Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/87 JUL Jg7 TAP~ #4~ UNAPPROV~.D DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 15, 1987 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, July 15, 1987, at §:30 p.m. with Council President Spencer Homing presiding. Council members present were Hank Waibel, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins, Shirley Marry Crutcher, Russ Johnson and Lon Overson, Mary Lou Long, C.R. "Tiny" Collins. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Spencer Homing with Reverend Michael Pickard of Crossroads Neighborhood Church giving the Invocation. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meetings held July 1, 1987 and July 8, 1987, #AB87-203 #0027 M/S/C/(Colvin/Crutcher) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. Vote: In Favor: Overson, Crutcher, Dawkins, Horning Collins, Long, Colvin, Johnson Abstain: Waibel CLAIMS/WARRANTS REGISTER 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. #0053 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Long) on July 15, 1987, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: Regular Warrants numbering 30492 through 30600 in the total amount of $181,903.02 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Johnson reported that there is still a fruit stand doing business on a multi-family zoned lot and he would like to see some action resolving the problem. Mr. Colvin pointed out that the City is doing well keeping within the budget. And, this week he had an opportunity to visit the City of Vancouver, Washington, meeting their Mayor and Council members, touring City Hall and becoming familiar with a public information program which is provided via a closed circuit TV system. Mrs. Lonq brought up a possible legal point on action which was taken by Council a week prior in approving the appointment of Police Chief Lynn Coney. This concern was brought to her attention by Mr. Start Christensen and questioned if Council's approval of Chief Coney contract, which included a waiver of Civil Service rights, was in violation of the City Charter which stipulates that the Police Chief will be under the Civil Service System. Ion Sievers, City Attorney stated that the waiver in the contract does recognize the position is still in Civil Service for the benefit of the employees in the Department who may wish to use the Civil Service System for promotion to that position, according to the rules and in the selection procedures required. The intent of Charter that TAPE #466 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 2 of 13 that position be there for the benefit of the public and other employees is still upheld - Mr. Coney is just waiving his rights of tenure. Mrs. Long continued to take the position that the Council has the responsibility to uphold the Charter and follow the Civil Service Rules as adopted. Mr. Collins introduced Kay Wilson, Planning Department, who handed out to Council members a copy of a Discussion Draft titled, "DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT URBAN RENEWAL PLAN". Ms. Wilson gave a brief history account of prior actions leading to the development of the Plan and described the area identification as running along Washington Avenue to east side of Washington, includes all land adjacent to the water up to Fifth Street and down to the ferry terminal. It includes land that is under water, owned by DNR and leased to various organizations. Described in the plan were land/water uses which included: mixed commercial/residential, commercial/hotel/museum, ferry terminal, linear park and pathway system. Also included is a Design Concept which describes some of the concepts discussed including a pathway park along the waterfront, new road along the waterfront (Waterfront Avenue) and extension of Burwell street connecting to Waterfront Avenue and view corridors which extend out from each street. With each corridor there would be height restrictions so as to help preserve the views from uphill. Pedestrian overpasses and ferry traffic flow pattern are also included. Under Urban Renewal Law the City has the authority to condemn and acquire land or to acquire land without condemnation. Ms. Wilson identified those properties targeted for acquisition which covers the bulk of properties in the designated area. A small portion of land is identified as "subject to acquisition at at later date" and public-rights-of-way to be required or vacated have also been identified. Implementation of this plan is designed to ensure that redevelopment is phased to minimize disruption within the project area. The overriding intent is to work cooperatively with property owners to bring about orderly redevelopment in a timely manner. The City will resort to condemnation procedures only if owners do not choose to develop or rehabilitate their property in conformance with the Urban Renew Plan. Ms. Wilson pointed out the next step will be to begin work on an Environmental Impact Statement on this Discussion Draft Plan and should be released sometime in the fall, there will be public hearings on the EIS, before the the Planning Commission and again to Council. When the City finally adopts the plan it will be come law. Mr. Collins reported, for the benefit of the Scalawag Committee, that everything has been worked out so that no work to re-route traffic flow during the demolition process of the ferry terminal will begin before August 9th. Mr. Waibel reminded Council members that the time for the Budget process to begin is near and to keep on track with the schedule which was provided earlier. Also, that Council's Goals, Objectives and Special Items will be in the form of a Resolution and on Council Agenda for July 22, 1987. Mr. 0verson stated we are having some experience with the Sidewalk Vendor Ordinance which demonstrates it may need to be altered and may be brought before Council in the near future. At a recent YMCA meetinG plans were outlined stepping up the tempo for their Grand Opening activities. TAPE #466 City council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 3 of 13 Mr. Overson read a letter from a constituent of his District in which he praised Bremerton, citing those things which make the quality of life in Bremerton for he and his family so great. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Stan Christensen, 419 Plum, voiced his objection to the recent action taken during hiring of the new Police Chief and his signing a waiver exempting him from Civil Service jurisdiction. Mr. Christensen cited the City Charter and that it is up to the people, by ballot vote, to determine if they want their Police Chief under Civil Service Rule, not the new chief's choice. Also he raised the question...did the requirement to sign a waiver from Civil Service come up during the interview process? Dorothy Christensen, 419 Plum, expressed her opinion that Don Cundiff should retire as Assistant Police Chief and not as Chief due to disparities at the time of his appointment to the Chief's position. 6A - REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT LEON FOX - NATIONAL AVENUE, #AB87-204 Mr. Leon Fox has constructed a sanitary sewer to his property at First and National at his own expense. The sewer has been inspected and approved by the Engineering Department. Mr. Fox is entitled to receive compensation for connections into the sewer. Jan Stemkoski, Assistant City Engineer, outlined the history of this action, noting that Mr. Fox installed a sewer line in 1983 and through an over sight on his part did not bring action to collect cost of installation before now. Mr. Fox expended $15,000 to install the sewer and that is the maximum he can be reimbursed. Each time someone connects to the sewer on that line he will receive the cost of the sewer connection minus the inspection fee. Stan Christensen, 419 Plum, questioned if a precedent hadn't been set when Hazelwood put in his sewer and asked for reimbursement? Mr. Stemkoski stated that the ordinance still exists for reimbursement agreements. Mrs. Lonq questioned if Mr. Fox has been receiving sewer service since 1983 and been charged for this service. Mr. Stemkoski stated that Mr. Fox has been billed and paid for sewer service since hooking up to the sewer system. Mr. Waibel expressed concern that a time limit for making application for reimbursement may be relevant in this issue. Mr. Stemkoski stated there is normally a 10 year period for reimbursement and Mr. Fox will receive reimbursement only during those years since acceptance...- from 1983 to 1993. #1362 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Crutcher) to accept the Reimbursement Agreement. 6B - BREMERTON COt~4I/NITY ACCESS CHANNELt #AB87-205 The 1987 Budget contains $10,000 for remodel of Council Chambers for Cable T.V. broadcast. Proposal #2, as suggested by Council Fiscal and Budget Committee, provides for purchase of special effects generator and color monitor, to defer purchase of carpeting in the amount of $2,364.?0 TAPE #466 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 4 of 13 and instead purchase a character generator which will cost between $2,400 and $2,600. The difference in cost can be covered by the funds remaining from the $4,500 budgeted for 1987 Operational Costs (approximately S/,O00). Ms. McCluskey, City Clerk, stated that the items on proposal #2, special affects generator and monitor, are permanent items for this facility (Council Chambers). The Character Generator is a piece of equipment which could be used any where, not just Council chambers, and is a needed item. Robert Smitter, 1511 Park Avenue, spoke in favor of expending funds to set up cable casting noting that there are many individuals who cannot physically come to Council meetings and would then have a way to participate in and become knowledge of City issues. He did not support the idea that the filming of Council meetings would affect the way people vote during elections. Currently TCI does have the capability to provide a delayed broadcast of Council meetings. Mr. Smitter questioned the costs quoted for equipment and felt that equipment could be obtained at a lesser cost. Also, in the event that Council approves the televising of Council meetings he believes he and Mary Lou Long are entitled to an apology from the Council for their past actions regarding this issue. Ruth Davies, 1511 Park Avenue, stated that if the Council wanted to televise their meetings it could have been done...TCI has the equipment to do it. She felt that it did not take a "professional" to produce a viable program and that it was more important to inform the public than worry about finding a professional to take on the responsibility. Lynn Horton, 2028 Taft, supported the public access channel but did oppose any further expending of city funds to telecast Council meetings due to the City's financial constraints. Stan Christensen, 419 Plum, stated his belief that if any Councilman opposed televising the Council meetings they must have something to hide. Mr. Crutcher urged the Council to approve proposal #2 and purchase only that equipment which can be used in any location and reserve the remaining funds until Council decides to start broadcasting Council meetings. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the City is required by law to utilize a portion of the fee received from the Franchise operator for administration and use of the Cable system. And, there are three types of cable access channel, one being public access where people can take films and work with the Cable Company to put it on, another is education - closed circuit loops between schools, City Hall, Fire Stations, Police Stations so that videos can be played for public use or education and lastly, governmental channel for control during a national disaster as well as government broadcast. The request is not just to put Council meetings on cable but to ready the Council Chambers which can be used for al/ kinds of meetings/organizations. Mrs. Lonq supported the position that TCI had equipment available to undertake broadcasting Council meetings and public activities currently without Council having to expend additional monies. And, that too much emphasis is being placed on a "professional" production approach by the Cable Committee. TAPE #466 City council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, ~987 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Collins expressed concern that a plan has not been developed covering the Council and public uses for the access channel. Mr. Overson stated that of the responses he has received from constituents, 100% of them have supported not spending additional funds towards the access channel program. Mr. Colvin supported keeping the public informed, however, he did not want to see Council get into a position where there was early enthusiasm for a cable access commitment and then not have funding available to carry on with it. TAPE #467 Mr. Homing stated for clarification that currently there is capability to utilize equipment through TCI, there does not appear to be a large volunteer effort to promote and provide manpower to carry out this function and Mayor Lobe has indicated he does not have staff available to dedicate time for development of programming. Mr. Johnson stated that there is no funding trade off for other City needs and the funds available through the Franchise fee must be used for administration and use of cable access channel. And, if Council sends this issue back to the Committee that it give the Committee clear direction as to what it is looking for in additional information. Mrs. Lon~ expressed her concern over the lack of manpower to assist in coordinating a volunteer effort and offered her services to carry out such a program. Also, she pointed out that with the approval of funding for additional equipment to ready the Council chamber, it would reduce the liability for individuals using the portable equipment. Mr. Homing requested Council members to state specifically what additional information they are seeking. Comments given are as follows: 1. Manpower source for a two year period. 2. What can be done in a very low-manned way? 3. Detailed plan of action and milestones as to what will be done with the access channel. 4. How the public access will be developed as it goes on the air. 5. What is financial impact if an individual damages a camera/other equipment? 6. If approval is Given to purchasing equipment for use in Council Chambers, what is the difference in liability risk to individuals usinG that equipment versus the portable equipment? 7.A check list of volunteers. 8. Kinds of programming to be shown, how many hours of specific types - what is the plan. #0091 M/S/C(Overson/Collins) to continue this issue remitting it back to Committee requesting that they provide additional information so Council can come to a decision Vote: In Favor: Waibel, Collins, Colvin, Overson, Dawkins, Homing Oppose: Long, Johnson, Crutcher 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - HOLLY TERRACE WEST (X0 ACRE} FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, LOCATION: APPROX., 1/2 MILE NORTHWEST OF PINE ROAD AND SYLVAN WAY, ACCESSED BY BRISTLECONE DRIVE AND MONTICOLA DRIVE, APPLICANT: HOLLY HOMES INC., #AB87-208 TAPE #467 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 6 of 13 The City approved the Preliminary Plat on June 13, 1984 for 27 single family lots. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, Gave a brief review of the process to be carried out in a Final Plat approval, citing ROW 88.17.170 and citinG in summary from Professor Settle's comments in his publication "Washington Land Use"; and that the decisions relatinG to public health, safety and welfare, provision of access, open space, parks, drainage, etc. are made at the preliminary plat approval (in this case three years ago) and they were made pursuant to laws in affect at that time and no change in those conditions can be made without the approval of the developer. President Horninq asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Ed Davis, Planning Department, pointed that at the time of approval of the preliminary plat (June 1984), there were seven conditions imposed: (1) Portray the Auditor's Number for the easement Granted to the City for access to the Tracyton Water Shed; (2) Portray the dividing line between Monticola