The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/04/73 CITY COUNCIL M~JL'flNG MINUTES APRIL ~, 1973 il]]e regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Breme~ton, Washington, was held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 9:00 a.m.~ PST~ Wednesday, April 4, 1973. Attending were: Mayor Ja~stad, Con]missioner Clark, Asst. City Attorney Sexton, Deputy City Clerk John Ross, and representatives of press and radio. Conmissioner Schoneman was attending the American Road Builders Semi First Annual Convention at Houston, Texas, and City Clerk Yeadon was attending the Washington Municipal Clerk's 'Association Annual Convention at Ocean Shores~ Washington. iMeeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Rev. Schultz of the Charleston Baptist !Church. I~INLrCES OF MARCH 28, 1973 i/he Minutes of Mar~h 28, 1973, were read and approved as amended. SEPARATIONS ~Map~orie Peterson, Clerk-Typist, KCCA, April 7, 1973, Resigned. John A. Bauer, Pa~ks and Recreation Department, March 29, 1973, End of Er~loyment. '.~btion by Commissione~ Clark and Mayor Ja~stad to approve the separations, carried unanimously. ~0TICES OF tlMPLOYMENT .Don Thomas, Extra Labor, Cemeters;, $~.45 h~., April 9~ 1973. Jim Hestor, Extra labor, Cem~ter¥~ $~.45 h~., April 9, 1973. Michael Dotson, Extra Labor, Parks and Recreation, $?.8S h~., April 2, 1973. ~btion by Co~ssione~ Clark and Mayor Jal~stad to approve the employments. Under discussion: issioner Clark stated that the first two employments are for the annual clean-up at the cemeter~7 pre- par~to~y to Memorial Day. Motion carried unanimously. iQbMNGES IN EMPLOYMENT STATUS (EEA TO REGULAR CITY ~MPLOYMENT) Effective Dates - 5/1/73 iDaniel L. White, Second Year Pai-~olman, $781.75, From EEA-1 to ~mgular City ~ployment. ?elores Bush, Clerk-Typist, Clerk's Office, 8500, From EEA-1 to Regula~ City Employment. :~otion by MavoP Ja~stad and Commissioner Clark to approve the changes in employment status. Under ik-i-~sion: Co~,~.{ssioner Clark conm~ented favorably on these EEA ermployees being placed in permanent 'employment positions. Carried unanimously. !t~AYROLL VOUC}~2R - MAR(]{ 11 THRU MAR(]{ 24~ 1973 Deputy Clerk presented payroll voucher for the period of Ma~ch 11 th~u Ma~ch 24, 1973~ being War~ants ~#15721 thru #18148, in the total amount of $137,~97.31, which had been audited by Harold Fitzwatep and approved by Commissioner Clark. !~otion by Commissione~ Clark and Mayo~ Jal~stad to approve the payroll voucher, carried unanimously. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - LINDA S. KAYE Deputy Clerk presented Claim for Da,~ges from Linda S. Kaye in the total amount of $~.83 which was referred to the ins~ce company by the City Clerk on Apmil 3, 1973. [IFJECTION OF CLAIM - BEN DUGGINS !Deputy Clerk read letter dated Mar~h 30, 1973~ from Coulee Construction Cc~npany to City of Breme~ton stating it is their opinion that this is an unjustified claim; that watep service to this pmoper~y ~was damaged duping cons~tion in October or November of 1972 and was J3m~ediately repaired and the fact that some three months later a heater element bums out can in no way be blamed on their act- ~ ivities while constructing under city contract. Deputy Clerk read memo from City Clerk suggesting claim be rejected in order tb~Rt the time limit can start running so the Claimant can file in Small : Claims Court. ['~otion by Co,~nissioner Clark and Mayor Ja~stad to reject the claim, carTied unanimously. PROCLAMATION - "CANCER CONTROL MONTH" D~p~ty Clerk read Proclamation of the Mayor proclaiming ~ne month of April, 1973, as "Cancer Control Month." DISCUSSION ON BIDS - ALTEP~ATIONS TO MUNICIPAL REPAIR GARAGE ConImissioner Clark explained that five bids wer~ r~ceived on this project, and the lowest bid (Hall's Remodeling" had failed to sign the non-collusive affidavit accompanying the bid. Con~nlssione~ Cla~k read memo dated Ma~ch 30, 1973~ from City Clerk to City Council which stated he (City Clerk) discuss- ed the lack of affidavit on the part of