Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/99 AGENDA5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 22, 1999 PRE-COUNCIL SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. · General Council Business CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. · Pledge of Allegiance · Invocation CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the request of a Council member. A. Minutes of Meeting - September 15, 1999 #AB99-191 CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT LEGISLATIVE REPORT PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS -' A. Confirmation of Shirley M. Wise as the Bremerton- Kitsap County DUI Task Force Program Manager Bid Award for Anderson Cove Basin Storm Drainage Separation C. SR304 Transportation Improvement Project Bid Award For Building, t, Demolition No. 2 ORDINANCES A. Ordinance (First Reading)Amending Chapter 2.04.010 Of the Bremerton Municipal Code #AB99-192 ~ #AB99-193 I.,~ #AB99-194 / ~ #AB99-195 ,,,,~,..,~ PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M, or later A. Public Hearing for Determination of Non-Conforming Use Sign Shop at 1533 Shorewood Drive (Quasi-Judicial) #AB99-189 25 12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING AGE~DA BILL BRE.~LERTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR MEETING -- SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 FOR AGENDA OF: ORiGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: SEPTEMBER 22, 1999 CITY COUNCIL MIKE SHEPHERD, PRESIDENT SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 o (comment on back if necessary) ENDORSEMENT MAYOR INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. $~RY STATEME.~NT A2~D REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: 8. R~CO~I~_ENDATION: RESPONSiB-~z~ OFFICIAL: ENFORCE~.~ENT OFFICIAL: EXPI~TiON DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: !0. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~-MENDED DATE: !1. AGENDA BILL NO: TAPE #1647 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 15, 1999 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, September 15, 1999, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Mike Shepherd presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carol Arends, David Farr, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member Carlos Montgomery was absent. Also present were City Attorney Glenna Malanca, Deputy Clerk Paula Johnston, and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Shepherd, and invocation given by former Council member Al Colvin. Council President Shepherd made the following announcements: (1) City Council held a Study Session prior to the meeting to discuss general Council business. City Council convened to the Council Conference room for a 15-minute Executive Session to discuss "Real Estate Acquisition", per Chapter 42.30. 110(1)(b); and returned to continue the City Council meeting at 5:50 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - September 8, 1999 #AB99-184 #0027 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0053 M/S/C/U (Arends/Farr) On September 15, 1999, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 234375 through 234542 in the amount of $257,967.78. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS John Law announced the next monthly District 3 meeting will be held Tuesday, September 21, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. at the Senior Center on E. 13th & Nipsic. Citizens will have an opportunity to hear a presentation on the "Manette Neighborhood Plan", with Cindy Stahl, the City's contracted Planner. Lon Overson attended the Grand Opening Gala for the new Port Orchard City Hall last Friday evening, which he noted, was beautifully designed by local architect, Eric Anderson, of Art Anderson & Associates. He also attended the Rededication Ceremony for Evergreen Park on Saturday, and thanked Cecil McConnell for his assistance in cooking and serving over 200 hot dogs! David Farr stated the thoughts of the Council were with Carlos Montgomery, who could not attend the meeting tonight due to the illness of his wife, Delores. Mr. Farr reported that Bremerton was well represented at a Summit held recently in Port Orchard, which was facilitated by the Economic Development Council. Five of the area's nine Legislatures were also in attendance, and he believes they are now well aware of the City's concerns. He further stated the top issues affecting the economy of the West Sound were discussed, including the ferries and transportation, telecommunications, infrastructure, policy issues, and endangered species. ;L TAPE #1647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 15, 1999 Page 2 of 6 Carol Arends attended the Economic Development Council Summit, and echoed the comments of Councilman Fart. She felt it was a worthwhile meeting, and was pleased to see a lot of major issues important to the City brought out and discussed. She also attended the Evergreen Park Rededication event, which she thoroughly enjoyed. As the representative for District #7 she commented on the progress being made with the Gateway project and additional business in the Callow Business District President Shepherd reported in further detail on the Rededication of Evergreen Park, which he described as a phenomenal success. He was happy to see the number of families who turned out to enjoy themselves, and offered