Drive and Bristlecone Drive; (3) Contact the Kitsap County Public Works Department regardinG required improvements to Monticola Drive right-of- way; (4) Revise typical roadway section to show right-of-way line behind sidewalk; (5) Revise pavement width shown to comply with the City Engineer's January 24, 1984 letter to PAC-TECH; (8) Submit detailed designs of utility systems for City Engineer's approval prior to commencinG work.on site; (7) Storm Drainage: the proponent must provide a binding legal agreement to insure the continued proper functioninG of any detention facility installed. In view of the City/County involvement this agreement must be approved by both jurisdictions. Mr. Davis stated that, as required by the Preliminary Plat, six notes have been posted to the plat fulfilling the conditions as set: (1) All lot corners staked with 5/8" rebar and cap. (2) A 10' wide utility easement will abut all right of ways in this plat as depicted here on. (3) The division between Bristle Cone Drive and Monticola Drive shall be at their intersection with RidGetop Ct. (4) A 20' wide easement 10' each side of the natural drainage swale from Tract "B" to the West property line. (5) Sub3ect to covenant recorded under Kitsap County Auditor's File No. requiring payment of assessment for maintenance and operation for storm detention system. TAPE #467 City council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 7 of 13 (6) Twenty ft. utility easement between lots 8 and 9 shall permit periodic ingress and egress of maintenance equipment. Steve Demarest, Attorney representing Holly Homes Co., stated his support of the statements made by the City Attorney regarding the final plat approval process. He did indicate that difficulties have been experienced since the preliminary plat approval and the present time and indicated the cooperation they have received through the Planning Department to help resolve them. There are two issues which the proponent desires to have resolved by the present Council: (1) the off-site road improvements; and (2) whether this subdivision is limited to single family resident structures or if it is inclusive of the ability of developer or lot owner to construct a duplex due to the fact that the zoning in that area is R-1 which allows single family dwellings as well as duplexes. On the issue of off- site road improvements, Mr. Demarest argued that the developer cannot be legally bound to make improvement to property that does not abut the project itself or immediately adjacent to it. When contact was made with the County Public Works Department the response received was that they recommended, not required, upgrading Monticola Drive from north boundary of Cedar Grove Estates to Sylvan Way to same standards as depicted on typical roadway section on preliminary plan as submitted and at a later date indicated they desired a two inch overlay. Mr. Demarest re- emphasized the County's response was a recommendation and not a requirement or condition of the plat (note: was not included on the check list, sent by Planning Department, to applicant for completion of preliminary plat conditions). Mr. Demarest cited a law case... Miller vs. Port Angeles 1984, in support of his argument on the "off-site improvement" issue. In regard to the issue of limiting the development to single family residences... Mr. Demarest pointed out that through the initial development process the applicant expected to develop single family homes, however at the time the developer decided in favor of building duplexes in place of single family dwellings, a new SEPA check list was submitted to the Planning Department. Holly Homes Inc., corresponded with the City via written letter requesting information as to the zoning designation for that area and if it was possible to build 27 duplexes instead of 27 single family residences on this land. Planning Department's response to Holly Homes, Inc., indicated that they could build 27 duplexes instead of single family dwellings if they met all necessary criteria through the building permit process. Holly Homes then submitted plans for duplex construction, paid the plan check fee of $831.69, and then the applicant was informed by the City that duplexes could not be built in the development. Applicant requested to have the plan check fee refunded if in deed duplexes could not be considered for this area and the City's response was - no refund would be made. Mr. Demarest requested striking portions of the proposed Resolution referencing a 15 day period for completion of conditions after passage of Resolution and, Section 1 referring to limiting development to single family dwellings/special use permit process by property owners and Section 3 - posting of a bond or other security for securing the construction of additional improvements to Monticola Drive. The developer did agree to designate Tract A as a S-acre open space for the development. Linda Cochran, Attorney for the Cedar Grove Action Committee - neighborhood group surrounding this proposed TAPE #467 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 8 of 13 project, stated her involvement with this group and project for the past 10 years. The position of the neighborhood group is supportive of the Planning Department's recommendation. During the preliminary plat process the developer had met with the neighborhood group, assuring them that the project would involve single family dwellings, with all supporting documentation (i.e., EIS, etc.) stating that fact. Ms. Cochran quoted from a letter written by developer dated April 30, 1984, to the Planning Department that stated his intent to provide covenants but that they would not be ready until final plat approval. Upon the evidence presented during the Preliminary Plat approval, Ms. Cochran based her position that single family dwellings was a condition of the Preliminary Plat approval. The Sheridan Neighborhood Association Plan indicates that the density on this property should be medium density or 4 to 5 units per acre. If duplexes are allowed density would be over 8 units per acre. Also, the Plan states that the development should be in conformity with surrounding neighborhoods. Even with the single family designation this property will have a greater density than surrounding neighborhoods. Ms. Cochran did not support Mr. Demarest's position that the developer would not be bound to provide off-site road improvements citing a reverse opinion of the legal case- Port Angeles vs. Miller. Ms. Cochran pointed out that the three acres being dedicated as open space has no access and it would be difficult for even the developer to build on the property and this may not be as great a concession as the developer would like it to appear. As a final comment, Ms. Cochran stated that state law, is quite clear that the rights of the citizens cannot be denied here because one individual in the Planning Department made a statement, which in this case was in error. The following individuals spoke in opposition to allowing construction of duplexes but did support approval of final plat if all condition of Preliminary Plat approval are fulfilled: Jewel Edwards, 300 Bristlecone Dr.; Dale Bergoise, 243 Bristle Cone Dr.; Michael Powell, 3612 Cedar Grove St.; Sandra Binz, 251 Sugar Pine Dr.; Peggy Bearbower 3523 Monticola Dr.; Don Urwin, 3618 Pine Cone Dr.; Mrs. Bruce Avery, 312 Sugar Pine Dr.; Bill Parker, 3605 Gedar Grove; Darrell Thayer,3601 Pine Cone Dr.; John Lewis, 3619 Pine Cone Dr.; Dick Bearbower, 3523 Monticola Dr.; Bill Mitchell 253 Bristlecone; Murray Plattner, 315 White Pine Dr.; Diane Reed, 3505 Monticola Dr.. Specific concerns cited included: impact of traffic on health and safety of surrounding neighborhoods, lack of access to Tract A, lack of covenants, no provision for greenbelt, density issue, valuations of surrounding residences Steve Demarest, Attorney, stated that concerns relating to impact of parking is controlled through the building permit process and ground cover is controlled through the Zoning and Building Codes which helps to protect over building an area. In response to Tract A and its being landlocked - the area between lots 8 and 9 already has an easement allowance for utilities and it would be acceptable to the developer to provide ingress and egress to Tract A through Tract B for public use. In response to increased traffic on Monticola Drive, it is a common occurrence that when a development is going in that young people tend to race along the newly paved areas and this generally decreases when buildings are built and occupied and parental control is available. In response to the question about value of homes decreasing if TAPE #46? City council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 9 of 13 duplexes are construction .... the current zoning does allow for duplex construction, possibly the zoning for that area needs to be reviewed. The developer believes that all conditions have been met. TAPE #468 Mr. Horning raised questions as to current zoning and density that exist today. Mr. Pratt, Planning Director, stated that the density permitted by zoning would allow duplexes on lots with 5,800 sq. ft. of property and the existing land uses in the area are single family. Mr. Homing asked when was the condition of Monticola Drive added to the check list. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated that it was always a part of the conditions coming out of the Preliminary Plat approval, however it did become apparent upon checking the covenants that not all of the dedications, signatures and some of the covenants on the plat did not meet all conditions, restrictions stipulated and necessitated his incorporating wording in the resolution to cover those areas. Mr. Sievers stated that the off-site improvement condition needs to be either in place prior to plat approval or bonded for. Mr. Horning questioned Council's right to designate single family dwellings if not previously in preliminary plat. Mr. Sievers stated that Council cannot change conditions but they must determine if it was a condition imposed during that process and upon review of documents it appeared that it was an implicit restriction on this plat because it was represented in the required documents. Mr. Waibel expressed concern with the wording of the Resolution in that it says conditions will be met not that all conditions have been met, as required for a Final Plat approval. And, a maintenance condition is just a condition that is continued on for a period of time. Ian Sievers explained that if environment impacts are predicted a condition is usually set to maintain improvements or take care of problems that may develop in the future .... sometimes a Home Owners Association is set up to maintain property or certain conditions on the property. Most real improvements can be assumed by the City and not require any thing further. In this case the storm retention system is a