Manchester Community Council
PO Box 173
Manchester, WA
98353-0173
“it’s a great place to
live…”
Approved
Minutes for MCC meeting of 8/23/05
Action Items:
1)
Debbie Trudeau, per the approved motion, to request verbally and in writing
that County Commissioners come to the MCC for feedback when view blockage
and set-back ordinances are under consideration.
2) Bob
Ballard to organize the lunch meeting between Bill Palmer and our four
representatives.
3)
Consider Architectural Design committee as a standing committee of MCC in
Bylaws.
Minutes:
The
meeting was called to order by President, Bob Ballard at 6:31PM in the
Manchester Library. Bob welcomed the 40 people in attendance and then read our
Mission from the Bylaws.
There was no guest
speaker planned for this meeting. President
Ballard said we would have a special discussion reviewing the past year’s
activities, moderated by Ron Robinson, in an effort to provide a frank
discussion of those activities and how we can improve and keep the
activities of the Executive Board transparent to the membership.
Business
meeting:
Review and approval of past
meeting’s minutes: The minutes of the past meeting were approved as
written. It was questioned
whether a member can object to the minutes, even if they accurately reflect
what was said. It was suggested
that such concerns should be voiced under “old business”.
Correspondence: The only
significant mail received was a new member application from one of the
developers working on a project in downtown Manchester.
President Ballard
then introduced Ron Robinson to moderate a discussion on our past year’s
activities. Ron said he
wanted the membership to reflect on the MCC’s recent activities and take a
measure of how we are doing at building our organization.
He also wanted to have discussion on how well we are handling issues
such as potential conflicts of interest, non-profit status, and political
biases that could be influencing our process.
Ron also mentioned our variety of guest speakers, the formation of
the five Action Groups addressing issues raised at our town meeting, the
sewer ULID’s in process and the Manchester Clean-Up Day as topics for
discussion.
Ron started the
discussion by asking the question “What is the best thing about our
organization?” Responses
included:
·
We get to see our neighbors, get to know each other better,
and get to build trust.
·
We have an organization where we can voice our opinions, even
if they differ.
·
Issues are discussed and we get to communicate on those
issues.
Next Ron asked the question
“Overall, how are we doing as an organization?” Responses:
·
For a new organization, we have accomplished a lot in one
year.
·
Why didn’t the MCC organization take on the Building Height
Issue with the County? (In response, it was mentioned that the MCC sent a
letter to the head of DCD requesting expedient review of the matter per the
Manchester Plan goals. Shortly
thereafter, it became obvious that lawsuits were underway, and the group
felt it best not to take the chance of being enjoined in a lawsuit.)
·
Bob Lamb commented that the word “We” is used a lot, but
he felt that much of what is going on only gets to these meetings after the
decision is made by the Executive Board.
As far as the accomplishments, the speakers have been good, but all
other actions have been controversial, such as Building Heights.
·
A general comment was offered that the Executive Board runs
the whole thing, and needs to be more open. The members need to run the MCC and be involved in decisions.
I suggest the Ex. Bd. Step back and make themselves more transparent
by sticking more with the Bylaws and Robert’s Rules.
·
My understanding is that the MCC has no official standing with
the DCD (Dept, of Community Development).
This organization was started by the goals of the Manchester Plan to
represent the community. If we represent the community we need official recognition.
Recently the DCD announced changes to land use, if we were
recognized, wouldn’t they have come to us first? (Debbie Trudeau announced
that the Partnerships Action Group would be meeting with Commissioner Angel
on September 28 to discuss these very issues).
·
In reviewing our successes and/or failures, we need to add a
step to effectively carry out our mission; we need to make our goals
measurable and then determine our degree of success against these goals.
The County won’t give us any power unless we force the issue.
Ron’s final question to the group
was “Is this an organization that has any meaning?”. Responses:
·
I had proposed a round-about as a traffic control measure.
I asked the County if it would help to generate a petition to
accomplish this goal. The person I spoke with said a petition from the MCC would be
helpful.
John Quartermass stated that the MCC has no credibility
up on the hill. John said he
was able to schedule the meeting with Jan Angel.
You have a lot of catching up to do. He
mentioned there were several debacles. The
first one was the letter to the paper, on the Port antenna issue, with no
community involvement. Bob
Ballard mentioned that regarding this issue he had expressed his own views
and was not speaking on behalf of the MCC membership.
John continued, that the firearms policy
reported in the minutes furthered the MCC’s credibility problem (note the
minutes were changed at the next meeting to reflect John Q’s recollection
of what he said). And lastly,
the candidate’s forum was scheduled without input from the full
membership.
·
This is just a little group trying to get organized.
We need to get further involved with the County and further engaged
with the community. I want to
see things happen now!
·
Lamb said that this is a little group trying to grow up to our
own inflated egos. We are
purely self-appointed.
·
If this Council is a creation of the County Commissioners, get
on their agenda. What are the
steps to accomplish this? (Trudeau
reinforced that the 9/28 meeting is intended to build a further relationship
with the County. Anyone
interested in working with the Group on Partnering is encouraged to contact
Trudeau.).
·
What I’m hearing is that we are here to uphold the Sub-Area
Plan. When there are
violations, we need to camp-out on the County’s doors to get this changed.
·
Bill Palmer suggested that back in the past there were two
community councils in Manchester. Look
at what existed then and build on it.
·
Ron Rada commented that the County didn’t want to sanction
the Manchester Council due to the experience in Kingston and Central Kitsap,
and they didn’t have funds to support the MCC.
·
In a relatively short time, we have accomplished the building
of a framework for a council. After
all, the 42 people working on the Plan spent over two years.
Height and view issues have been critical, but the County is not
enforcing what was in the Plan.
·
The current zoning allows property owners to build up to the
lot lines, with no limits on lot coverage! (This individual was referred to the Manchester Plan where
both subjects are covered in detail.).
·
We obviously need to review the MCC Bylaws and revise as
appropriate. Perhaps we need a
committee to develop recommendations.
In conclusion, Ron
Robinson thanked everyone for their candid input. He said the Board will discuss the issues and plan
appropriate actions which will be presented to the membership for approval.
Reports:
Treasurer: Carol
reported our current treasury balance is $749.15 as of this evening.
Membership stands at 61.
Sewers
Sub-Committee: Ron Rada said that progress is continuing on LID#8, which
should be completed by approximately January 2006.
LID#9 should go to the public meeting phase in about one month.
Crime Prevention
Sub-Committee: Bud Larsen briefly reviewed the progress of the group over
the last five years. He feels
the group has credibility with key agencies, partly due to their
participation in the weekly meetings at the Manchester Inn on Thursdays at
6:45AM. Upcoming speakers
include Patrol Chief Gary Simpson on 9/1 and developer David Hopkins on 9/8.
Public Facilities
Sub-Committee: Nothing to report.
Building Height
Sub-Committee: Don Poulsen has assumed chairmanship.
Old
Business:
John Winslow reported on the planning for a Manchester Clean-Up Day.
The event is currently scheduled for Saturday October 8 in the
Library Parking lot from 9-2PM. Key
events include:
·
Adopt-A-Road clean-up of arterials in Manchester –
coordinated by Debbie Trudeau (871-6114 if interested in volunteering).
Carole Leininger moved that we clean either
1 road, 2 roads or 3 roads depending on the number of volunteers available
on Oct. 8. Debbie then said she thought that maybe 6 people could
clean a mile of roadway in a few hours time. Debby needs to get
back with Dave Peters; she did not get anyone to sign up for the road clean
up yet. Please contact Debby ASAP if you would be interested in
working on that project.
·
Hazardous waste pick-up of fluorescent light bulbs and NiCad
rechargeable batteries.
·
Manchester-wide garage sale; we’ll be publicizing local
garage sales for a small donation.
·
Used clothing donation collection-only clean, gently used
clothing please, going to local charities.
·
Used book donations – going to help support the operation of
our little library in Manchester!
·
Information booths on 2Good2Toss, Clean Kitsap, &
Composting
·
Refreshments to encourage and celebrate our successes in
helping Manchester to Clean-up in a responsible way!!
John closed his
report with a summary of the budget for the event. John said he estimates the net cost for holding this event
will be approximately $145.
New
Business:
Action Groups had
the following reports:
-
Downtown Revitalization group:
Chip Augello said that an Architectural Design Review Committee had been
discussed. Also plans have been
proposed for a small group to go to lunch with developers Hopkins &
Palmer. During tonight’s
meeting, group facilitator Mark Rebelowski submitted his resignation from
this group due to his current run for the office of Port Commissioner.
Mark didn’t want there to be any appearance of a conflict of
interest, and wanted to focus his time on the campaign.
-
Partnering with Agencies group:
Debbie Trudeau once again mentioned the 9/28 meeting with Commissioner Jan
Angel. Jim Stritzel submitted a
written motion; “That the sub-committee interfacing with County government
formally ask in writing and verbally at the next County Commissioners
meeting why the Commissioners passed a change to the County zoning
eliminating a public hearing to setback waivers & to view blockage
without coming to the one place in the County that has a view blockage
ordinance.” After considering
per Robert’s Rules, the motion was approved.
-
Recreational Venues group:
Carol Kowalski said this group will re-convene in the near future.
-
Village Commons group:
Bill Shaw reported that this group is currently focusing on a community
center. Two meetings have been
held since the last MCC meeting. Bill
invited developer Bill Palmer and his architect to come to tonight’s
meeting to speak & listen to community input.
Mr. Palmer presented the package of drawings previously shown to the
group. The project is still in
the design development stage. He
will be looking at a different arrangement for on-street parking at the
direction of the County; they were concerned about cars backing onto
Colchester. A design goal is to
provide enhanced visibility for the retail spaces in his project.
Bill also said he plans to move away from the stucco façade. He
then took a couple of questions:
1)
?: Have you had a clarification from the County on building height?
A: Yes, it’s 35’ maximum to the highest point on the roof.
This will necessitate dropping the pitch of the roof.
2)
?: Has there been any coordination with Hopkins on design?
A: To some degree, but there are fundamental differences due to lot
differences.
3)
?: You need to have a reoccurring theme in design to satisfy the
community. A: We will stick
with some similar materials.
4)
?: What is the slope adjustment on the lot-will you go to the 35’?
A: Height from the average grade will be 35’ and it will be
surveyed shortly
5)
?: Are you considering a half timbered look?
A: Architectural shingles are shown on the drawings (although not
clear due to the scale).
6)
?: What is the ceiling height in the retail areas?
A: Eleven feet with some dropped ceiling for HVAC to nine feet.
7)
?: Is there a time-frame for input from the group on exterior
styling? A: We are nearly into
construction drawings. The
design will be locked-in in about one week.
8)
?: Has the property sale gone through?
A: It’s close, but the sale isn’t recorded yet.
9)
?: Will these be rentals or condos? A: The plan is to sell as condos, but the new owners could
rent their individual units.
10)
?: Why did you choose to build here? A: I like the views and lived here once.
I’m not ruling out the possibility of living in Manchester myself.
He also clarified that he is not the property owner that is a Mr.
Park. Also, the units would be priced in the $400K+ range.
Bill Shaw then
asked Mr. Palmer whether he would be willing to meet with 2-3
representatives from the committee. Mr.
Palmer agreed and volunteers were sought immediately.
Those agreeing to participate were Chip Augello, Bob Lamb, Dick Asche,
and Peter Clarke. These
participants are to get together with Bob Ballard to plan the lunch meeting.
The selection of the four representatives was voted upon and
accepted.
Bill Shaw also said that a result from his Action Group was that the
MCC Bylaws should be amended to make the proposed Architectural Design
Committee a standing committee.
Bill went on to discuss the need for input from the membership on
exactly what we are looking for in terms of a community center’s specific
uses and needs. The group has
been talking with Port Commissioner Strode on potential sites for a
community center and Bill encourages those interested to attend the next
Port meeting on 9/12 to make their views known.
The next meeting of the Commons/Revitalization committees will be on
8/31 at 6:30PM n the Library meeting room.
Next on the agenda was an election of a replacement Member-At-Large
on the Executive Board to replace Mark Rebelowski.
We had two prior expressions of interest, by Chip Augello and Carole
Leininger. Other nominations
were sought from the floor. Chip withdrew his name due to other responsibilities and no
other candidates were nominated. Carole
was elected by a voice vote.
Topics from the floor: Bud
Larsen presented a motion, which had several amendments resulting in the
final form; “I move the MCC host a candidates’ forum for Port, Fire,
& Water District candidates. The
MCC membership to approve The League of Women Voters as the organizing
committee and the MCC to pay room rental for the event.
Forum to be held mid-October, prior to the final election.
The League of Women Voters to invite all candidates and plan forum
format. The motion was carried.
A committee of MC Edwards, JB Bartel, and Wanda Larsen agreed to make
contact with the League to initiate the event and provide necessary
interface.
Ron Robinson submitted a motion “Authorize up to $200 for expenses
in support of the Manchester Clean-Up Day.
This motion was carried.
Finally, John Winslow brought up the subject of the need to rent
rooms for sub-committee meetings and Executive Board meetings.
Although it costs us at least $15 to rent the Library room, it is
necessary due to the increased size and interest in the Action Groups and
the need for additional transparency in the operation of the Executive
Board. The membership agreed to
fund the necessary room rentals. Sub-committee
chairs need to seek reimbursement from Treasurer Carol Kowalski.
There being no
other discussion from the floor, Chairman Ballard adjourned the meeting at
8:30PM.
Our
next meeting will be Tuesday September 27th at 6:30-8:30PM in the Manchester
Library.
Bob Ballard and
John Winslow will jointly develop an agenda for our next meeting
for distribution with the reminder, several days before the meeting.
If you have any additional items for the agenda, contact John Winslow
prior to September 19th.
Respectfully
submitted,
John
Winslow, Secretary-Manchester Community Council