Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/04 AGENDA FiLE 239 4th Street · Bremerfon, WA 98337 · Phone (3601 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251 JULY 28, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in Council Conference Room A. General Council Business 2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in Council Chambers A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Invocation 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims & Check Register (#AB04-144) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOLUTION A. Ordinance No. 4905 [Second Reading] amending Section 9A.48.030 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to Criminal Impersonation (#AB04-143) B. Ordinance No. 4906 [Second Reading] amending BMC Sections 21.02.230 and 17.04.060(e) relating to Development and Permit Requirements for Fences (#AB04-1 5. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Immediately following the City Council Meeting, the Council Members will convene in the Council Conference Room for a LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE to hear presentations on the following proposed items. Please note that no action will be taken, and the content of these items are subject to change. 1. Acceptance of EPA State & Tribal Assistance Grants - Tom Knuckey, Engineering/Public Works 2. Interlocal Agreement between Kitsap County and City of Bremerton HOME, National Affordable Housing Program - Michelle Eichhorn and Shirley Aird, CDBG Program 3. Contract Award with INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for Shore Drive Sewer-2004 Improvements - Mike Mecham, City Engineer 4. 2005 through 2010 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) - Michael Wilson, Director of Financial Services AN INFORMA TION-ONL Y PRESENTATION WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE FOLLOWING: · Continuation of Review for Recommended Draft Comprehensive Plan - Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development E-rnail: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us · Web: www.cl,bremerton.wa,us DATE SUBMITTED: BILL ~! ~7]~/~ AGENDA BILL CIF~~ OF B~MER~ON CITY OL~L IL ~ C ' SUBJECT: Approval of Claims mid Checks Committee Meeting Date: Register CODICIL MEET~G Date: Depaament: Financial Services Presenter: Cathy Jolmson Phone: 473-5296 SUMMARY: Consent agenda item. Approval of payroll, checks and electronic fund transfers. ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: CONSENT AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Approve: 1) Check #'s ,v?.c)'o?,~9~? _ through,.x~. ~/~75 and EFT's_ ~ ~ ~/through (¢ ~ ~,_ ~'z~vV"57~2fi6-P-~3'~.~f~~O. la~,~]~J~.,/~ in the ~ount of$~ / ~ 2) Regurar Payf~[for the pafpe~d ending -24. ~ D~ _ in the amo~t of $ ~ 0.~/0~ 3) Retiree PaFoli for the pay period ending in the amount of $ COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action la_. DATE SUBMITTED: July 6, 2004 BILL # ~-' ~ - i ~ _~, AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON ~L~ k CITY COUNCIL ...... . ....vrain,,~e~N,~l,~ ',~ ' '. -' -- '-- ' '-: '.' ',', '~'-~ ........................................................ SUBJECT: Pul/lic Heating on Ordinance Committee Meeting Date: July 14, 2004 Amending BMC 9A.48.030 relating to COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 21 and 28, 2004 Criminal Impersonation Department: City Attorney's Office Presenter: Brett C. Vinson Phone: 473-2345 SUMMARY: Due to changes in the Revised Code of Washington, the current provisions of BMC 9A.48.030 do not correctly reference the appropriate RCW citation regarding criminal impersonation. The proposed ordinance corrects the citation relating to criminal impersonation in the second degree. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: MAYoR:FiNANCE DIRECTOR: ~_ OPERATIONS: ~ .~ ~ l, .~_~ ~ ~COMMENDED MOTION: 1. ~:;':~ ........ = ............ first reanmg. 2. I move to pass Ordin~ce No. q 90 ~ on second reading. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action ORDINANCE NO. qt]o~ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Bremerton Municipal Code 9A.48.030 by deleting the reference to RCW 9A.60.040 and adding RCW 9A.60.045. WHEREAS, by Laws of 2003, Chapter 53, Section 78 deleted criminal impersonation in the second degree from RCW 9A.60.040; and WHEREAS, by Laws of 2003, Chapter 53, Section 79 criminal impersonation in the second degree was renumbered to RCW 9A.60.045; and WHEREAS, Bremerton Municipal Code 9A.48.030 references 9A.60.040 which is now criminal impersonation in the first degree, a class C felony by Laws of 2003, Chapter 53, Section 78; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the provisions of BMC 9A.48.030 in order to correct the citation reference for criminal impersonation in the second degree to RCW 9A.60.045 in accordance with the Laws of 2003, Chapter 53, Section 79; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Section 9A.48.030 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION" is hereby amended to read as follows: RCW 9A(olX040 9A.60.045 is adopted by reference as currently enacted and as hereinafter amended from time to time, and shall be given the same force and effect as if set forth herein in full. SECTION2. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004 PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004 DAREN NYGREN, Council President 1 Criminal Impersonation BMC 9A.4& 030 2 Approved this day of ,2004 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of ,2004 EFFECTWE the _day of ,2004 ORDINANCE NO. R:\LEGAL\Ordinances~Police\cfiminal impersonation.doc 2 Criminal Impersonation BMC 9A.4&030 Page 2 of 3 WA LEGIS 11 (2004) Page l 2004 Wash. Legis. Serv. Ch. 11 (S.B. 6177) (WEST) WASHINGTON 2004 LEGISLATIVE SERVICE 58th Legislature, 2004 Regular Session Copr.© West Group 2004. All rights reserved. Additions are indicated by Text; deletions by · ~xq.. Changes in tables are made but not highlighted. Vetoed provisions within tabular material are not displayed. CHAPTER 11 S.B. No. 6177 CRIMES AND OFFENSES--IMPERSONATION--PENALTIES AN ACT Relating to criminal impersonation; amending RCW 9A.60.040 and 9A.60.045; prescribing penalties; and providing an effective date. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: Sec. 1. RCW 9A.60.040 and 2003 c 53 s 78 are each amended to read as follows: << WA ST 9A.60.040 >> (1) A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the first degree if the person: (a) Assumes a false identity and does an act in his or her assumed character with intent to defraud another or for any other unlawful purpose; or (b) Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization or a public servant and does an act in his or her pretended capacity with intent to defraud another or for any other unlawful purpose. (2) Criminal impersonation in the first degree is a g, rc, zz n;:.zdc~aaz~r class C felony. Sec. 2. RCW 9A.60.045 and 2003 c 53 s 79 are each amended to read as follows: << WA ST 9A.60.045 >> (1) A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree if the person: Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 4 httm//t~rint.west~aw.c~m/de~iverv.htm~?dest=atD&dataid=B~558~922~394~977BB8512... 7/15/2004 Page 3 of 3 WA LEGIS I 1 (2004) Page 2 2004 Wash. Legis. Serv. Ch. 11 (S.B. 6177) (WEST) (a) Claims to be a law enforcement officer or creates an impression that he or she is a law enforcement officer; and (b) Under circumstances not amounting to criminal impersonation in the first degree, does an act with intent to convey the impression that he or she is acting in an official capacity and a reasonable person would believe the person is a law enforcement officer. (2) Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor. << Note: WA ST 9A.60.040 >> NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2004. Approved March 11, 2004. Effective July l, 2004. WA LEGIS 11 (2004) END OF DOCUMENT Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 5 httn:llnrint westlaw corn/delivery h*mlgde~t=atn,R, dntaid=FI0055R00000009220003940977FIl~R519 7/15/'2004 DATE SUBMITTED: 6/21/04 BILL AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public heating and ordinance Committee Meeting Date: regarding zoning text amendments to BMC COUNCIL MEETING Date: 21.02.230 and 17.04.060(e) relating to Department: Comm. Development development and permit requirements for Presenter: Chris Hugo, Director fences. Phone: 473-5243 SUMMARY: In recent years, violations of the city's fence height standards have become more prevalent. At the conclusion of a Council study session in April, the DCD was directed to draft ordinance amendments to address provisions for special use permits, entry features, and permit requirements· The Council's direction also confirmed retaining the existing height standards in the · th code. The Planning Commission conducted a workshop in the proposed amendments on April 15 , 2003, and held public heatings on June 17 and July 15m, 2003. The Commission recommends the attached ordinance to the Council for adoption. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance /Vo. qqo(o Staff report Planning Commission minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The requirement for a fence permit will generate some additional staff time that will be offset by reduced need for enforcement and a small permit fee. APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: FINANCE DIRECTOR: ~ (~..~"~.),~ MAYOR: (_~ FISCAL/BUDGET: OPE~TIONS: CO~CIL P=SIDENT: ~COMMENDED MOTION: -- -rr ........ ~ ............... ding. ~ .... Move to pass ordinance q~O~ on second reading. COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action o m ANc 4: 9s AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fence height regulations; and amenffmg Rate Table C of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to provide for permit fees for fences. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the current provisions of Section 21.02.230 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to establish criteria for the granting of a Special Use Permit for side and rear yard fences over six (6) feet in height and to make other related amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to amend the provisions of Section 17.04.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to building permits under the International Building Code to require building permits for certain fences; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish fees for fence building permits; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION1. Section 21.02.230 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Fences and Walls" is hereby amended to read as follows: 21.02.230 FENCES AND WALLS. (a) Fences and walls shall observe the following height and setback requirements: (1) Residential Zones. i. Maximum height shall be six (6) feet. ii. Maximum height within the front yard setback area shall be three (3) feet; except an open mesh cyclone type fence may not exceed a height ofd248 inches. iii. On comer lots with a specified front yard setback on each street frontage, the Director can determine that the street frontage of the residence's principal orientation is a "primary frontage" and may permit a six (6) foot maximum height fence in the yard on the other (secondary) frontage only if all of the following conditions are met: a. The higher fence will not block any existing front yard views from an adjoining residence with its principal orientation to that same street; b. The higher fence will not be closer to the residence's front property line on the street of principal orientation than the closest part of the front facade of the residence[ c. The higher fence will not encroach into the front yard of the primary frontage where the maximum height limit in (a)(1)(ii) takes precedence. (2) Commercial Zones. i. Maximum height shall be eight (8) feet. 1 Fence Height Regulations 7 ii. Maximum height shall be six (6) feet when adjacent to a public right- of-way, or to a residential zone. (3) Industrial Zone. i. Maximum height shall be ten (I 0) feet. ii. Maximmn height shall be six (6) feet when adjacent to a public right- of-way, or to a residential zone. (b) A Type II Special Use Permit may be rcqucatcd granted for ~.ig,,hcr, fences or walls up to eight (8) feet high a!v~ng prv, p~,~,/linc: in a side or rear yard that arc dc:i~:cd and ir~cndcd fc, r t;rc, Fcrticg. only if all of the following criteria are met: (1) The fence or wall is necessary to provide privacy and security between a residential and a non-residential use; and (2) The design of the fence will present a "finished" appearance on its outside face. (c) Fences and walls shall not block or hinder the sight distance of traffic. Exact location and design of a fence or wall is subject to the approval of the City Engineer when visibility or public safety is an issue. (d) No electric or electrified fences above ground shall be permitted within the City of Bremerton. (e) Barbed wire or similar wire protective devices are permitted only in industrial zones above a height of six (6) feet provided that adjoining a residential zone, devices may be allowed by an,. a ....... -t,..rc a Type II Special Use Permit only ifwi~2n .... a ..... ~ ~.