high maintenance system and a covenant is provided where the property owners will provide funding to help maintain the system. Mr. Collins stated that the covenant stipulating only single family dwellings not give the developer all his rights under the Zoning Ordinance but the community should also be protected in some way and could be by the use of a Special Use permit. Steve Demarest, Attorney, stated that the developer brought before Council the question whether or not the condition restricting the use to single families was an appropriately imposed condition and it appears through your discussion, that it is an appropriate condition and the developer will live with that condition. Mr. Johnson raised the issue of Tract A being landlocked and not appropriate as a park due to limited access by public. Ian Sievers stated the Parks Director was not in favor of a lot of public access because of nuisance problems, but it will serve to offset density of the development. TAPE #468 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 10 of 13 Mr. Waibel pointed out that the issue of Tract A being public land is not identified in the Resolution. Ian Sievers explained that originally the storm retention area was identified as Tract B which included the land now identified as Tract A and it was the City's desire to divide the property so that two departments would be responsible for maintenance rather than one. Mr. Demarest re-emphasized that it was the developer's desire to keep the property as one piece - Tract B and it was just a few days before the hearing that the City proposed splitting the property into two designations (Tract A and Tract B) and access is available to Tract A between Lots 8 and 9. #1122 M/S(Waibel/Colvin) to continue this hearing for three weeks solely for the purpose of assuring that these conditions are shown on the final submittal documents and no further changes could be addressed. Vote: In Favor: Collins, Colvin, Johnson, Overson, Dawkins, Waibel, Horning Oppose: Long, Crutcher 8B - PUBLIC HEARING - REZONE R-2 TO LP AT 1024 AND 1028 FOURTH STREET, APPLICANT: DAVID AND INA WINGO, #&~87-209 On June 16, 1987, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 recommending approval of the proposed rezone from R-2 to LP. A copy of ordinance is presented for first reading. There were no conditions to be met, therefore, no Concomitant Zoning Agreement is necessary. President Horninq asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Jack Allin~ham, Planning Department, outlined the efforts put forth by the Council, Planning Commission and Planning Department covering a period from June 10, 1986 through March 18, 1987 and to the present time. Based on past history the Planning Commission has found that this rezone proposal does meet the four minimum criteria necessary to grant a rezone. There is a resident structure on the property which will create a legal non-conformity. David Wingo, 2740 2nd Street, Retsil, WA., owner, stated his appreciation of the Planning staff, Council and Planning Commissions cooperation. As to the residential structure, he indicated that it will be used to house an individual to act as manager over the parking area. Mr. Homing clarified Mr. Wingo's intent that he was seeking Council's approval for him to continue to use the residence and Mr. Wingo responded - yes. Jack Allinqham stated that when a rezone occurs land uses in existence at the time of passage of that Ordinance have a legal standing and although it is not the intent of this Ordinance to turn the back yards of residences into parking lots and Council should be warned now and in the future of this. If Council approves this request it will then be allowing the residence to be used as a non-conforming use. Mr. Waibel stated that there are lots of uses allowed in a R-2 zone in addition to residence - do all those possible uses become legal non-conforming uses or does only the use that it is actually being put to become non-conforming? Jack Allin~ham stated that if any of the other uses were existing at the time of the rezone then they too would become non-conforming. Don Pratt, Planning Director, stated TAPE #468 City council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 11 of 13 that as long as the house is used as a residence it is a legal non-conformity, however, if it were to be turned into an office then it would be an illegal non-conformity use and require an enforcement action. Mr. Colvin questioned Mr. Wingo intent to provide a buffer zone or landscaping. Mr. Winqo stated he had been informed that he would be required to provide some type of screening. #2055 M/S/C/U(Collins/Long) to approve Ordinance on first reading amending the use and area maps of Ordinance 1792 upon application of rezone from R-2 to LP and subject to various requirements and other applicable laws and regulations (Wingo). 