M~. Hall with Ga~y Sexton, Asst. City Attorney~ w~ gave him the following verbal opinion: That the oversight of signing the affidavit was not material inasmuch as the oversight did not pertain to the specifications; that the informality could be properly waived by the City Council; and that he did not believe the next bidder could properly challenge this opiniol because the lack of the affidavit was not material to the bid. City Clerk's memo also stated he in- for~d PR-. Sexton of the terms of the instructions to bidders ar~ the legal publication of the bid i ..c~l, and..he gave his opinion with full knowledge of the circumstances. Mr. Sexton~ present at this ~lme, confirmed this opinion. Conmissioner Clark also ~ead letter from M~ Hall. Owner of i emodellng, stating that he feels the lnforlnality of his not signing the affidavit should be waived I ~a~_d. e=x~..la{ning, that t.hi.s_was.a~., e~o_ .n?ou.s oversight on his pa~t; also~ submitted a signed affidavit. ~rl.er GlSCUSslon was ne±o arm Tne ro±±ow~ng motion was made. I Motlon by Mayor Jars/ad and Comaissioner Clark to set this matter aside in o~der to discuss it more !i thoroughly wzth the City Clerk and Co,lnissioner Schoneman, carried unanimiously. DENIAL OF CONTRACT EXi'ENSION - RESTROOM CONCESSION PROJECT (LION'S PLAYFIEI.B) Deputy City Clerk ~ead letter from Cote Constmletion Company to Barr~j Branch~ Architect~ ~equesting a time extension due to the problem of obtaining door jambs for the subject project. Deputy Clerk r~ad letter dated ~ 30, 1972~ from Bal*~y Branch, Al~nhitect, to Cote Construction Company stating that the reason they (Cote Constl~/etion) do not now have the metal door jambs is the fact that they did not order them to be delivered as soon as they could have, and ~ecomnending extension be denied ii as this is not a sufficient cause for an extension. Ii Motion by Mayor Japstad and Conmissioner Clark to set this matter aside in order to discuss it mo~e [ ~ by Conmisslonep. Cla~k and Mayor Ja_~stad to accept the r~conmendation of Baz~F B~anch to deny e request fop extenslon~ cal~ied unanimously. !i .~rl'ER - KITSAP MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION RE: HUMAN RESOURCES DAY PARADE Deputy Clerk read letter fr~n the Kitsap Mental Health Association to the City Officials inviting them and other community leaders to participate in the Human Resources Bay Parade being held April l~th. GRANT APPLICATION - TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Deputy Clerk read memo dated April 3, 1973~ from Bob Theroux to City Council advising that the gr~nt application approval has been received by the City of Br~me~ton from the b~ban Mass Tmansit gdminls- tuation for purposes of conducting a study to provide tuansit set-lice improvements; that UMTA will fund $5,000 of the $7,500 p~oject, with the balance of $2,500 provided from Local-in-kind service !j by the City; also ~ requesting authorization to call for bids from qualified t~anspomtation engineePin !i consultants to conduct tnansit study. [i Conmissi6nep Clark stated that this will involve a study of the entire route struetur~ with reference il to possible modifications and improvements that might be accomplished. Mm. Clark explained that a ]' formal bid call would not be necessary for this oonsultant work under City regulations; however~ it I is necessary to subnit to UMTA for thei~ approval p~oposals from qualified tuanspo~tation engineerin i consultants. - i b~tion by Conm~ssionep Clamk and Mayor Ja~stad that the procedm~e in accordance with Urban Mass Tuan ~---~ion Administration specifications be followed, earTied unanimously. LID #313 - PUGET SOUND POWER g LIGHT/D[~D AND EASIIqENT.q b~puty City Clerk' read memo dated April ~, 1973, to City Council from City Engineer recOmmnding Council give overhang easement to Puget Sound Power g Light Company and accept a sewem easement and quit claim deed from Puget Power fop the site of relocated Pump Station #5~ with two typographical corTections which will be corrected on the original documents which a~e in escrow; also~ stated that the City Council agreed at the regnla~ meeting on Februar~ 1~, 1973, to pay Puget Power $1,000 for the enla3oged pump station. (City Engineer also noted in memo that these documents have been approved as to form by the City Atto~.ney's Office) Motion by Commissioner Clark and Mayor Japstad to approve issuing the overhang easement and to accept the. deed and. .easement according to the City Engineer's reconmer~ation and that they be recorded pro- pep±y ~ carTleo unaniraously. LID #313 SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS - BREMER'S~ INC. Deputy Clerk read memo dated April ~ 1973, from City Engineer to City Council submitting four ease- ments he had received today fl-om Ed Bpemer; also, stated that they have been checked fop legal des- cpiption and wePe found to be correct. Deputy Clerk also noted that these doouments were approved as to forxn by the City Attorney's Office. Motion by Commissioner Cla~k and Mayor Ja~stad to accept the easements and that they be meeorded pePly, carTied unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 30~ - AMt~ING ZONING ORDINANCE. Clerk read, second reading, An O~dinance repealing Paragraph ~, Section 505 and Paragraph ~ Section 511, of Ordinance No. 1792, as amended by O~dinanee No. 2297. ' __Moti°n by Conmissionem Clark ar~ Mayor Ja~stad to pass Ordinance No. 308~ carried as follows: Mayor Jal~stad, yes; Commissioner Clark, yes. CITY O0b~CIL ME~I'£NG MINUTES - APRIL 4, 1973, continued CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - LID #313 g #314 - SC}~DULE "A" Clerk read mem~ from City Engir~er to City Council dated Appil 3, 1973, explaining that the sanitary sewer pressure main on each side of the Port Washington Narrows was constructed of cement asbestos pipe in 1950 which is fragile and has very little strength; also, explained that a section of the pressure main on the east side near the Manette Bridge is eXposed due to the receding beach and has been fractured in the past by persons unknown and that it was requested by the Sewer Depa~.b,~nt that a price for lowering approximately 250 feet' of this line and substituting ductile iron be obtained from the present Contractor and that contractor was also requested to quote price for replacing app- roximately 3200 lin. feet of high pressure line on the west side between the Bremep fill and the new ductile iron section. Mend also stated that it was not deemed advisable to replace mope of the east side high pressure main at this time because the future of this main depends upon location of addit- ional treatment facilities on the east side. Memo explained that the 250 feet on the east side is at a higher price pep foot due to the difficulty of the location and the exposed condition of the pipe which must be maintained in service until the new line is cut in. MemD stated that the bid ltem~i for 785 ft. of 10-inch ductile on west side in original contract was at $17.50 pep foot; that the. 3200 additional feet at $12.50 per foot in this offer is advantageous to the City and bids from other. contractors for the same 785 lineal feet in the basic contract were at $28.00, $35.00~ and $48.00 peP! foot. Deputy Clerk then presented Change Order to Coulee Construction for 3200 Lin. Ft. 10" Ductile Iron Pipe, 3 side sewer connections, 250 L.F. 10" Ductile Iron, 4-45° Bends~ 2 connections, fop a total increase of $47~255.00 without tax. Motion by Commissioner Clabk and Mayor Jarstad to approve the change order to Coulee Construction , ~any subject to investigation of applicable regulations and approval of the City Attorney's Officei Under discussion: C~,,,,~ssioner Clark stated that this will be paid roi~ fl~om the 1987 Water Sewer Improvement Fund and that this expenditure has been discussed with the City Clerk and City Auditor. Ibtion carried unanimously. 10:00 - RECOGNITION OF M~i'I'~]RS NOT ON ~"HE ?~TATIVE AG~%rDA Eddie Adams complimented ~c~,m,issionep Schonen~ln for improvement on Veneta Avenue between Fourth $ Fifth Streets. Mr. Adams stated he felt the Council should award Garage Alteration bid to Hall's Remodeling waiving the informality of the unsigned affidavit; that this bid is approximately $1,500 less than the next lower bid. REZONE }~ARING - WILLIAM L. PA'I'±'cRSON (1478) ~btion by Mayor Jarstad and Co~missionep Clark to hold hearing on the Patterson Rezone application, carried unanimously. Deputy City Clerk stated that the City Clerk had advertised Notice of Public Hearing in the newspapep~ posted notices, and mailed letter of notification to property owners within 250 feet of the property at the proper time as required by law. Deputy Clerk read Planning Con~Lission Resolution No. 238 denying the appl~6ation fop the following reasons: (1) Not sufficient off-street parking, (2) Site is too small for necessary setbacks, (3) Street is heavily trafficked and additional traffic would add to hazardous conditions, (4) would lead to strip zoning in R-1 area. Deputy Clerk read Staff Review dated December 20, 1§73~ stating the only advantage in this develop- pent would be a new building to replace the old one; that the major problem is the size of the lot which is not adequate to acconmodate the proposed structure and sufficient p~rking; also, stated this store has in the past served the neighborhood well as a neighborF~x~] grocery and is apparently the best use fop the property and it is therefore recommended zone change be approved as pep site plan. Deputy Clerk read memo dated December 5, 1972, from Traffic Captain Lively to Planning Commission stating that the parking space would be inadequate and would not meet requirements of the ordinance. Deputy Clerk read memo from the Fire Department to the Planning Department stating they have no ob- jection to the rezone. Dep. Clerk read letter dated March 29, 1973, from Faith B. Hunt to Mr. Yeadon (City Clerk) objecting to rezone due to insufficient parking. Deputy Clerk read letter dated March 23, 1973, from M~deleine Bechtel opposing the rezone and statinK~ she wishes this a~ea to remain residential. Deputy Clerk read note dated December 1~, 1972, from Mary E. Mill and F. A. Miller stating they are in fay op of the rezone request. Deputy Clerk read excerpt of Planning Con~nission Minutes dated December 20, 1973, at which time a motion wasz passed denying ~he rezone and variances. Helen /%racy, Landscape Architect, gave presentation fop the Planning Department. Mrs. Tracy showed subject area on an area map and also pointed out the area on a land use map. Mrs. Tracy noted that the surrounding a~ea is mostly residential and the present grocery store is operating under non-con- forming use. Also presented site plan to the Council showing that the applicant plans to put in a i smallep building providing additional parking space. Mrs. Tracy stated that she believed the bus- iness has not been in operation since November. Con~nissioner Clark asked Mrs. Tracy if the applicant could continue his present grocery business under "non-conforming use"; and Mrs. Tracy stated he could as long as the building was not vacant fop longer than a one-year period. PROPONENTS William Patterson~ Applicant, stated that~e building has been occupied since November. Stated there CITY COUNCIL_MEETIN~_._MIN~_- AP_KIL 9, ___1~97%, ..qgntinu~d is a traffic problem in the area which will remain whether the rezone is granted or not; that the reason he applze.d for the rezone was to build a new buzldzng and improve the appearnace of the area. Stated th, at parking would not ~really be a problem because mst of the business is coming from foot traffic %colleMe persons, etc. ). Stated that the proposed building would eliminate traffic viewing problems ~ wo.uld e. nable.better visibility at the intersection of 15th and War~en. Stated that if th rezone application ms den~ed, they will contmnue operating as a neighborhood grocery store. Jeprs; Soriano, Atto~.l~ey, explained that he is representing Robert S. Clamk who is the title ownem of :the property and selling the property to Mr. Patterson under contmact; also, stated that Robert Clark~ has some concern on the building being torn down by Mm. Patterson and not being replaced. Mr. Soriano '1 stated that neither he nor his client have a proper understanding of why this hearing is before the ". Council; that Mr. Patterson did not appeal the Planning Co~nission's denial and he understood that in order to be heard before the Council one must appeal the Planning Conmission decision within ten days Con~nissioner Cla~k explained that this ten day appeal procedure had been the policy of the City; however, due to recently acquired new information on this matter it was found that this policy was not proper and that the Planning Con~aission could not make any type of final decision (whether it be denial or approval of an application) because they are a recommending body; that the City Council %~uld have to make the final decision for appmoval or denial of an application. Mr. Soriano stated they are opposed to the rezone because theme is no off-si-~eet parking and because it would have to have a variance of all mequir~ments. Mr. Soriano requested that the City Attorney prepare a legal opinion explaining why this rezone is before the Council and explaining the appeal procedure. Commissioner Clark stated that this rezone, if approved, would appear to be spot zoning in a resid- ential district; also, stated that Mr. Patterson could continue the operation of a neighbomhood gro- cery sto~e under the non-confon~ing use. Commissioner Clark stated that any problems between the contract seller and contract purchaser would have to be handled under the contract and not the City Council. Commissioner Clark asked Mrs. Tracy of the Planning Department Staff if she felt this rezone would be spot zoning. Mrs. Tracy stated that the approval of this rezone would definitely be spot zoning; however, the Planning Dep~%,mnt reconmended approval of the mezone after considering several other factors. Mrs. Tracy stated that the existing building is very desirous of improvement and that this is the main reason for recommending approval. Mrs. Tracy agreed that the approval of this rezone could lead to strip zoning. Conmissioner Clark stated that based on the fact that this is apparently spot zoning and possibly could lead to strip zoning, and because of all the variances required, he felt the application should be denied and made the following motion. Motion by Conrmissioner Clark and Mayor Jarstad to concu~ in the recommendation of the Planning Comm- ission, and deny the application for rezone. Mayor Jarstad asked Mrs. Tracy what the ordinance limitation was as far as remodeling. Mrs. Tracy read Section 903 of the zoning ordinance (#1792) explaining that re-construction and remodeling would be allowed provided yard provisions of the district within which the use may be located shall be complied with and so long as there is no increase in the cubical content of the building. Mrs. T~acy stated that it would be very difficult to change this building similar to the proposed planed still comply with the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. PAY BILLS ~ by Co~missioner Clark and Mayor Jarstad to give a blanket approval of Vouchers No. 72,937 ~ No. 73,034, inclusive for payment in the total amount of $93,385.7q; ear, led unanimously. REPORTS - CO~ISSIONER CLARK 1. Reported on Sunday Bus Run as follows: Total of 202 riders; the average being 183 riders. Stat- ed that this is an impr~ven~nt from recent Sundays. REPORTS - DEPUTY CITY CLERK Spoke favorably of the method of approving bills on a blanket approval. REPORTS - MAYOR JARSTAD 1. Presented report fmom the Police Depa~.bimnt, Detective Division, showing numerous and various reports processed through the Identification Division; also, stated that the Police Department is very appreciative of the new filing system recently installed. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. APPROVED BY: GLENN K. JARSTAD,~fOR Tape # 3 Side A - 1208 to 1770 Typed By: ~-~- I'q"oofre~d By: KR ~. TS