordinance #4176, on second
reading, governing the Personnel Department.
7B - ORDINANCE #4177 (SECOND READING) ORGANIZATION OF CIVIL
SERVICE, #AB88-257
M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4177, on second
reading, governing the office of Civil Service.
7C - ORDINANCE #4178 (SECOND READING) LEVYING PROPERTY TAXES FOR
COLLECTION IN 1989, #AB88-259
Elizabeth Buell, 1722 High Avenue, requested an explanation of
the proposed tax levy. Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, briefly
outlined the State Statute which authorizes Cities to raise
property taxes at a rate of 64 per year. Mrs. Buell stated she
strongly objected to the proposed tax increase.
Mr. Colpin stated he had previously voted against this ordinance
because he supported citizens concerns that proposed increases in
fees and taxes needed more public notice then currently
receiving. However, at this time he would support the proposed
increase because he felt the public had several opportunities to
speak to the issue and the City needed funding derived from this
source.
M/S/C/U(Crutcher, Overson) to pass Ordinance #4178, on second
reading, levying Municipal taxes against all the taxable property
within the City limits of Bremerton for the year 1988 and
approving the assessment roll made by the Assessor of Kitsap
County, therefore to be collected in the year 1989.
President Waibel announced an Executive Session would be held-
commencing at 6:45 p.m., the topic to be discussed was "labor
relations"
City Council members returned
p.m.
to the Council Chambers at 7:12
TAPE #588
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 7 of 13
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION HEARING MAGNUSON
COURT, #AB88-266
At the 8/21/84 Planning Commission meeting Dr. Stanley's ROW
Vacation was approved. It was then approved by the City Council
at their 10/17/84 meeting. It was appraised at $14,250 and
offered to Dr. Stanley at $7,125 as required by State Statute.
The purchase price was disputed and Dr. Stanley declined to
purchase the property. He has recently reinstated his request to
purchase the property. Planning and Engineering have reaffirmed
their prior approvals at the same price due to the sewer
easement running through the property.
President Waibel asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all members being seated.
Ed Davis, Manager Current Planning, presented slides and over
view drawings which showed the subject property and surrounding
uses. He gave a brief rundown on historical events commencing
8/84 to the present time. He stated the original staff report,
which was adopted by the Planning Commission, identified in the
conclusion of the street vacation five items: (1) no identifiable
use of the subject site; (2) vacation would generally enhance the
development and flexibility of the adjoining properties; (3)
vacation would return the property to the public tax rolls; (4)
subject property has served no identified public purpose since
the adjoining structure had been removed after WWII; (5) given
the above it is unlikely that the subject site will be needed for
public purposes of the future, therefore, the subject plat shall
be returned to the private sector without harm or loss to the
public. Mr. Davis noted that'since it had been over a four year
period since Council had held the public hearing on the vacation,
a request for comments was requested to determine if there had
been any change within this period. All requests for comments
were received and the only one that surfaced was from the
Wastewater Department with the recommendation that "the City
reserves a ten foot {10') wide easement for present and future
utilities centered along the existing sanitary sewer main in the
area of the street vacation. The entire area was WWII housing
and Puget Sound Power & Light Company stated they had been
granted easements by the Federal Government at the time of WWII
so they had no need for an easement in that area. Staff
recommendation at this time is to adopt the ordinance with the
two conditions which relate to utility easement and compensation
for the vacation.
Dr. John Stanley, 2836 Halverson, stated he was the original
petitioner and apologized to the Council for not taking the
option in 1984. At that time he came to the conclusion he did
not wish to pave the area himself nor pay the taxes since it was
City property. However, several things have happened since that
time, one being the area is available for people to come in and
dump garbage and the.City had not maintained it; and the other is
the new development going in adjacent to the area and
establishing the parking available to that development. He now
now desires to pick up the option. He stated that originally
when the City set the price the City was not aware there was a
sewer down the middle of the property. Since the area is only 60
x 90 feet, it is not suitable for a building lot and he desires
to use it for additional parking.
Mr. Johnson questioned if the water catch basin serving the new
development was on City property? Mr. Davis noted that it
appeared that a bulldozer had pushed some of the construction
dirt onto the property. Dr. Stanley pointed out that the water
catch basin is not located on City property nor any equipment
that appeared on the slide was on City property. There was some
dirt dropped on the City property which can be quickly moved
E #589
22
TAPE #589
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 8 of 13
off. The catch basin is located 20 feet or more to the west
between Navy housing and the property. The old concrete
foundations are not on City property as well. President Waibel
questioned if the dirt was being used as a temporary catch basin?
Dr. Stanley stated the intended use for the dirt is back filling
around the new adjacent new building.