~ ................. he following criteria are met:: (1) The applicant demonstrates that the protective device cannot be installed outside of the specified setback without significantly diminishing the utility of the industrial property; (2) The protective device will be designed to minimize adverse aesthetic impact to the residential use by installing the device behind the top of: fence or wall or screening the device with landscape; and (3) The applicant demonstrates that the protective device is necessary, to provide additional security along the residential property line to protect the industrial premises. (f) Notwithstanding the provisions of(a)(1)ii, above~ architectural appurtenances such as trellises or entry gates that define a walkway or driveway entry are allowed in a fi'ont yard up to ninety (90) inches high, provided that (1) No individual structural support for such features shall be more than twelve (12) inches square in section for any part of the structural support over three (3) feet above grade~ (2) Any gate shall not obscure more than 20% of visibility to the yard as viewed perpendicular to the gate's installation~ and (3) Any entry feature greater than three (3) feet in height shall not be more than 6 (six) feet wide for a walkway entry or more than sixteen (16) feet wide for a driveway entry. SECTION2. Section 17.04.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Amendments to the International Building Code - Administration" is hereby amended as to read as follows: 2 Fence Height Regulations 8 17.04.040 AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE - ADMINISTRATION. The following local amendments to the International Building Code previously adopted in BMC 17.04.030 are hereby adopted and incorporated into the International Building Code: (a) General - Building code appendices adopted. Section 101 of the International Building Code, entitled "General," is amended by adding the following new subsection 101.5: Sec. 101.5 Building code appendices adopted. Appendices C, H, I, and J to the International Building Code are hereby adopted; however, the public works director shall have the authority to enforce and interpret Appendix J and, accordingly, all references to the "building official" in Appendix J shall be substituted with the words "public works director." (b) Duties and powers of building official - Lot lines and setback lines. Section 104 of the International Building Code, entitled "Duties and Powers of Building Official," is amended by adding the following new subsection 104.12: Sec. 104.12 Lot lines and setback lines. Notwithstanding the authority of the building official to administer and enforce the building code, the building official shall have no duty to verify or establish lot lines or setback lines. No such duty is created by this code, and none shall be implied. (c) Work exempt from permit. Section 105.2~ of the International Building Code, entitled "Work exempt from permit," is amended by amending Building exemption number 2 as follows: 2. Fences not over 26 feet (I ~°29mm) high. (ed_) Board of ,4ppeals. Section 112 of the International Building Code, entitled "Board of Appeals," is amended by substituting Section 112 with the following: Sec. 112 Board of appeals. The City of Bremerton hearings examiner is designated as the board of appeals in order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the building official relative to the suitability of alternate materials, design, and methods of construction and appeals of the reasonable application and interpretation of the building codes. Appeals shall be made as set forth in section 17.04.140 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. SECTION3. Rate Table C, Exhibit 1 of Chapter 3.01 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Table 1-A Building Permit Fees" is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 3 Fence Height Regulations 9 SECTION 5. F~[fective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004 PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004 DAREN NYGREN Council President Approved this day of ,2004 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATI'EST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: PAUL A JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attomey PUBLISHED the day of _, 2004 EFFECTiVE the _day of ,2004 ORDiNANCE NO. R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development\Fence Height Regulations (with permit language)2.doc 4 Fence Height Regulations E~HIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT IPROPOSAL: Text amendment to Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060 (e) of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fence regulations. DATE OF REPORT: JUNE 8, 2003 APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): City of Bremerton (PL03-0018) CONTACT: Chris Hugo, Director- Community Development Department; Phone: (360)473-5243 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal applies to all districts within the city. Background: One of the most chronic violations of City development codes is the construction of higher fences than the zoning code allows. Currently, the Code Compliance section has about a half dozen open cases, including some that have been unresolved for the better part of a year. There are dozens of other visible violations that the Department has not cited. Some of the observed violations are entirely new installations, and some of these consist of fairly elaborate designs and expensive materials. One of the reasons that there are so many violations of the code is that the City does not require a building permit to construct a fence. The requirement for a fence permit varies city-to-city, and there are good arguments both to require and not to require a permit. Late last year, the Department sent a letter to all fence companies in the area to ask their cooperation in meeting the code provisions in all their installations, but some of the new violations are recent installations by local companies. The City's current regulations limit fence heights in front yards (anywhere in the required setback area) to 3 ft. if the fence is solid or 42" if it is open chain link. These limitations reflect community standards to allow front yard views up and down residential streets. In most communities across the nation, this has been the tradition in Iow-density neighborhoods for many generations. A property owner can seek a higher fence height by applying for a