6C - PROPOSED HIRING OF TWO CORRECTION OFFICERS (TEMPORARY POSITIONS}, ~AB87-206 During the budget process for 1987, in order to meet a $160,000 reduction in operating capital, the Police Department terminated three corrections officer positions in addition to not filling two vacant police officer positions. To meet the demand for correction officers, the Department reassigned three line officers to correction officer positions. This was a short term move as the County was to be ready for our prisoners by mid year 87. After six months of budgetary uncertainty at the State level, the County has received the required funding to complete work on the Bremerton Wing, however, it will not be completed until late November, early December 1987. As a result of a settlement between the City and Teamsters Local 589, the City has agreed to seek funding for additional corrections officers (2) to replace the commissioned officers currently working in the jail. Action to hire two temporary corrections officers will require Council approval as funds necessary do not exist in the current Police operating budget. Additionally, payoffs totaling $8,300.00 to two Corrections Officers RIF'd in the budget process is necessary. Captain Joe Hatfield, Bremerton Police Department, stated that the statement presented by the City Clerk provided all necessary background information and was available for any questions. Dave Hiestand, Director of Personnel, explained the direction taken by management during the 1987 budget process was done with the intent to man the jail with two uniformed officers to provide for a 24 hour a day operation. This action caused Mr. Bush, Teamster Representative, to file actions against the City on unfair labor practice with the Public Employees Relations Commissions and a unit determination claimed that you cannot replace two union members with Police officers of another bargaining unit. After this determination was made it appeared that the City was in a no-win position and a out- of-court settlement was made. Captain Hatfield added that at the time of decision management felt they were on firm ground and that it would be for a short period of time...however, due to the delay in completion of County 3ail facilities the time period was longer than anticipated. Mr. Waibel pointed out that at the time the decision was made it was known to be a risky situation and the City TAPE #468 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 12 of 13 Council may be setting a precedent if approval is given to "bailing out" a department with additional funds when the whole issue evolved around a budget reduction requirement. Also, Council should be aware that there are other options other than additional funding, such a reduction in number of police officers (it was noted that this may not be the best decision) Captain Hatfield stated that the Department is not asking for a bail-out, the department is not over budget, but because of action brought about by the Teamsters Union and the need to continue to provide jail services it is necessary to hire temporary personnel to provide jail staffing and to provide the $29,000 needed through reduction in police force was not a course of action to take. Mr. Johnson questioned the exact amount of funds requested. Captain Hatfield stated that the amount requested is $2g,§00. Mr. Johnson stated that if some of the Police Study cost savings recommendations were implemented there would not be a need to fund the additional $29,500 and suggested to go ahead and approve the personnel action portion of the requested back-pay only. Mr. Collins questioned benefits to be derived from the return of two uniformed officers to patrol. Captain Hatfield stated that two officer will return to an area where they were shorted earlier and put them back on the streets to enforce State and City laws, increasing revenues and improve staffing levels. Mrs. Long questioned where the additional funds would come from and how much money was in the Beginning Fund account? Captain Hatfield stated that the City Treasurer determined the source of funding . TAPE #469 Mr. Collins raised question as to possible funds available from purchase of Police vehicles due to delay in delivery during 1987. Captain Hatfield stated that the purchase of vehicles is being handled through Equipment Rental. Ms. McCluske¥ stated that $ or 4 vehicles are being rehabilitated and money to purchase vehicles will have to cover that cost and even if vehicles ordered are not purchased due to delay - another order will be available in October and would funded out of those funds. #0169 M/S/C(Waibel/Crutcher) to approve the budget adjustment of $29,500 from Beginning Balance Funds to supplement the needed funds for the Police Department. Vote: In Favor: Colvin, Overson, Dawkins, Waibel, Crutcher, Homing, Collins Oppose: Johnson, Long, ?A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING} PROVIDING FOR TNK ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BREN~RTON AND INCORPORATION THE SAME WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS, #AB8?-20? The City Council accepted the petition of 75~ of valuation for the Jensen Water District Area Annexation June 17, 1987. The Kitsap Boundary Review Board did not invoke jurisdiction at their meeting June 18. To annex the Jensen Water District area to the City of Bremerton the ordinance must pass and have a second reading and publication of same. TAPE #469 City council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 15, 1987 Page 13 of 13 Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, stated that every thing was in order and that the annexation will bring in about 100 new customers for the City. #0313 M/S/G/U(Long/Johnson) to approve Ordinance on first reading providing for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Bremerton and incorporation the same within the corporate limits. With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK SP~CER HORN~9~W,J Counci~ President C~¥ of Bremertdn / K LM/SH/me ~ ccss: Normal Distribution File/Vault