M/S/C/U(Horning/Colvin) to approve Ordinance on first reading,
approving Magnuson Court right-of-way vacation.
8B - PUBLIC HEARING - DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT URBAN RENEWAL PLAN,
#AB88-267
The Bremerton Planning Commission has forwarded the proposed
Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval.
The Plan establishes development, use,
controls in the project area. It contains:
building and other
1. A Land/Water Use Plan: Designates Land/Water Use Areas, and
establishes planning criteria, permitted uses, and controls for
each Use area. It also contains general requirements for
landscaping, parking, view corridors, public art, etc. (P. 8-41)
2. Urban Renewal Provisions: Allows City to acquire,
rehabilitate, and sell property and to compel property owners to
repair/rehabilitate deteriorating structures per State Urban
Renewal Statute RCW 35.81 (p. 7). The plan includes a property
acquisition map (p. 57) indicating the schedule for acquisition.
(p. 2).
President Waibel asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated.
Ron HouGh, Planning staff, provided a slide presentation showing
a variety of waterfront projects which had been completed in
several cities in Washington, Oregon and Canada. Also included
in the slides were various views of the waterfront area between
Evergreen Park and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, reflecting how it
looks today and comparing it with those areas in other cities
where the waterfront area has been developed.
Kay Wilson, Community Development Department, announced the
availability, to those in the audience, of several copies of the
current Planning Commission recommended Downtown Waterfront Urban
Renewal Plan. Using overhead view foils Ms. Wilson gave a brief
run down on the waterfront area included in the plan and
surrounding businesses/uses. Part of the historical data
relating to the downtown waterfront area included: (1) early 1986
the City organized a group of property owners, people from State
and local agencies and City Departments that would have to be
involved in coordinating projects if anything really grand was
adopted for the downtown waterfront. From this group a
"Waterfront Guide Plan" was produced. The concept included mixed
use, fishing pier, marina and lots of landscaping. (2) Based on
the Waterfront Guide Plan the City then developed an Urban
Renewal Project Area under State Urban Renewal Law (first an area
has to be declared as blighted). In May 1986, the City declared
the area between PSNS, including the ferry terminal, up to 5th
Street, including the water, as a blighted area. Next the City
staff was directed to prepare a Market Research Study to find out
what kind of businesses would be successful in this area and
prepare an Urban Renewal Plan based on what the market research
study showed. In November 1986 the Market Research Study was
completed and indicated that there were three kinds of scenarios
to be considered and each of them would depend upon how much
TAPE #589
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 9 of 13
private/public cooperation took place. In scenario #1
consultants found that if the City simply addressed parking and a
transient marina, then the market itself would be likely to
bring 50,000 sq. ft. of office space with associated parking,
some retail, small museum and possibly 50 units of apartments.
Scenario #2 would include double the office space as in scenario
#1 plus associated parking, the amount of retail would double,
much larger museum and would possible have more than 50 units of
apartments. In scenario #3 (called Regional Destination
Scenario) the consultant found that if the public sector were
able to provide major improvements in the area, and they
suggested a Civil Center and permanent marina in addition to
other public improvements, the City would not only be able to see
the office space as before, greater increase in retail, possibly
a 100-unit hotel, 30,000 sq. ft. museum and 100-units of
apartments. The message from the consultant was the more public
improvements that can be put into this area to create a sense of
a very special place unlike anywhere else in Kitsap County the
more quality development the City would attract. Based on the
Market Research Study, the Urban Renewal Plan was drafted and
released for public comment in July 1987. An Environmental Impact
Statement was issued in December 1987, followed by public
hearings before the Planning Commission in spring 1988.
Ms. Wilson noted the plan first includes a Land/Water Use Plan
which indicates that the City should look to several kinds of
uses on the waterfront to include: mixed
commercial/residential/tourist area, transition area where
certain controls of the Urban Renewal Plan could apply, ferry
terminal area and a linear park along the waterfront. The plan
covers a number of controls covering such things as setbacks,
side-yards, shoreline setbacks, maximum heights, view corridor
requirements centering down streets, parking controls and
permitted uses. Ms. Wilson stated it is not only a plan but
includes regulations such as the Zoning Ordinance and it would
operate as a Zoning Ordinance for all practical purposes in terms
of establishing the various controls for development going into
the areas. The plan includes a number of controls intended to
bring about quality development. A design concepts map indicate
some of the concepts the plan is trying to bring about, e.g., the
linear park, view corridors, marina area located between Burwell
and First Street Dock. The concept of parking indicates that if
underground parking is not feasible and above ground parking had
to be developed, then the parking should be developed in the
center of the development so that it will be screened by the
buildings.