special use permit. This can be processed as an administrative decision or as a Hearing Examiner 12 decision. In the first case, the application fee is $320 and in the latter it is $636. These fees often amount to a substantial percentage of the construction cost of the fence. The criteria for considering a greater height include findings of increased security and privacy. These are exactly the functions of a fence, which means that all applications should be approved. This raises the question, "If all applications for a special use permit automatically satisfy the decision criteria and demand approval, why are we making the public apply for a special use permit to begin with?" On the surface, it could appear that the City is just attempting to generate additional revenue - in actuality, the fees are more than consumed by legal notice and stafftime. Still, the criteria seem to undermine the overall purpose of the special use permit requirement. The matter of regulating fence heights is one of policy. What is the neighborhood character that the City wants to maintain? Do fences separate neighbors and erode a sense of community, or do they promote good neighbor relations and make Bremerton a safer place? What about homes along high traffic streets? Can higher fences help buffer the impacts of the street and help these homes maintain a reasonable living environment? The Department's dilemma is that fences continue to be built contrary to the code, and in some cases there may be justification for a higher fence. PROPOSED CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: 1 ) Revise BMC 21.02.230 to make the following changes: · revise the maximum allowed height of chain link fences from 42 inches to 48 inches · add decision criteria to the Type III SUP procedures to allow fences up to 8 feet in side and rear yards only under limited conditions · provide for greater maximum allowed heights for architectural appurtenances such as entry trellises or gates. 2) Revise BMC 17.04.060(e) to only exclude temporary fences and fences under two feet in height to the list of '~Vork Exempt from Permit" ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on the original development regulation as a non-project action in accordance with WAC 197-11 on June 16, 2003. The proposed text amendment is considered a minor revision to the original regulation with minimum substantive effect. There is no change to the bulk regulations that control the overall use intensity of a site. A memorandum that states this conclusion has been entered into the official record. 13 DECISION CRITERIA: As provided in BMC 21.02.925, the City Council may approve an amendment if the following questions can be answered, "Yes:" (1) Is the proposed change consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan ? (2) Will the proposed change be consistent with all other provisions of the affected code and avoid conflicts with other codes? FINDING OF PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY: The proposed code text amendments are intended to add clarity to existing provisions regulating fence installations and to add a permit requirement to insure compliance with regulations. There are no substantive elements of the proposed amendments that relate to Plan consistency. The amendment must also be found to be consistent with all other provisions of the Zoning Code. ~'~~1' June 8, 2003 Staff report prepared by: Chris H[Jgo, D'irecto,~/ - Dated 14 Minutes for Approval of Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Kennedy at 5:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Buckingham, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Wood and Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. Mr. Hugo requested a revision to the agenda under the public meeting phase - switch 1 a and lb, due to the fact that lead staff was briefing the City Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Buckingham to approve the agenda as revised. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as revised. IV. Approval of Minutes The Regular Meeting of May 20, 2003, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes and Kennedy; abstained. Minutes approved as written. V. Public Meeting Commissioner Kennedy moved directly to the call to thc public portion. A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no comments from the public, Commissioner Kennedy closed this portion of the meeting and moved onto the public meeting portion. B. Public Meeting ~ 1. Public Hearing: [Commentary notes are enclosed in brackets.] a. PL03-0018 - An ordinance amending Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060(e) of Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fence height regulations and permit requirements. Commissioner Kennedy introduced this item and turned the meeting over to staff, Mr. Hugo. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 1 of 25 15 Mr. Hugo presented the staff report. He stated that the Commissioners had some background on this previously. This proposal is being brought in an attempt to correct some deficiencies of the fence regulations that are causing difficulty with compliance. There are also some issues of potential inequities and problems with property entries s that are not addressed in the code. The largest problem is that there are too many fence installations in the city that violate our standards for fences. This is despite the fact that over a year ago, staff sent out an appeal to all fence contractors in the area with a copy of all the cities regulations. We asked for their cooperation in all installations and that they adhere to the city's standards. We asked them to advise their clients that there are standards and that they, the contractors, cannot do whatever the client wishes - if it doesn't comply with the city's standards. Unfortunately that appeal has not been respected. Some of the companies that we ensured received the letter continue to install new fences that violate the code. The biggest issue is with height. The code is written around a very traditional, friendly neighborhood concept offences. Higher fences are appropriate in back yards where there is a desire for privacy. But in front yards, we still hold to the notion of openness and having light and air come into our big picture windows and the front of our homes. Front yards then are limited to fences of no higher than three feet if they are solid and no higher than 42 inches it is a chain link fence. However, all over the city we see fences that are being built up to six feet and sometimes even higher, regardless of these