thanks to all those who contributed goods and services. He reported that he too attended the Economic Development Council Summit, and felt it was a remarkable step forward. Mr. Law felt it was important to note that, at the Summit, the Legislatures made a commitment to the City to form a coalition with Legislatures from other Counties affected by ferry service to join efforts in working on this important issue. President Shepherd announced the Constitution Day Luncheon to be held this Saturday afternoon, and the Habitat for Humanity Dinner & Auction to be held Saturday evening at the Admiral Theater. In conclusion, he offered his condolences to the family of Bud Moen. MAYORS REPORT Mayor Horton reported members from the Loftus family, who contributed property for the Evergreen Park expansion, were here from California, and were able to attend the Evergreen Park celebration. She thanked the organizers of the event. She concluded by providing an update on plans for rehabilitating KPS. Mr. Farr thanked Mayor Horton for all her efforts in this endeavor. LEGISLATIVE REPORT- There was no report this evening. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Gordy Byrd reported on his attempt to follow through on his walkathon. He questioned the lack of curb cuts at 11th Street & Cogean Blvd. and 11th & McKenzie; and also questioned why the main post office in Bremerton was not handicap accessible. Don Larson thanked the City for the celebration at Evergreen Park last Saturday. He announced various activities as part of "Washington Water Weeks", and stated citizens can call 1-800-RECYCLE for additional information. He again encouraged the City to develop an underwater park. Jeff Flood, representing the Martin Luther King Memorial Scholarship Fund, invited the Council and the public to attend the Constitution Day Luncheon this Saturday, September 18, beginning at 12:30 P.M., at the Kitsap Golf & Country Club. The distinguished guests will be the Tuskegee Airmen from W'W;[[, who will share stories of their experiences. Citizens may call 874-2259 for more information. John Becker asked why citizens could not speak at City Council Study Sessions. He wanted to know if the entire Council packet with details of each Agenda Item could also be included on the City web site, along with the Council Agenda and Minutes. Susan Brown handed out flyers from the Parent Educators Network, announcing another conference at Bremerton High School on Friday, October 8, 1999, offering training for working with children affected by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, along with the annual Youth Access Fair. She asked that people keep their minds open and remember that ferry issue is not just an economical issue. TAPE #1647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 15, 1999 Page 3 of 6 President Shepherd noted that in order to meet the 6:00 estimated time for the start of the Public Hearing, Item IOA would be moved ahead of the schedule and be heard at this time... 10A- PUBLIC HEARING FOR DETERMINATION OF NON-CONFORMING USE SIGN S_HOP AT 1533 SHOREWOOD DRIVE, #AB99-189 President Shepherd announced this was a Quasi-Judicial issue, and asked if any Council Member believed their participation would conflict with the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine", and if they should be excused. President Shepherd then asked members of the public if they believed any Council members should excuse themselves due to a conflict with the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". All Council members remained seated. Jon Holan, Planning Manager, requested City Council to continue this scheduled public hearing until September 22, 1999 in order that additional information may be gathered regarding the subject use. There were no questions or comments from the public. #1140 M/S/C (Farr/Arends) Motion to continue the public hearing to September 22, 1999. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In favor: Abstain: Overson, Fart, Arends, Olsen, McConnell, Law, Shepherd Reed President Shepherd reminded the Council members that this was a continued hearing, and the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine" would remain in effect during the continuance. 10B - PUBLIC HEARING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR LESS INTENSIVE NON- CONFORMING PREVIOUS USE; APPLICANT: PAUL A, SALVAGE, JR,; LOCATION: 1502 THOMPSON DRIVE, #AB99-190 President Shepherd announced this was a Quasi-Judicial issue, and asked if any Council Member believed their participation would conflict with the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine", and if they should be excused. President Shepherd then asked members of the public if they believed any Council members should excuse themselves due to a conflict with the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". All Council members remained seated. Jori Holan, Planning Manager, stated Mr. Salvage was requesting a Special Use Permit in order to operate a bus sales lot on a site located at 1502 Thompson Drive, and provided the staff report, with brief history of the site. He further stated that on August 17, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit, with a minor change in days of operation of Monday through Saturday from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., instead of Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. The