The area between 5Th Street and PSNS and along the east side of
Washington would be covered by the Urban Renewal Plan,in
addition, the area on the west side of Washington and up to 6Th
Street would be in a design review overlay area. The properties
in that area that are outside the project area but inside the
design review area are required to follow two requirements of the
Urban Renewal Plan: (1) height requirements, (2) would be
required to go before a Design Review Board. The plan indicates
that if the City is going to control design along the waterfront
and encourage quality development, then there has'to be a way to
determine, as the projects come in, whether the way it is
designed is consistent with the Urban Renewal Plan or not. This
could be done similar to a Rezone with the Planning Commission
and/or City Council decision or it could be done in-house by
Planning staff. The advantage of the Planning Commission or City
Council involvement would be that a public hearing process would
be involved for public comment. The advantage of having City
staff take on that responsibility would be that it could be
accomplished in a more timely manner.
TAPE ~589
City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 10 of 13
The Urban Renewal Plan proposes a Design Review Board which
would include some of the advantages of both (Planning staff,
Planning Commission/City Council), which would review development
proposals, then make the decision whether or not they were
acceptable. The plan recommends composition of the Design Review
Board to include six people chosen from several named groups.
If a developer did not agree with the Design Review Board
decision they could appeal the decision through the City
Council. The Planning Department staff would serve as the
decision making body until such time as a Design Review Board is
set up. Another advantage of having a Design Review Board would
be that it could meet weekly or as needed to help the developer
and not delay them having to wait several weeks from hearing-to-
hearing that it takes to go through the Planning Commission and
City Council.
Ms. Wilson noted one of the ways the Urban Renewal Plan is
different from the Comprehensive Plan is that it includes Urban
Renewal powers taken from State Urban Renewal Law. Basically the
City would be able to acquire property, rehabilitate that
property, could sell the property to someone else for
redevelopment and it could require people to repair or
rehabilitate their structures; but most importantly it emphasizes
the intent of the plan is to encourage voluntary rehabilitation.
The plan says the City would only resort to condemnation of
property as a very last resort and the City would intend to work
with the property owners to avoid such action. The plan
includes a schedule whereby the City would acquire such land if
the City did have to resor't to condemnation - thereby
establishing priorities. The areas between First Street and
Second Street and out on the waterfront between First and Burwell
would be targeted for the first redevelopment.
Finally, there is an implementation process once the Urban
Renewal Plan is adopted, setting out Phase I during which program
planning would be developed. This would include a report that
would lay out what the design controls would be, an action plan
that would address each property within the project area and
determine whether the City would ask for clearance and
redevelopment or rehabilitation or no action at all. Next, a
schedule for action and development of a relocation plan, in the
event there are residents that have to be relocated, would be
developed. Finally, an Economic Incentive Program would be
developed establishing economic incentives to encourage potential
private developers and owner-participants to become involved in
the urban renewal process.
Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, spoke on behalf of
Mayor Lobe, noting the following comments: (1) the Mayor
acknowledges the need for the Urban Renewal Plan in order to
coordinate what is happening on the waterfront and to be a
central place to keep track of what action is currently being
taken by many different parties; (2) reminds that in the next few
months before the plan is finished there will be some changes on
the waterfront and to not be concerned over those changes
happening before planning is complete because many new projects
are due to the review and planning that has already taken place
; (3) Mayor requests that an area north of 2nd Street dock and on
northern border of the marina/south be designated as a "display
vessel site". He supports the community effort to work toward
obtaining a military vessel for placement on the waterfront; (4)
Mayor does support the Design Review Board process but he
supports it when it functions as the Shoreline Permits Board also
- so that there are not multiple hearings required on the same
project. If the Design Review Board should become too detailed
TAPE #589
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 11 of 13
and would slow down the process of development, then he would
support simplifying it greatly or doing away with it; (5) Mayor
favors the current designation of the properties within the area
with no expansion. He believes expanding the furban renewal area
into adjoining neighborhoods would add dynamics which are not
pertinent to the waterfront; (6) Mayor asks that the City does
not commence acquisition of non-compliant properties for a two
year period after adoption. He believes that significant
activities and improvements will happen on the waterfront and
will encourage others to do their own development; (7} Mayor
supports the height limits in the plan but he asks that the
height limitations be made more direct and simpler for the public
to understand; (8) Mayor does support the 14 of total
construction cost for project to be used for Public Art Program
provided by the developer; (9) Mayor does support straight
forward bonus system to grant additional development capacity in
exchange for provision by the developer of public benefits or
amenities. For example, additional height or lot coverage could
be permitted in exchange for development of public plazas, view
corridors or public art over and above the minimum requirement.
And, considering the above stated changes, the Mayor recommends
adoption of the Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan.