limitations. In this proposal, you have a draft of the ordinance. The working draft did not get put into a hearing draft that would reflect some of the comments made by the Commission during the workshop on this item. The major changes to our ordinance, comes in two areas. The first is in 21.02.230, which lays out the dimensional standards for fences. There is a revised requirement in Section (b) that now limits the granting of a Type III Special Use Permit (SUP) for higher fences to side and rear yards. It also lays out a set of criteria, the first of which is that the fence or wall has to be shown necessary to provide privacy or security between a residential and a non-residential use. We have had people who wanted to put up an eight foot fence in the back yard just to get better separation from their neighbors. Perhaps the thinking is that maybe ifa higher fence (greater than six feet) is warranted that it should be to provide safety and security from a non-residential use. We should not be walling off the whole neighborhood with fortress-like, eight foot high fences. The Type III SUP is still available, but only in side and rear yards and it is only allowed if we are shielding between residential and non-residential use. The second area of change is in the design of the fence. The design will present a finished appearance on its outside face. We don't define finish. This is being proposed as a Type III. Mr. Hugo recommended that we keep it as a Type III. He said that this type of application should face a very high level of review. It shouldn't be anything that our staff reviews. It should go through an open, public review process where neighbors can comment on it. Part of that comment could be directed at the visual appearanceofthe fence. Will it be a neighbor-friendly fence? Thehearing examiner should make the determination because of the variety of materials and styles Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 2 of 25 of fences. Mr. Hugo thinks it would be very difficult to predefine this. However, the heating examiner, based on experience, public comments and submittal of fence design could detc,mine if an applicant has shown a good finished side of the fence to your neighbor or not. Mr. Hugo said that the City Attorney had reviewed this language and had no problems with it (finish) being an undefined term. So, he was not recommending any changes to this portion of the code. The third point is that an additional fence or wall height shall not detract fi.om adjacent residential property owners' use and enjoyment of their property. This could be approached several ways. We could require property owners in the neighborhood to sign off on the proposal, giving their approval. He said that he didn't like that approach because you never know who the next property owners might be. People sell their homes. It should not be something that is voted on by the current community or the current profile of the community. It should be something that is found to be acceptable in long duration. To do that, people in the neighborhood should comment. The heating examiner has to listen to those comments and decide if, over time, the people change is it likely to reflect the same type of comments that future neighbors will have. If they do, is this (eight foot fence) something that is really necessary? He said that the public comment and the heating examiner reflecting on that comment is a judicious way to deal with the potential impact or consequence of higher fences. Mr. Hugo referred the group to Section (f'). This section is where we note that some people put nice architectural features into their entries such as trellises or entry gates. This ordinance now provides for that. He read directly fi.om the draft ordinance: "...architectural appurtenances such as trellises or entry gates to define a walkway or driveway entry are allowed in a front yard up to 90" high, provided that no individual structural support for such features shall be more than 12" square in section, any gate shall not obscure more than 20% of visibility to the yard as viewed perpendicular to the gate's installation and iii) any entry feature greater than three feet in height shall not be more than sixteen feet wide for driveway entry." Ninety inches is not what you had during the workshop. It was 84" or seven feet. He said he bumped it up to seven and a half feet. He then mentioned that he had looked at some garden magazines and that the majority of the trellises were seven feet, some were higher. The standards for the entry way and drive way (iii) was actually tested out on a couple of our compliance cases - these are comfortable standards for what you would expect on a normal installation. He then moved on to Section 2. This section sets up the conditions for requiring a building permit for most fences. The only fences that will be exempt from the requirements of a building permit are fences not more than two feet high or fences that are temporary for construction fences. The temporary fences on construction projects tend to be put there for security and public safety. They are protecting deep wholes on the site, dangerous equipment, potential exposure to electrical, etc - these fences need to be over six feet high, just to keep people who don't have a right to be on the property offthe site when it's not occupied. The only thing that is really critical in this section is under (2)(e), which reads: Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 3 of 25 17 "Work Exempt from Permit" A building permit shall not be required for the following: ..... 2) Fences a) not exceeding 2 feet in height, and b) fences not exceeding eight feet in height installed on a temporary basis, such as construction site fences, for a period not exceeding 12 months." If someone needed something beyond that (12 months), they could come in and ask for an extension. Extensions are common practice for all kinds of permits in our department. So if we have a major project, like our downtown projects that may take 18 months, we can accommodate that. He said this concluded the staffreport and asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the Commission had any questions for Mr. Hugo. Commissioner Wood asked what happens when a person is half-way through a fence project that is non-compliant. She spoke ora specific project on Pacific Avenue. Mr. lcIugo answered by saying that if the department sees work going on that is out of compliance, even if it is a fence, we will stop-work it. We do it as quickly as we can because we can save the property owner money if