Manchester Community Council                           www.manchesterwa.org

PO Box 173                                                                         

Manchester, WA  98353-0173

“it’s a great place to live…”

 

Draft Minutes for MCC gathering on 2/27/07

Action Items: None

 

Minutes:

The meeting was called by Kitsap County in order to discuss the process for updating the Manchester Plan.  As such, normal MCC meeting activities were not included. 

Please note that the County's deputy clerk was present and tape recorded the entire meeting.  The official transcript and recording will be posted on the County website in the very near future.  This copy is provided to our membership to allow a quick understanding of generally what was said at the meeting. 

At 6:29PM, Commissioner Jan Angel welcomed the approximate 65 people (including about 35 current members) in attendance and then introduced Scott Diener (sdiener@co.kitsap.wa.us), DCD Community Planning Manager, who will take the lead on working with the community on developing revisions to the Plan.

Scott said the realistic goal for completing the proposed changes to the Plan will be October 1, 2007.  He provided copies of the original plan (less color maps) and mentioned that the Plan is also available on the County web-site.  Diener asked for a show of hands of those attending who lived within the boundaries of Manchester, about 90% raised their hands.  He reminded all that the planning process really belongs to Manchester.  The approach for this review will be to break-down the existing Plan into topic areas and then re-write as appropriate.  All maps will be updated with current data.  Existing Kitsap County code will also be applied as appropriate.  It’s generally agreed that the thing that is lacking is the “teeth” to allow enforcement of the Plan concepts.

In revising the Plan, the County intends to facilitate the effort and provide guidance, but the actual Plan must be produced by the community.  With the available time, this effort will need to be on a fast-track for completion so it is ready to present to the Commissioners for approval in December 2007.  The role of County staff is to assist and facilitate the re-write and to ensure the text is legally sound, and meets the County code and the Growth Management Act.

One of the documents available at the meeting was a definition of Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD’s).  Manchester is considered to be a LAMIRD, not an Urban Growth Area (UGA).  Jan Angel said that there is some interest expressed in expanding the boundaries on the Manchester LAMIRD, and she needs to get with the County attorneys to discuss the ramifications of any change to the boundaries before offering any thoughts on such a change.

Linda Bently of DCD was introduced and she mentioned that she agreed that review of all the sections of the original Plan was appropriate and some updating would be required.  At this point the meeting was opened to input from community members.

Carrilu Thompson: The County helped us on developing the original Plan.  We need large group meetings of representing all sections of the review to add cohesion and then we can break into individual discussion groups.  The original Plan fell short on achieving legality of the points made in the Plan.

Lyle Burbidge: I’m concerned about the vision not being adhered to.  There is too much effort at developing condos without considering the impact on roads and infrastructure.  The Plan had no teeth; it stated that the mixed development should be two-stories high, and we got three-stories.  We have heard that up to 16 condo developments are coming into the Manchester community.  We want to preserve the small town quaintness, not all condos.  We don’t want to strip property owners of their views.  During the summer boat trailer parking is a huge issue in Manchester.

Jan Angel made the observation that the Plan probably had good intentions, but was not enforceable.

Carole Leininger: I agree with Lyle, and feel betrayed.  We have a Design Standards committee which is currently working on developing standards for the Manchester Commercial district.  If I wanted to live in Seattle, I’d move.

Jeff Miller: I thought this meeting was to discuss Manchester Heights.  Manchester Heights will impact the community of Manchester.

Leslie Hassitt: I live outside the community of Manchester, but am concerned about Manchester Heights. This will have impacts on traffic, schools, and streams.  I am interested in expanding the LAMIRD.

Mark Rebelowski: I live in an existing condo in Manchester.  About 1/3 of the land in this complex is greenspace.  I have a question about the second exit from the Post Office parking lot.  This was in the original Plan, and I would like to see this addressed.  Also, lot aggregation was not addressed in the original Plan.  As an example, this is how three lots were recently aggregated to allow a property owner to work around the height limitation to their advantage.  I also want design standards incorporated into the new Plan.

JB Bartel: I spent 18 month working on the original Plan.  The residential and commercial 28 and 35 building height limitations along with 60% permeable surface standards were purposefully included in the plan.  Unfortunately, we missed on enforcement of those standards.  The County needs to put teeth into the new Plan standards.   Also, traffic is the pits during the summer, the County needs to do their traffic analysis when Manchester is operating at its peak during the summer and fishing season.  We want change via controlled growth.  And one final point, I believe all stormwater retention ponds need to be surrounded with fencing to insure safety.

Bob Lamb: When the Plan was conceived, we all agreed on the goals.  Most actions since then have not agreed with the vision.  We need help on enforcing our vision.

Bud Larsen: My primary concern is with traffic; I’m now working directly with the Sheriff and the County staff on reducing truck traffic, particularly where sharp turns are required.  Also, stormwater management is one of my concerns; the County wanted to put the discharge above grade on the beach.  Such a discharge takes away the limited recreational area we have and adds to pollution of the waters.

Denise Burbidge: I am very proud of the agreement we have on a vision for Manchester tonight.  Manchester is unique and special.  We need to be responsible stewards and make responsible decisions.  We must not necessarily “go with the flow” on these decisions.

Richard Brown: The Commissioners need to fight for the future County codes which will be the teeth in any Plan.  How can we encourage property owners to develop responsibly?  Get what you recommend by ensuring the County can enforce the goals.

Jan Angel interjected, that we need to include view protection in the update of the Plan to allow enforcement.

Ron Rada: The Plan recommended the formation of a Community Council.  A Council was formed and has been meeting monthly for the last two years, but apparently has no teeth with the Commissioners.  The efforts of these many people are going unheard.

Jan Angel commented that there are now two Councils appointed by the Commissioners, although these represent urban growth areas and the Commissioners will have to consider whether we should form more Councils.  Jan then realized that Suquamish also has an appointed Council, and that will have a bearing on the decision.

Ron Rada continues: We are exasperated with the (lack of) enforcement of the Plan goals.  The Commissioners need a moratorium on commercial project approvals by the Department of Community Development until the Plan is updated.  The group developing the original Plan made a concerted effort to keep the Commercial District limited in size.

Bob Lamb mentioned that he has a friend who is a member of the Silverdale Council and he finds it to be very effective, it works well.

Debby Trudeau: In regards to acknowledging the Manchester Council, we need to insure that all geographical areas of Manchester are represented.  All areas outside the downtown core must be included.  I’m also very concerned about the potential development of the many very small lots within the Manchester boundaries.

With no further input from the community, Scott said that sign-up lists were on a table in the room and those interested in participating in the re-write of the plan should sign-up.  Scott said the next steps will begin with a meeting to be held on March 20th in the Commissioners Chambers.  Information from tonight’s meeting will be posted on the County web-site with both notes and audio coverage.  He will also develop a schedule of activities which will allow completion on schedule.  Each committee will choose their own leader/spokesperson and deadlines will be critical.

Carrilu Thompson requested that the meetings format have a general gathering of all participants with the groups then breaking-out into sub-committees.  She went on to say that we need help from the County with the enforcement side of the project that will give our goals some teeth.

JB Bartel asked for more input on County regulations and how they matched the proposed Plan changes to insure compatibility.

Lyle Burbidge then asked what the possibility is of there being a moratorium on approval of new projects during the Plan re-write.

With that, there was no further input from the community and Scott said that the goals presented tonight were not insurmountable and invited all to the next meeting on March 20th.

The meeting was concluded at about 8PM.  The next meeting of the Plan review group will be Tuesday March 20th at 6:30PM in the Commissioners’ Chambers.

Our next regular MCC meeting will be Tuesday March 27th at 6:30-8:30PM in the Manchester Library. 

Ron Rada 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 March 20th.

 

Respectfully submitted,

John Winslow, Member-at-Large:Manchester Community Council