additional day would be used for paperwork in the office. As a Non- Administrative Special Use Permit is processed as a Type II! Application, final approval is required by the City Council. Paul A. Salvage, Sr. spoke on behalf of his son, and addressed the concerns of the Council. He explained that 95% of their sales will not actually be done at this location, and the site will mainly be used for storage. He assured the Council that only new vehicles would be stored on this site, other than an occasional trade-in. Mr. Holan stated a condition was added to identify a route for the busses to minimize impact on the residential area. TAPE #1647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 15, 1999 Page 4 of 6 There were no questions or comments from the public. #1518 M/S/C/U (Arends/McConnell) Motion to approve the operation of a bus sales/storage lot as it is less intensive as the previous non-conforming use. 9A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER DAVID ROVANG, #AB99-185 Kathleen McCluskey, Administrative Services Director, reported the proposed contract is for a three- year period commencing January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002. The contract amount of $8,555 per month is the same as 1999. Mr. Rovang has provided the services since 1994. The contract history is attached, as well as a survey of amounts paid by other cities and district court. John Becker questioned why the City did not try to obtain competitive bids, or preference for a local professional. Ms. McCluskey stated if qualified staff is not used, it could end up costing the City more in the long run. In the past, the City did look for other proposals, and there were no takers. She provided information to show Bremerton is paying comparable fees per case. Mr. Law stated the Council spent time asking detailed questions when this item was brought before the Operations Committee, and although a professional could have been found for less money, it may not have been good professional service, which he reiterated could end up costing the City more. Mr. Reed stated quality is "priceless". Mrs. Arends added that the Fiscal & Budget Committee also addressed this item thoroughly, and concurred with the Administration's decision. #1898 M/S/C (Arends/OIsen) Motion to approve Professional Services Agreement for legal representation for indigent persons. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In favor: Abstain: Law, Overson, Arends, Reed, OIsen, McConnell, Shepherd Farr 9B - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS GROUP, #AB99-186 Kathleen McCluskey, Administrative Services Director, reported the City's franchise with Puget Sound Energy expires December 31, 1999. Due to the potential effect of ongoing deregulation efforts, lack of competitive electric rates and concerns regarding reliability of power, the City has joined with a group of cities to engage in investigation jointly. The attached interlocal agreement brings together four cities to investigate issues related to electric power franchises, deregulation, negotiations and possible services alternatives. Each city will contribute $5,000 to defray the cost of consulting services. There were no questions or comments from the public. Mr. Farr asked if there was an option to offer reduced power rates for Iow-income residents? Ms. McCluskey responded it was her understanding that there was no option, because the WUTC sets power rates, and the City can only lobby and raise objections to proposed rates at WUTC public hearings. She further explained that tariffs affect the rates, which are passed "fast and furiously", and the City is not always informed of them. TAPE #1647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 15, 1999 Page 5 of 6 President Shepherd asked if the opportunity to participate was offered to other nearby cities. Ms. McCluskey stated she did not offer, and was unaware if Port Townsend did, but offered to look into this issue further. She believes that cities with franchises that were about to expire were targeted. #2180 M/S/C/U (Overson/McConnell) Motion to approve Interlocal Agreement with the cities of Olympia, Bainbridge Island, and Port Townsend to investigate issues related to electric power franchises and contribute up to $5,000 towards consulting costs. 9C - INTERDEPARTMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY AT GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX, #AB99-187 Gene Sampley, Public Works & Utilities Director, reported the present contract for irrigation water service at the City's Gold Mountain Golf Complex expires in December of this year. The proposed agreement has been prepared by staff to replace the expiring contract and to convert the basis of the agreement from a purchase/sale of surplus to that of an interruptible water supply contract. The pricing in the agreement is derived from the water utility's most recent rate study and from an analysis of the golf course water storage capacity irrigation requirements. He stated this Interdepartmental Agreement was negotiated earlier this year, and it is a 10-year agreement, effective January 1,2000. There were no questions or comments from the public. Mr. Reed asked what formula was used to determine the rate. Mr. Sampley responded whatever the increase would be to the other consumers (residential and commercial rate users), that percentage would be applied to the City. #2432 M/S/C/U (FardMcConnell) Motion to approve the Interdepartmental Agreement for Irrigation Water Supply. 