we catch it early. This is one of the reasons for the building permit requirement. The requirement for a building permit allows us to stop and measure any fence activity we see to determine if there is an issue or permit requirement. If it is a construction fence that is not over eight feet, there is not a permit issue and not a compliance issue. Anything else, our field people can do a quick check and confirm that there is a building permit. If they don't have a building permit, then it is a stop-work immediately. Then they will have to come in and submit plans. The plans would have to be checked offas compliant and from that point on, they are directed down a safe path for them and a compliant path for us. In time, with enough public notice and public education, we will hope that most people will just come to our office, review their plans, pay their $50.00 permit fee and get started offcorrectly. The fee will be nominal, not much more than $50.00. Commissioner Kosusko asked if this was basically a bigger stick, an easier way to identify fences that are out of compliance. Mr. Hugo said yes, and that it also gets the contractors in the mode of working through a process. In business the typical contract will state that the contractor is responsible for securing all approvals and permits. That way, if we go back to the property owner about a fence that is out of compliance, the owner has recourse against the contractor. Contractors will not suffer too many of those setbacks before they all start following the rules. He believes this ordinance will be an effective tool to get us fence installations that are in compliance. Over time, it should reduce trauma in the community and reduce our workload for compliance. Commissioner Kennedy asked a question about the three foot maximum in the front yard. Why was the height a foot taller for cyclone fences? Mr. ttugo stated that in the current code it is six inches taller for cyclone fences. The reason is that they don't make 42 inch cyclone fence as a standard. They do make 48 inches. This is a policy call for the Planning Commission and the City Council. We put 48 inches in so that if someone says that three feet isn't tall enough to safeguard my child or keep my dog in the yard, they have the option of putting in a 48 inch cyclone fence. Forty-eight inches should keep in most smaller dogs and children. Strictly a reference to the safety issue, but there are aesthetic impact and if you don't think that is the right trade- off, go back to something else. Commissioner Kennedy stated that she thought it Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 4 o£ 25 would be nice to have that front height be the same for whatever kind offence you put up. There was a short discussion about the visual impact of cyclone fences and the safety issue of small children and pets. Mr. Hugo stated that when he briefed the City Council about this issue, they were not very sympathetic to increasing anything. There were proponents on both sides of the 42 inch versus 48 inch cyclone fence issue as well. Commissioner Buckingham asked if there the 48 inches is the only standard height for cyclone fences or is there a standard 36 inch standard. Mr. Hugo said that he believes there is a 36 inch standard. Commissioner Buckingham then stated that this would not create an undue burden on people wanting to build fences if it were lowered to the 36 inch. Mr. Hugo agreed. Commissioner Kosusko stated that during the workshop they discussed conditions for fences on top of retaining walls or bulkheads. Where the measurement is taken? If the retaining wall is over 30 inches, the fence need to be almost guardrail height. Mr. Hugo said that yes, they had discussed that issue. He said that this is almost a bigger issue than we have the ability to take on right now. The Commission will need to come back to it. This is one of those gray areas in the code that needs some definition. He said that the staff will need to go out and look at some of the contextual examples that the Commission provided and come up with some ways that we can discuss it in the code that makes sense. Commissioner Kosusko asked how he thought this would be applied right now. Mr. Hugo said it would applied on a case by case basis and as consistent as possible. Commissioner Buckingham asked about Section (2)(e)(2)(a). Work exempt from permits, fences not exceeding two feet in height. He asked how this height was determined. Mr. Hugo stated that up to two feet could be like a little picket fence. If someone is doing that around their front yard, we would have no interest in that at all. It would be entirely decorative, cannot possible get in the way of views, and if one of our field people sees one of those going up, we won't worry about it. Now, if it goes up to about 30 inches, someone on our staff may show up to measure it and ask if there is a permit. Commissioner Buckingham asked if there was an idea of what the 'nominal fee' for the building permit would be. Mr. Hugo said that he had mentioned $50.00 (about one hour work of staff time), which would be enough that the public would be compensated just for the permit recordkeeping. It would be a simple permitting process, but we would at least look at the plans and make sure that there are no violations regarding setbacks. We would look at a simple site plan and pay attention to it out in the field. Commissioner Nelson asked a question regarding community education. He wanted to know if we were creating any brochures or special documents to share with people. Mr. Hugo said that we do have brochures. He feels this is a community paradigm. People have seen folks build fences any way they wanted to for 50 years and believe this is normal business. So they are not inclined to come in and find out what the rules are, particularly if their fence contractor who ignores all the rules - which seems to be the model here. He spoke of one particular fence contractor who continues to violate Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 5 of 25 29 the rules. This upsets him since he wrote them a personal letter and asked them to stop doing it. They don't seem to care. Commissioner Nelson said that he didn't see the issue of fence heights on busy streets or arterials being dealt with in this draft ordinance. Mr. Itugo said that this concept is one that he finds some favor with because he drafted something like that about ten years ago, for another city. It was adopted. He has looked at it again and said that it probably would not work in Bremerton. The idea was to look at our high volume, vehicular