Ray Allred, 3913 Harbel Drive, expressed his concern regarding
the proposed park, noting it was too small for any significant
use. He supported the idea of a marina but suggested placing the
marina to the north of the area indicated in the plan.
Steve Rice, 2328 7th Street, spoke in support of a Design Review
Board. He is a local architect and supported making the Design
Review Board a permanent part of the Planning Department and to
expand it to review other areas.
Austin Clark, 3109 13th Street, stated he owned property at the
northern most end of the designated area in the plan. He raised
the following concerns: (1) the Design Review Board, if
established, would have more power than the City Council and he
would prefer having the majority vote of the City Council on
decisions relating to development within the plan area; (2) [Page
43 of Plan] requested clarification of the statement: "the owner
of a property to be rehabilitated shall be required to enter into
an Owner-Participation Agreement with the City"? (3) [page 60]
questioned what all the codes, referenced on page 60, impose on
this area when in fact they are already in force in the City? (4)
[Page 66] questioned the kinds of requirements that are carried
with the conditions listed under Items A, B,C, on page 66 of
plan.
Generally, Mr. Clark stated he was in agreement with the proposed
plan.
Bill Rossiter, member of LINK and a resident of Poulsbo,
expressed concern regarding "passenger ferry" support not being
addressed in the plan. He pointed out the greater need for
parking, covered walkways and/or tunnels for ferry users and the
need for them to be identified in the plan.
Walter Bale, 11771 St. Hwy. 303 Avenue, and local property owner,
expressed concern that he had to take back a piece of property
which had been sold and requested Mr. Rusty Hagar to speak to
that issue. Rusty Ha~ar explained that he had defaulted on loans
for two waterfront properties (one being owned by Mr. Bale) due
in part to the city's proposed urban Renewal Plan for the area.
He noted that the purpose in acquiring the property in the first
place was for investment, future development with the possibility
of joint venture on the waterfront. He stated he supported the
concept provided under the "Guide Plan" which had been developed
.PE #590
138
TAPE #589
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 12 of 13
several years ago considering there had been a lot of input in
its development. He did not see the Urban Renewal Plan as viable
due to the economic condition in the city. He cautioned the
decision makers to consider very carefully about what those
people who are spending their time and effort trying to make
money reasonably to develop an area. He noted that the pictures
shown during the slide presentation of other areas that have
developed waterfront facilities did not have any people actually
using the facilities at the time the picture was taken. Mr. Bale
suggested making the proposed area into parking - helping to
provide a current need. He also expressed concern of enforcement
of codes for rehabilitating older buildings and what that could
mean in costs to the property owner. Mr. Bale stated he would
offer his property for sale to the City so that they would not
have to go through the condemnation process.
Ray Allred suggested that measurements be included on the
conceptual designs in the plans. He also questioned if the beach
access off 4TH Street was still a viable project? Mr. Pratt
explained that due to the projected high cost the project was
withdrawn.
Austin Clark questioned the meaning of paragraph I (Page 60-
Inspection and Correction) and the kinds of things that the
inspector would be looking for under this type of inspection?
Mr. Pratt stated it was his understanding that once the City is
in the acquisition stage they will bring forth a contract between
the property owner who has not met the schedule that the Urban
Renewal Plan mandates and discussing when the property can be
brought into conformance for '~land use or design and for the
structural situations that are listed in the plan. He believed
it would be possible for many of the buildings to be
rehabilitated for an adequate and appropriate land use as
mandated by the plan, but will require some design
considerations, paint, remodeling on outside so it is coordinated
with the rest of the area and will also require the Mechanical
Code, Uniform Building Code, Plumbing. Code, Fire Prevention Code
be carefully inspected. Currently those type of inspections are
done on a complaint basis. The Codes apply to all city residents
today - this does not include the Housing Code which is still
under discussion. If the plan is adopted, all properties in the
area will be inspected without the stimulus of a complaint for
code compliance. A qualified Building Inspector, who serves
under the current Building Official would be carrying out the
inspection.
Mr. Hornina noted that there is a great deal of interest in the
plan, the City in general has a great deal at stake and he
pointed out this property is privately owned and very complex
procedure that will take time to implement.
Mr. Hornina supported having an additional Study Session where
issues can be addressed in a less formal atmosphere.
Mr. Dawkins questioned how many property
Renewal area affect? Ms. Wilson noted it
owners.
owners does the Urban
affects 15-20 property
Mrs. Horton stated she felt that the official Public Hearing had
been of more value then the previous Study Session and preferred
scheduling another public hearing at a regular Council meeting.
M/S/C/U(Horning/Coivin) moved to have a Study Session on
November 30, immediately following the City Council meeting.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
TAPE #590
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
November 9, 1988
Page 13 of 13
KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
APPROVED
HANK WAIBEL, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/HW/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault