Loading...
07/24/1995 - Regular - MinutesPort Orchard, Washington July 24, 1995 Council of the City of Port Orchard, Washington, called to regular session by Mayor Leslie Weatherill at 7:30 PM at Cedar Heights Junior High School, 2220 Pottery Avenue, Port Orchard. Councilmembers present: Clauson, Childress, Morrison, Geiger, Powers, Van Zee and Grable. Staff present: Police Chief Mathews, Deputy Clerk Hager, City Planner Brown, City Engineer Curles, Fire Chief Snow, City Attorney McCluskey and City Clerk Parks. Councilman Morrison led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Weatherill asked for audience comments for items not listed on this agenda. No response was received. On motion by Councilman Grable, seconded by Councilman Geiger, Council unanimously approved the consent agenda as follows: a. Minutes of the July 14, 1995 Council meeting. b. Payment vouchers as follows: Claims Warrant No. 22945-23009 in the amount of $93,243.56 . C. Resolution No. 1701 denial of Special Use Permit to Donald and Anna Ryan to allow professional offices at 1003 Sidney Avenue. City Clerk Parks reported on bid opening held July 20, 1995 at 4:30 PM for surplus firewood. City Clerk recommended acceptance of the bids and award to the highest bidder, William E. King in the amount of $280.00. The following bids were received: William E. King $280.00 Kaye Sterling 225.00 Richard Farrell 201.87 Jay Cookson 257.00 On motion by Councilman Morrison, seconded by Councilwoman Powers, Council accepted the bidding and awarded the surplus firewood to William E. King as the highest bidder, in the amount of $280. Mayor Weatherill opened the 7:35 PM Public Hearing regarding applications for a Preliminary Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and multiple Land Use Reclassifications to permit the subdivision of 14.8 acres for residential uses which will include 58 single family homes, 5 duplex lots and a 10 lot mobile home park, as submitted by Chuck Childress. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Attachment "A" Councilman Childress stepped down from Council table due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Weatherill asked if anyone in the audience was opposed to any other Councilmember remaining at the Council table due to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Councilman Clauson acknowledged one conversation with Councilman Childress after the June 19, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, however Mr. Clauson stated nothing in the conversation was said to prejudice his decision making abilities. David Hollar, 2397 S. Flower Avenue asked Councilman Clauson to disclose his conversation with Councilman Childress. July 24, 1995 Page 2 of 8 Councilman Clauson advised Council and audience the conversations were limited to the issue of the project's roadway network and the proximity of the lots to Blackjack Creek. Mayor Weatherill questioned further if the audience was opposed to Councilman Clauson remaining at the Council table due to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Penny Vedin, 2397 S. Flower, objected to Councilman Clauson remaining at the Council table. Ms. Vedin requested any Councilmember who had a conversation with Councilman Childress regarding the Flower Meadows Project to step down from council table. City Attorney McCloskey advised Council since there was an objection from the audience to Mr. Clauson's conversation with Councilman Childress it is appropriate for Councilman Clauson to step down from Council table. Mayor Weatherill excused Councilman Clauson from this Public Hearing. Councilman Morrison advised audience, since the Planning Commission meeting on June 19, 1995 he had several conversations with city staff regarding the Flower Meadows project. He also advised, he does not recall any specific conversation with Councilman Childress regarding this issue. At this time, Councilman Morrison also stepped down from Council table. Mayor Weatherill questioned further if the audience was opposed to Councilman Morrison remaining at the Council table, due to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Penny Vedin, 2397 S. Flower, voiced objection to Councilman Morrison remaining at Council table. David Hollar, 2397 S. Flower, reminded Council and audience of RCW 42.36.060 "no member of a decision -making body is allowed to engage in exparte 'one-sided or outside the record of the hearing' communications with either proponents or opponents of a pending preceding". Mr. Hollar, while speaking as an opponent to this issue, stated due to Mr. Clauson statement of being able to be impartial during the decision making process he felt Mr. Clauson should be able to return to Council table as well as Mr. Morrison. Mr. Jim Tracy, Land Use Attorney, representing Chuck Childress, applicant, also concurred with Mr. Hollar regarding the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, and objected to Mr. Morrison stepping down from Council table due to his little or no conversation with Councilman Childress on the applications or project before the Council for decision. Mr. Tracy further voiced the opinion that Mr. Clauson had made a very clear statement for the record of his conversation with Councilman Childress and that nothing had been discussed that would prejudice him during the decision making process. Howard Minor, 1400 Bay Street, voiced concern with Councilmen Clauson and Morrison stepping down from Council table. David Hollar, 2397 S. Flower, asked if Councilmen Clauson and Morrison feel their conversation would prejudice there decision making process, if not --- and audience did not object, he urged Councilmen Clauson and Morrison to return to the Council table. After a show of hands the majority of the audience approved the return of Councilmen Morrison and Clauson to the table. Penny Vedin, 2397 S. Flower, withdrew her objection to Councilmen Morrison and Clauson stepping down from Council table. July 24, 1995 Page 3 of 8 Mayor Weatherill further questioned audience if anyone from the audience is opposed to Councilmen Morrison and Clauson remaining at the Council table. James Tracy, representing Mr. Childress, advised Council if the objection is going to be withdrawn it should be determined if the objection had substantive merit. City Attorney McCluskey advised Mayor Weatherill and Councilmembers that in view of the removal of all objection to Councilmen Clauson and Morrison participating in this hearing process, they must make a decision whether they could make an unbias and unprejudiced decision regarding the Flower Meadows project. Mayor Weatherill asked Councilman Clauson if he could remain on the Council table and make an unbias and unprejudiced decision regarding the Flower Meadows project. Councilman Clauson responded and stated he does not feel any conversation with Councilman Childress would prejudice his decision making ability. Mayor Weatherill asked if anyone from the audience had any further objections to Councilman Clauson returning to the Council table. No objection was received from the audience and Mayor Weatherill invited Councilman Clauson to return to the Council table. Mayor Weatherill asked Councilman Morrison if he could make an unbias and unprejudiced decision regarding the Flower Meadows project. Councilman Morrison advised Council and audience he had no pre -determined opinion(s) on this project and felt he could make an unprejudice and unbias decision regarding the Flower Meadows project. Mayor Weatherill asked if anyone from the audience had any further objections to Councilman Morrison returning to the Council table. As no objection was received from the audience, Mayor Weatherill invited Councilman Morrison to return to the Council table. City Planner Brown gave a staff report and outlined the Planning Commissions recommendation for denial. At this time, Mayor Weatherill advised audience of the procedures for this public hearing stating the applicants have 20 minutes to present the Flower Meadows project and the opponents have 20 minutes for rebuttals. After the initial presentations anyone from the audience may make a 3 minute comment. James Tracy, attorney representing Chuck Childress, applicant, presented a new site plan depicting a reduction of 7 lots in Phase I and III of the proposed Flower Meadows Project. Mr. Tracy also discussed, traffic impact, crime and the community character, specifically density and overall housing types. Jon Rose, Pac-Tech Engineer, representing Chuck Childress, presented a revised land use exhibit, depicting revisions to the preliminary Plat allowing for consideration of Blackjack Creek, enlarging the Tot Lot and reducing Phase I and III by 7 lots. Mr. Rose suggested this project does not pose a threat to the environment or to the neighborhood. The applicant will meet all city codes and ordinances. Mr. Rose also advised, this project will also bring sanitary sewer systems to the area were there have been failing systems in the past. Mayor Weatherill called for audience comments from those who are opposed to the proposed July 24, 1995 Page 4 of 8 Flower Meadows project. Larry Musser, 410 Goldenrod St., voiced concern that a revision of the original project plans was presented to the Planning Commission on June 19, 1995 meeting and now another plan revision has been presented without an opportunity for city staff or interested citizens to review and give comment. Mr. Musser also expressed a concern that attempts to communicate with the developer were ignored. David Hollar, 2397 S. Flower, reiterated Mr. Musser's concern regarding changes which have been presented during the Planning Commission public hearing and this council Public Hearing. Mr. Hollar also expressed concerns that the proposed rezone is not compatible with the area; the streets in the area are narrow and questioned who will pay for street widening. Bill Krabler, 338 Goldenrod, spoke in opposition to the project citing the impact on the community and concern about increase traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Krabler submitted pictures of the surrounding streets and area. Mayor Weatherill called for additional input from those present. James Tracy, attorney representing Chuck Childress, stated this project bears no significant difference from what was presented to the Planning Commission. The project is making accommodations, setting no precedence and also complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Larry Musser, 410 Goldenrod, reiterated same concerns as other opponents regarding increase in traffic, dead-end streets and who will pay for the widening of the streets. At this time, Mayor Weatherill called for a 10 minute recess with meeting reconvening at 9:50 PM. City Clerk read into record letter from Nicki L. Lenden who spoke in opposition to the proposed Flower Meadows project. Doug Eide, 2475 Bethel Avenue, spoke in favor of the project and presented pictures of Pottery Heights which are an example of the type of community planned for Flower Meadows and stressed the need for this type of housing and further discussed the need to accommodate growth. Andrea MacDonald, 2984 Aspen St, acknowledged she is not a resident of the South Flower neighborhood, however the City should not allow this development as it does not need this growth. Donald Nees, 1992 Advantage Avenue, resident of Pottery Heights, spoke in favor of the project, stating Mr. Childress did a good job developing the community of Pottery Heights. Mr. Nees also submitted a list of satisfied residents of Pottery Heights. Randy Boyles, resident of Pottery Heights, spoke in favor of the project and also expressed satisfaction with the neighborhood Chuck Childress developed in Pottery Heights. Warren Adams, 2205 So. Flower, spoke in favor of the proposed project and stated that he is thankful that the area is growing. Jeanette Moseid, 398 Donna St., resident of Pottery Heights, also spoke about the nice July 24, 1995 Page 5 of 8 community of Pottery Heights and how the neighbors look after each other. Leonard Minor, 912 Austin St., spoke in favor of the proposed project, and identified his property as where the detention pond will be located for the proposed Flower Meadows Project. Mr. Minor discussed water quality issues and the design of the detention pond. Mayor Weatherill called for input from those in opposition to the proposed Flower Meadows Project. Rick Mancini, 2211 West Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project. He was not opposed to new growth but is concerned about too much density for this area. Doug Wright, 2475 So. Flower Avenue, expressed the following concerns: 5,000 sq. ft. lot sizes proposed for the project are to small; potential increase in crime in neighborhood; and the need for the streets to be widened for safety. Mr. Wright is not opposed with growth in the neighborhood. Barbara Domineguez, 2309 So. Flower Ave., spoke in opposition to the development and expressed concern with the high density of the project. David Hollar, 2397 So. Flower Ave., stated he is not against growth but is opposed to the high density proposed for the neighborhood. Mr. Hollar also urged Council to return this proposed project back to the Planning Commission with a condition the developer needs to meet with property owners. Debra Osborne, 2321 So. Flower Ave., would like area to remain quiet and also expressed apprehension about high density of the proposed development. Linda Lucas, 232 Goldenrod St., stated she is not opposed to growth or mobile homes, however objected to the high density of the proposed development. Ricki George, 2309 So. Flower, spoke in opposition and stated this neighborhood is different than Pottery Heights and should not be compared. Zami Bowers, 2287 So. Flower, would like to see development slow down, not happen as fast. Larry Musser, 410 Goldenrod St., expressed concern with the proposed change of the comprehensive plan designation to a high density designation. Penny Vedin, 2397 So. Flower, questioned whether emergency vehicles would be capable of maneuvering in the narrow streets. Merwin Shonk, 1160 Echo Court, voiced concern with the change in the proposed development as presented at the Planning Commission meeting, recommended Council return this project to the Planning Commission for further review and study. Walter Moller, 346 Goldenrod, questioned source of City water and questioned if this will impact the City's water and sewer system. Larry Musser, 410 Goldenrod, questioned the liability and maintenance of the tot lot. Barbara Domi ngeuz, 2309 So. Flower, stated if lots were bigger the residents could provide for their own swing sets and play areas. July 24, 1995 Page 6 of 8 Barbara Bricker, 1785 Sidney Avenue, supported the housing development, stating this would be better than having an apartment complex next door. Mayor Weatherill called for additional public input at this time, as no response was receive the Mayor closed the public input portion of the Public hearing and referred matter to Council for their consideration. On motion by Councilman Clauson, seconded by Councilmembers Powers and Grable, Council referred applications for Plower Meadows back to the Planning Commission for further study and review of the proposed Preliminary Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and multiple Land Use Reclassifications which would permit the subdivision of 14.8 acres for residential uses. Motion passed with 6 ayes. At 10:50 PM Mayor Weatherill opened the 8:00 PM Public Hearing regarding the proposed Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for the year 1996-2001. City Engineer outlined the proposed Six -Year Transportation Plan schedule. Mayor Weatherill called for public input either for or against the proposed Six -Year Transportation Plan. Merwin Shonk, 1116 Echo Court, questioned why Sidney Avenue was paved only to Lippert Avenue. City Engineer statedthe reason for paving of Sidney Avenue only to Lippert was due to funding constraints. Mayor Weatherill called for further public input either for or against the proposed Six - Year Transportation Plan. As no additional response was received from the audience, Mayor Weatherill closed the public input portion of the Public Hearing and referred matter to Council for consideration. Councilman Morrison moved to approve Resolution No. 1702 adopting the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for the year 1996-2001, seconded by Councilwoman Powers. On motion by Councilwoman Powers, seconded by Councilman Van Zee, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Agreement with Association of Washington Cities Agreement for Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium Services. On motion by Councilman Morrison, seconded by Councilman Van Zee, Council authorized the City Engineer to re -delineate the parking stalls on the west side of Harrison Avenue as perpendicular to the east wall of the Washington State Liquor Store to allow for safer traffic patterns. Councilman Morrison moved to increase parking fees for Waterfront Parking Lot #4 from $1.00 to $1.50 for each twelve hour interval, seconded by Councilman Van Zee. Motion passed with 4 ayes and 3 nays. Councilmembers Grable, Van Zee and Powers voting nay. (Amending Ordinance will be presented at August 14, 1995 Council meeting.) On motion by Councilman Van Zee, seconded by Councilman Grable, Council authorized the Mayor to sign lease with Kitsap Transit for a portion of the library building. Motion passed with 6 ayes. Councilman Clauson refrained from voting due to a conflict of interest. July 24, 1995 Page 7 of 8 On motion by Councilman Geiger, seconded by Councilman Van Zee, Council approved and ratified a revision of Appendix A of the three year Public Works Labor Contract which was presented and approved at the July 10, 1995 Council meeting. Change is as follows and only pertains to wage section. All other contract provisions approved 7/10/95 remain in place: Public Works Employees 10/1/94 - $.31 base wage increase plus 3.2% Cost of Living Wage increase retroactive to 10/01/94 for all public works employees employed by the City of Port Orchard at the date of contract signing. 10/01/95 - $.31 base wage increase plus 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/94-7/95) not to exceed 5%. 10/01/96 - $.35 base wage increase plus 10Q% of the Greater Seattle CPT-U (7/95-7/96) not to exceed 5%. Custodian 10/1/94 - $.31 base wage increase plus 3.2% Cost of Living Wage increase retroactive to 10/01/94 the custodian employed by the City of Port Orchard at the date of contract signing. 10/01/95 - $.31 base wage increase plus 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI -U (7/94-7/95) not to exceed 5%. 10/01/96 - 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/95-7/96) not to exceed 5%. Mechanic 10/1/94 - 3.2% Cost of Living Wage increase retroactive to 10/01/94 for the mechanic employed by the City of Port Orchard at the date of contract signing. 10/01/95 - 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/94-7/95) not to exceed 5%. 10/01/95 - $.05 base wage increase plus 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/95-7/96) not to exceed 5%. Public Works Foreman 10/1/94 - 3.2% Cost of Living Wage increase retroactive to 10/01/94 for the Foreman employed by the City of Port Orchard at the date of contract signing. 10/01/95 - 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/94-7/95) not to exceed 5%. 10/01/96 - 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/95-7/96) not to exceed 5%. On motion by Councilman Geiger, seconded by Councilman Van Zee, Council accepted and ratified a three year Uniform Police Labor Contract. Revisions include but not limited to: Wa. Police Officers 10/1/94 - 3.2% Cost of Living Wage increase retroactive to 10/01/94 for the Police Officers employed by the City of Port Orchard at the date of contract signing. July 24, 1995 Page 8 of 8 10/01/95 - 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/94-7/95) not to exceed 5%. 10/01/96 - 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/95-7/96) not to exceed 5%. Sergeants 10/1/94 - 1% base wage increase plus 3.2% Cost of Living Wage increase retroactive to 10/01/94 for all Sergeants employed by the City of Port Orchard at the date of contract signing. 10/01/95 - 1% base wage increase plus 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/94- 7/95) not to exceed 59-.. 10/01/96 - 1% base wage increase plus 100% of the Greater Seattle CPI-U (7/95- 7/96) not to exceed 5%. MEDICAL: Effective 10/1/96, Police Officers and Sergeants shall pay a co -pay insurance premium each month as follows: Employee only None 1 dependent $ 7.00 2 dependents $14.00 3 or more dependents $21.00 On motion by Councilwoman Powers, seconded by Councilman Morrison, Council declared miscellaneous computer parts, two copy machines and 3 calculators as surplus and authorized the City Clerk to dispose of this surplus equipment in the best interest of the City. Council agreed to hold Study session on Tuesday, August 1, 1995 with subject to be an update on the new City Hall design phase. On motion by Councilwoman Powers, seconded by Councilman Grable, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $13,072 for the additions and alteration to the Port Orchard Library. Meeting adjourned at 12:04 AM. r PATRICIA PARKS, CITY CLERK i LESLIE J. WEATHERILL, MAYOR July 24, 1995 Attachment "A" File #90943 Flower Meadows May 11, 1995 A portion of land in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 23 North, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Kitsap County, Washington described as follows: BEGINNING at a point South 89001' West 797.69 feet and North 00037' West 825 feet from the center of said Section 2; thence North 00°37' West 179.30 feet; thence North 89°01' East 487.20 feet; thence Southerly 179.30 feet to a point that bears North 89°01' East from the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 89001' West 483.54 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT the North 15 feet of the West 215 feet thereof conveyed to Jay Graham and Audrey Graham by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 516469; TOGETHER WITH the following described property: BEGINNING at a point South 89`01' West 797,69 feet and North 0037' West 675 feet from the center of said Section 2; thence South 01137' East 285 feet; thence North 89°01' East 100 feet; thence South 0°37' East 15 feet; thence North 89°01' East 374.36 feet; thence Northerly 300 feet to a point which bears North 89001' East 480.48 feet from the POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT the North 75 feet of the West 208 feet thereof; ALSO TOGETHER WITH the following described property: BEGINNING at a point which is South 89°01' West 797.69 feet and North 0037' West 150 feet from the center of said Section 2; thence continuing North 0037' West 75 feet; thence North 89°01' East 471.30 feet; thence South 0'33'10" West 75 feet; thence South 89°01' West 469.76 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO TOGETHER WITH the following described property: BEGINNING at a point which is South 89°01' West 331 feet and North 00°53' East 75 feet from the center of said Section 2; thence South 89°01' West 468.22 feet; thence North 00037' West 75 feet; thence North 89*01' East 469.76 feet; thence South 00153' West 75 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO TOGETHER WITH the West 100 feet of the following described property: BEGINNING at a point 675 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 2; thence West 330 feet; thence South 258 feet, - thence East 330 feet; thence North 258 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO TOGETHER WITH the following described property: BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter in said Section 2; thence running East to the center of Black Jack Creek; thence in a Northeasterly direction to a point 387 feet North of the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence running West to the west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence West 330 feet; thence South 387 feet; thence East 330 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; — --- July 24, 1995 Attachment "A" ALSO TOGETHER WITH the following described property: t BEGINNING at a point 30 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 2; thence West 330 feet; thence South 258 feet; thence East 330 feet; thence North 258 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT portions conveyed by Auditor's File Nos. 7901030099, 8701200158 and 8804210026; ALSO TOGETHER WITH the following described property: BEGINNING at a point 288 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 2; thence West 330 feet; thence South 387 feet: thence East to the west line of property sold to Ralph Bernhardt and Juanita Bernhardt, husband and wife, by deed dated August 18, 1943 and recorded under Auditor's File No. 380750; thence North along the west line of the Bernhardt property to the Northwest corner of said tract; thence East 150 feet; thence North to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT that portion conveyed by Auditor's File No, 929621; ALSO TOGETHER WITH the following described property: BEGINNING 675 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 2; thence West 190 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing West 40 feet; thence South 258 feet; thence East 40 feet; thence North 258 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO TOGETHER WITH the following described property: BEGINNING at a point 933 feet South of the Northeast Quarter corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quaver of said Section 2; thence West 330 feet; thence South 29 feet, more or less, to a point on a line 387 feet North of the south line of said subdivision; thence East 330 feet to the east line of said subdivision; thence North 29 feet, more or less, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above description is a composite of descriptions from deeds and do not reflect any field survey by PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc, It is possible that some deed descriptions may be In conflict or disagreement with each other, and will not be resolved without a field survey.