arterials like 11 th Street, coming down towards Warren Avenue. Warren is a State travel route through the City. Allowing people who have residential properties along that street to build a higher fence to give them some screening from noise, litter, and high visibility of all the strangers going past their front yard. He discussed this with the City Council and they did not find favor with it. He said that he would not want to bring something forward that he believes will be "dead on arrival" when it comes from the Commission. Mr. Hugo stated that the Commission could bring it back up and put it in but that it was his clear direction from the City Council that the idea of higher fences being allowed for noise buffers would not fly. When he reviewed the conditions included in the other city's ordinance, he doesn't think it could work here because of the environments that it dealt with were fairly degraded environments today. The kind offence you would have been required to build in that other city probably would not have been built by anyone. The fences had to be solid or articulated with breaks in the fence, landscaping on the outside of the fence within those setbacks - it would have been a very expensive fence. Then the condition under which you could have that fence: you still had to have the ability to come out of your driveway and have enough distance to see up and down the sidewalk to make sure you weren't backing out and causing a pedestrian danger. There are rich enough place where people would do it because they have the money and the need for that degree of privacy. This problem is not addressed here; we haven't solved anything; and this is something for the staff and the Commission to figure out. They are bad environments. Commissioner Nelson asked how we arrived at a $50.00 for the fee. He thought it was a little high. Mr. Hugo stated that considering the cost ora cedar fence that he doesn't think $50.00 is very much. People put thousands of dollars into fences and spending $50.00 to get it right is money well spent. That is what we are there for to make sure they get it right so that they don't have to back up. We have people doing thousands of dollars worth ofretro-fits on brand new fences. One guy down on Oyster Bay got a five or six foot high fence all around their property and had to cut three feet off of that, re-do the rails. When they are done it will be well over $1,000.00. Without these changes, they would have had to take down about a $10,000.00 entry gate. Fifty dollars is a pretty good deal. Mr. Hugo says that it is fairly genetic. There is probably 15 minutes of counter time; 15 minutes to check out the site plan; and then there will be a little bit of field time to make sure, as part of the official inspections, that everything is being done according to the plan. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Hugo. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 6 of 25 20 Commissioner Buckingham asked about the transition. If someone were in the process of constructing a fence (that is conforming to the current code) when this ordinance is adopted, how would they be affected? Mr. Hugo stated that if they are conforming, we would not expect them to come in now and get a permit. This would be from the date of adoption. From that date forward, anyone who embarks on any activity would have to comply. Anyone in the process right now of building a non- compliant fence, just like anyone else - we go out right now and stop-work them and get them to undo what they have done. Commissioner Kennedy opened the floor for public testimony. Mr. Loui Mitchell of 2333 l0th Street, Bremerton. He said that he was at juvenile court today addressing this very issue. He said that he is a victim of malicious mischief and has been for several years. Finally, witnessed and apprehended the juvenile. The first instance, he got a quote from Viking Fence of $4,100.00. He said that he also has a bulkhead propen'y that was referred to. He said that they (Viking Fence) did know the rules and regulations and quoted them to him. Mr. Mitchell said that the reason he was interested in getting a fence was not to keep juveniles out for future incidents, but to keep his dog in. The second backup was to have a dog. On the street where he lives, there is lots of traffic that comes from Callow Avenue and cuts offto points unknown. He's had three trees broken off at the base after replacing them a second time. He has had flowers and plants pulled out of his front yard property. He knows that a 3-4 foot fence is too little to preclude someone interested in doing damage. They did apprehend a person who had a record. It continues and he said he didn't know if he would get any compensation for the fence. Fences are expensive. Chain link fences are cheap. He believes that the way this ordinance is written, it will encourage more chain link fences. He thinks the motivation is dogs, on his street there is a ton of dogs. When a dog barks, all the lights come on and everyone looks out of their windows. It is not an inconvenience any more - it is a benefit to hear a dog bark in certain neighborhoods. He described it as fortuitous that he has had that recent experience and is at the hearing. He said that he would need to keep at least a medium sized dog in his front yard, which is his intent and reason for getting a quote from Viking Fence. Even medium sized dogs are capable of jumping. Then he would have a liability. If the highest fence that he could install would be a chain link fence - he would have to weigh the unattractiveness of the chain link against comfort and security. He would probably not put in the chain link and briefly described his home. He believes that many people would go for the chain link fence which would actually increase what you (PC) are trying to prevent. Commissioner Kennedy then closed the public comment section and opened it back up to the Commission. Mr. Hugo said that he wanted to note that currently the 42" chain link height is in the code. He has interpreted that to mean that it is okay to have a little bit higher fence as long as you can see through it. We have had some applications in which people Plamfmg Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 7 of 25 21 wanted to have a wood fence that was higher. He has told them they could not go higher than three feet if the fence is solid. However, they could go to another six inches with a top rail that is only supported every four feet or so. Still that top six inches is as transparent as a two inch tube rail across the chain link fence. The only reason for that distinction was one of transparency. So, if you go away from the 42 inches, it take away his ability for this interpretation allowing another six inches of decorative wood-style top on a solid fence. He said he would do the same thing with the 48 inch height chain link fence. However, it is easy at 42 inches and not so sure it would be as easy at 48 inches. There was a short discussion about the height, solid versus transparent, and definitions. Commissioner Kosusko stated that we have to decide what is important. Is it more important to have an aesthetic pleasing streetscape or that someone can have a barking dog at the sidewalk barking at you when you walk by. He thinks that if everyone is participating in their street front and it is attractive/inviting some of these issues of vandalism start to go away. This, in his mind, is a more proactive way to handle it rather than allowing someone to build a higher barrier. After a short discussion the consensus of the group was that the maximum height should be 36 inches, no matter what it is made of. This discussion included the desire for a more "walkable" city as mentioned in the draft Comprehensive Plan and the arterials and canyon like streetscapes. Mr. Hugo stated that the SEPA Determination regarding this item will not be official until two days hence. He asked the Commission to continue this item until the next regularly schedule meeting and take final action one month from now. A non-project DNS (Determination of Non-Significance) will be issued. There won't be any substantive issues with SEPA. We didn't quite make the publication date so we need this item continued. Commissioner Kennedy closed the discussion on this item and asked for a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Buckingham and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to continue PL03-0018 - An ordinance amending Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060(e) of the BMC relating to fence height regulations and permit requirements - until the next regularly scheduled meeting (July 15, 2003). Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Motion carries. b. PL03-002~7 - Consideration of an ordinance adding a new section 21.~2~350 to the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Wireless Telecommu~.~lic, al4ol~"~Facilities." The proposed section would add siting standards ~2;[.perrSffiingpr_~cess requirements for the placement of wireless tel~cclu~d_in~g^~an~t~nna arrays on existin~ stru~ t°~ei~" .within t~e.City °f Bi?e~°n' then turned the floor over to Mr. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 2003 Page 8 of 25 22 Minutes for Approval of Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Kennedy at 5:32 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockbum, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Wood and Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda as written. Called for a vote: Cockburn: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as written. IV. Approval of Minutes The Regular Meeting of June 17, 2003, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Cockbum: abstained; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes and Kennedy; yes. Minutes approved as written. V. Public Meeting Commissioner Kennedy moved directly to the call to the public portion. A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no comments from the public, Commissioner Kennedy closed this portion of the meeting and moved onto the public meeting portion. B. Public Meeting 1. Public Hearing: [Commentary notes are enclosed in brackets.] Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 1 of 7 a. PL03-0018 - Continued. An ordinance amending Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060(e) of Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fence height regulations and permit requirements. Commissioner Kennedy introduced this item and turned the meeting over to staff, Mr. Hugo. Mr. Hugo stated that this was presented to the commission at the last regular meeting· It was continued because we hadn't completed the SEPA comment period yet. It concluded two days after the last meeting. That comment period has now been concluded and a Determination of Non-significance has been issued. We have also mn through the 60-day agency review period stipulated by state law for state agency comment. It is, therefore, timely for the commission to take action on this item. He noted from the minutes that there was commission consensus to limit the height of all fences in the front yard setback to three feet, regardless of the type offence material. This is referenced in provision 21.02.230(a)(1)(ii), which currently reads, "Maximum height within front yard setback area shall be three feet, except in open mesh cyclone type fence may not exceed a height of 42 inches." When presented for public heating the staff had proposed the cyclone type fence be allowed up to 48 inches. After the commission's discussion there was a suggestion that all fences should be limited to the same three foot height limit in the front yard. That is where the staff report stands at this time. Commissioner Kennedy opened the public hearing portion for this item. She explained the procedure of public comment. Seeing no public comment, she closed the public comment portion and opened the floor for comments and questions from the Commission. ~ Commissioner Wood stated that she thinks the three foot [limitation] across the board ~),~ seems to be more appropriate. ~¢ ~._ A motion was made by Commissioner Cockburn and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend that PL03-0018 as amended [21.02.230(a)(1)(iil) limiting fence heights in the front yard setback area to three feet regardless of fence material] for adoption to the City Council. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes and Kennedy; yes. Motion carries. C?~nc~r l~nnc~y init. c,~',:~c~ ~hc nzxt pu~olic l,~,a-~rff~ b. Pursuant to State of Washington Growth Management~C~'r,, as detailed in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Section 36.70A.03~5~T~e public .heatings before the Plarming Commission and later, before th~,.C::~ Co_.uncil, prov. i.de an. e. xplicit , opportunity for public reviewing potential revisions to the city s comprehensive plan. ~ Commissi~_ _oces. s ......... ~ublic hearing. She explain, th.e.n there, will be a.n opportunity for p~~t_ten.?sti,mony, can be accepted · She then noted for the record, that Commissioner Buckineham had arrived. Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 2 of 7 24