9D - CONTRACT AWARD FOR SEWAGE PUMP STATION CW-2 1999 MODIFICATIONS, #AB99- 188 Gene Sampley, Public Works & Utilities Director, reported that Pump Station CW-2 requires modification as part of the City's Anderson Cove CSO Reduction Facility Plan, approved by the Department of Ecology. These modifications will result in rehabilitation of the pump station to increase its pumping capacity more than 300 percent. Bids for construction of these improvements were opened on September 14, 1999. The Engineer's estimate is $400,000. A total of 3 bids were received. Pease & Sons, Inc., submitted the lowest bid of $323,732.00, and Pacific Crest Construction, Inc. submitted the second lowest bid of $332,129.77 (All bids include applicable tax). The recommended action before the City Council is award of the contract with Pease & Sons, Inc. for construction of Sewage Pump Station CW-2 for $323,732.00, and in the event that Pease & Sons, Inc. does not enter into the contract, that the City Council award a contract to Pacific Crest Construction, Inc. for $332,129.77 for construction of the same project. This project must be completed by year-end, which is why two contract bids are being presented. He clarified that the money for this project was in the current budget. There were no questions or comments from the public. TAPE #1647 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 15, 1999 Page 6 of 6 #2666 M/S/C/U (FardMcConnell) Motion to award contract for $323,732.00 (including taxes) to Pease & Sons, Inc., the lowest and best bid, for construction of Sewage Pump Station CW-2 and in the event that Pease & Sons, Inc. does not enter into the contract, award a contract to Pacific Crest Construction, Inc., the second lowest bidder, for $332,129.77 (including taxes) for the same project; and authorize the Mayor to execute the same in accordance with City policies and procedures. With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:05 P.M. MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President City of Bremerton P J/MS/Is C: Normal Distribution File PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Bremerton-Kitsap County DUI Task Force Program Manager FOR AGENDA OF: 09J,~/99 ORIGINATING DEPT: Police ORIGINATOR: Chief Rob Forbes DATE SUBMITTED: 09/14/99 2. CLEARANCES: ,~mment on back 3. EXHIBITS: ~ecessary) Treasurer ~ ~...~,~ . _~.~__._.~ Employment contract for Shidey M. Wise Budget & Fisca, Comm . Operations Com m~~'"~,,,~,~~- Chief of Police~ City Attorney ' 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: On September 1, 1999, Lynn Drake resigned as the Bremerton Kitsap County DUI Task Force Program Manager. Shirley M. Wise is Ms. Drake's replacement, commencing September 16, 1999, with your approval. Under Ms. Wise's authority, the Task Force will continue to function at its present capacity providing support to the City of Bremerton by means of law enforcement, revenue, and education. Current contract with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission expires June 30, 2001. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the employment contract and request to hire Shirley M. Wise RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Chief Robert Forbes Chief Robert Forbes PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: DISAPPROVED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: AMENDED 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (Continued): 4. SUMMARY SATEMENT (Continued): 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: There will be no DUI Task Force Program Manager for Bremerton and Kitsap County. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, OR OTHER RESOURCES: There is no impact. The funding has been included in the 1999-2000 budget. Vacancy is filled at the same salary previously established. RESEARCH RESOURCES: N/A EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT TRAFFIC SAFETY COORDINATOR This Employment Contract is entered into this 16TM day of September, 1999, by and between the CITY OF BREMERTON, a chartered first class municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Shirley Wise, (hereinafter referred to as "Traffic Safety Coordinator"). In consideration of the mutual benefits and promises herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES: professional services as defined in the job incorporated as a part of this Agreement as Exhibit "A". 2. SUPERVISION: The parties understand and Coordinator is an individual skilled in traffic safety program The Traffic Safety Coordinator agrees to furnish description for same which is attached and hereby agree that the Traffic Safety management and can perform independent functions and responsibilities in the exercise of her particular field of expertise. Within the performance of these duties, the Traffic Safety Coordinator shall work under the direction of the Chief of Police. 3. TERM: The Traffic Safety Coordinator shall serve at the pleasure of the City of Bremerton, commencing September 16, 1999 and ending June 30, 2001, unless terminated earlier under Section Seven and subject to Section Six. 4. COMPENSATION: That gross compensation for services rendered under this Agreement shall be Thirty-One Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($31,200.00) annually. Said salary shall be paid on the City's regular payroll system. It is expressly understood by and between the parties that the Traffic Safety Coordinator shall be expected to work at least forty (40) hours per week, inclusive of vacations, sick leave, and holidays. 5. BENEFITS: Holidays: New Year's Day Martin Luther King's Birthday President' s Day Memorial Day Veteran' s Day Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving Christmas Day EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT -1- lO Independence Day Labor Day One Floating Holiday B. Vacation Accrual. Fifteen (15) days accrued vacation. Unused earned vacation will be paid to the employee upon separation. No more than forty (40) hours shall be carried over at the end of the contract term. C. Sick Leave Accrual. (1) Rate. Sick leave is accrued at the rate of twelve (12) full days per year and is proportionately credited to sick leave balances each pay period. (2) Sick leave shall not be carried forward at the end of the contract term. There shall be no payout for unused sick leave. D. Bereavement Leave. Three (3) days of bereavement leave are allowed for attending funerals in the State of Washington and five (5) days for attending out of state funerals upon the death of a member of the immediate family. Immediate family is defined as spouse, child, stepchild, mother, father, step-parents, mother/father in-law, brother, sister, brother/sister in-law, grandparents and grandchildren of both an employee and his or her spouse. Bereavement leave may be charged to unused sick leave, vacation times or may be taken as unpaid leave by the employee. E. Jury_ Duty, Witness Leave. Leave of absence with pay for the purpose of reporting to Jury Duty or if subpoenaed as a witness for the City is provided. Any juror or witness fees received by a person for the performance of such duties shall be assigned to the City. F. Medical and Dental Insurance Benefits. Benefits are set at 100% for the employee only. 6. FUNDING AGREEMENT: The City of Bremerton and Washington Traffic Safety Commission have established a partnership for the provision of Traffic Safety Coordinator. The Funding Agreement is effective from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2001 and the Governmental Services Agreement is effective from to July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2001. 7. TERMINATION OF SERVICES: The Traffic Safety Coordinator is an "at will" employee and the City may terminate Traffic Safety Coordinator without cause, at any time, with thirty (30) days notice required except for expiration per Section Three of this Agreement. In the event that the Traffic Safety Coordinator shall terminate her employment with the City, Traffic Safety Coordinator agrees that she shall provide the City not less than thirty (30) days prior notice of the EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT -2- effective date of said termination in order to afford the City a reasonable opportunity to find a replacement. The parties further agree that in the event a replacement is found who is able to commence employment prior to the expiration of thirty (30) days notice, that they may, in good faith, negotiate an earlier termination date. This Agreement may be terminated for cause, without notice and no severance pay shall be paid. "Cause" is defined as any reason for which a regular employee may be dismissed under the Bremerton Civil Service Rules. 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and both parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been fully set forth in the text of this Agreement. B. The parties hereby further agree that this Agreement cannot be amended or modified without the written concurrence of both parties. C. Any notices required to be given following parties at the following addresses: City Clerk 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA. 98337 shall be in writing and delivered to the Shirley Wise Bremerton Police Department 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA. 98337 CITY OF BREMERTON LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: SHIRLEY WISE ROBERT FORBES, Police Chief APPROVED AS TO FORM: GLENNA MALANCA, City Attorney RECEIVED FOR FILING: KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT -3- CITY OF BREMERTON CONTRACT POSITION DESCRIPTION Job Title: D-U1/Traffic Safety Program Manager GENERAL FUNCTION Performs specialized duties which require a comprehensive knowledge of traffic safety laws and issues, law enforcement procedures, community resources and other traffic safety practices, pro- grams and procedures. Coordinates the activities of county wide DUI enforcement efforts and may supervise the work of' clerical employees and volunteers as authorized. EXAMPLE OF JOB DUTIES 1. Perform duties as assigned staffto the Bremerton-Kitsap County DUI Task Force and coordinate county-wide DUI enforcement patrols with the assistance of an interagency law enforcement steer- ing committee. 2. Coordinate traffic law enforcement training with county law enforcement and other criminal justice related agencies. 3. Work closely with the general public, the military, schools and community organizations to con- duct educational seminars and provide information relating to DUI/traffic safety issues. 4. Attend and participate in various county-wide community substance abuse prevention and police related events. 5. Schedule and arrange various meetings, programs and events for the purpose of promoting traffic safety and DUI education efforts. 6. Write, proofread and distribute forms, correspondence, reports, memoranda, press releases and information using standard office equipment to include computer, typewriter, photocopier and other equipment. 7. Receive and direct telephone calls, visitors, correspondence, reports and other records as re- quired. 8. Maintain various records, reports and statistics relating to traffic safety and disseminates the information to appropriate local, county and state law enforcement agencies, governing bodies and other interested parties. 9. Provide assistance to law enforcement agencies in the seeking, writing and management of vari- ous grants and funding sources related to traffic safety. 10. Travel to various county and instate locations will be required for the purposes of training, education, seminar/conference attendance. 11. Oversee work activity of clerical staff and volunteers as may be required. 12. Nontraditional work hours and/or schedule flexibility is required based on the program needs and departmental requirements. 13. Perform other duties as may be required by the Police Department, the Community Resource Division, and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. WORKING CONDITIONS Work is performed both in an office environment and in various other locations throughout the region. DESIRABLE SK'ILLS~ KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES Knowledge of DUI/Traffic Laws and related traffic safety issues. Ability to communicate effectively and conduct public presentations to large and culturally diverse groups. Knowledge of local, State and Federal resources related to traffic safety issues. Knowledge of the Criminal Justice Systems and their interconnection relating to traffic safety. Ability to maintain administrative records, statistics, financial data and reports. Ability to work independently and make appropriate decisions regarding work methods, priorities and methodology. Ability to travel and meet both local and instate commitments with reasonable accommodation. Ability to maintain liaison with local interested agencies and the State Traffic Safety Commission. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE 2 year college degree in Criminal Justice or a related field and/or equivalent experience and training demonstrating progressively responsible experience. Demonstrated knowledge of traffic safety laws and issues or a combination of education and experience which provides the applicant with the desired knowledge, skills and abilities to perform the job. - AGENDA BILL - BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ANDERSON COVE BASIN STORM DRAINAGE SEPARATION: BID AWARD FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: 2. _CLEARANCES: (comment on ba~/~f ne~(,~/~ 3. Director, Public Works/Utilities //~ ~'f ~ax-/5,' City A~omey , ...~7~ ~~ Ci~ Tre~er ~~ P~ch~ing Agent . . ~ Co~cil Budget & Fin~ce Co~i~ee 9/21/99 ~ Operations Co~i~ee 9 / 22 / 99 TION ENDORSEMENT MAYOR~ September 22, 1999 PW&U Engineering Div. Randy Witt, City Engineer/~ September 7, 1999 EXHIBITS A. Bid Tabulation (13 i d s w i ] ! B. Location Map 5/20/95) be opened APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRF_~fl~_E AL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Anderson Cove Basin Snyder and Ohio Avenue Sewers project is part of the City's Anderson Cove CSO Reduction Facility Plan approved by the Department of Ecology. This project will separate stormwater from combined sewers and minimize the impacts of stormwater to the sanitary sewage conveyance system. Bids for construction of these improvements were opened on September 20, 1999. The Engineer's estimate is $500,000. A total of /0 bids were received. ~.D,..~'. ~-ort$~4q'o~q submitted the lowest bid of $ (94(,:5o3.15 , and 0150~ 8r'o..,e. submitted the second lowest bid of $ /a O 7; /~ (o. oO (All bids include applicable tax). (Continued on Page 2) 8. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council award a contract for $ ~ '~'~'t 503. I~' (including taxes) to'~.]:).21c'. CortsqFc~c'-~rl the lowest and best bid, for construction of Anderson Cove Basin Snyder and Ohio Avenue Sewers and, in the event that 2>.~.~. ~,%-{rvc-bi, t{does not enter into the contract, award a contract to O[Se_~ ~r~o.~. , the second lowest bidder, for $ ~, ~1'7; 1~ (a, oo (including taxes) for the same project and authorize the Mayor to execute the same in accordance with City policies and procedures. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: City Engineer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED 15 DISAPPROVEDDATE:AMEND~ 11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~-- I i~ 3 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT - Continued: The recommended action before the City Council is award of a contract with 2>. D..~-- Ct>r~ ~7t-. for construction of Anderson Cove Basin Snyder and Ohio Avenue Sewers, for $ ~q-6,! .5'0,7,/~' and, in the event that E), D.::E', C_..,x.vq-. does not enter into the contract, that the City Council award a contract to 015¢t4 ~r, og. for$ dvg'7,, /~'~.oo , for construction ofthe same project. 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Completion of the Anderson Cove Basin Snyder and Ohio Avenue Sewers will be delayed beyond the December 31, 1999 deadline mandated by the PSA consent decree. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Staffing: No impact. City staff have been allocated for the construction inspection. Budget: No impact. This project is included in the 1999 budget. Facilities/Equipment: No impact. administration and 7. RESEARCH SOURCES SNYDER AVEN OHIO AVENUE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AREAS PROJECT SITE MAP N.T.S. 1'7 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: SR 304 TRANSPORTATION IMPROV. FOR AGENDA OF: September 22, 1999 PROJECT - BUILDING DEMO. NO. 2 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Work,~,&~t/ils BID AWARD ORIGINATOR: R. Witt, City Eng. DATE SUBMITTED: August 14, 1999 2. CLEp~RAN~ ~,~%mment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ,- //~'- /~r'7.w"~.. _..~" 1. BID TABULATION ~)i~t~o~u~blic x~~_/t~ities ' cqty'T - City Treasur~o~~~ ~~e~: t~' ENDORSEMENT~NFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDFfl~T FO ~<SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Bids were opened for the SR 304 Transportation Improvement Project, Building Demolition No. 2 contract on September 13, 1999. This is the second building demolition contract for structures located within the SR304 Transportation Improvement Project. This contract is to remove the structures located at 421 & 337 South Cambrian and 2807 Rodgers. 11 bids for this project were received. Wm. Dickson Co. was the lowest responsive bidder with a bid of $145,699.96. The engineer's estimate for this project was $144,664.00. The action before the City Council is approval of a contract with Wm. Dickson Co. for the SR304 Transportation Improvement Project - Building Demolition No. 2 contract. 8. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve award of the bid of $145,699.96 with Wm. Dickson Co. for the SR 304 Transportation Improvement Project - Building Demolition No. 2 contract and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. PULLED [l TABLED [l COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED [1 DISAPPROVED [1 AMENDED [1 "-I ~-(OVER) 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: qc 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 3. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Funding by the State and Federal agencies used for the design of this project will have to be returned. The project will not be built and existing traffic capacity safety issues will remain. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: · Staffing: 100 staff hours for construction administration, inspection. Budget: This project is included in the 1999 budget as part of the 1999 Arterial Street fund and sufficient funds exists to do this work with the additional funding the City will receive from other funding sources. The City will be receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration and the State Transportation Improvement Board. Facilities/Equipment: No impact. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: CITY OF BREMERTON BID TABULATION DATE OPENED: ,,, ~/7 17 r ~ q TIME OPENED: OPENED BY RECORDED BY BIDDER aEc'o ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 NET BID TAX TOTAL . I , , I 9 ~y.,~oa~al , ~2,331.~ ~h~~,., /.. ,,c5 ¢,C.~o *~'5¢~ ... ,,, %z,u. oo , . . . t~¢~..-.f~ ..... .,5,~7.o, ~,,ro.;/. . SUMM~RY TOTAL BID [ COMMENTS .. , .... ...... Ld Q_ CiTY OF BREMERTON BID TABULATION J OPENED BY ~ DATE OPENED: .TIME OPENED: RECORDED BY_ BIDDER p.~c'D ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 NET BID TAX TOTAL SUMMARY TOTAl.. BID :l COMMENTS AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Emergency. Purchase for Generator Repair FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: September 22. 1997 Public Works & Utilities J. Poppe, W/W Manager September 21. 1997 2. CLEARANCES: (Co,,,,,,enton~~.)~ Director PW&U "~ ~.- ~ 3. EXHIBITS: City Treasurer Purchasing Manager Operations Committee Fiscal & Budget Comm. ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION __ .4. APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Emergent Switch Gear on the generator at Pump Station CE-1 failed leaving the station without emergency, power as required by. both Federal and State Regulations. Purchase of the equipment to repair the generator and restore the ab'flity to provide emergency power is necessary, to brh-~ the station back into compliance. Preliminary. reports indicate the estimated cost of repairs mav be up to $30.000. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That the Cky Council approve the Emergency Purchase of Switch Gear for the Generator at Pmnp Station CE-t in an amount up to S30,000. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL Ordinance (First Reading) Amending Chapter 2.04.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (B.M.C.) FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: September 22, 1999 CITY COUNCIL Cecil McConnell September 3, 1999 2. ~: (com/~ent on back 3. EXHIBITS: ~/ i f~ ne.cessary) Operations Committee _ ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Council is asked to consider an ordinance defining the content items of the regular City Council business meetings. o RE COI~D~?ENDAT I ON: Motion to approve ordinance on first reading, amending Chapter 2.04.010 of the B.M.C. Motion to pass Ordinance No. on second reading, amending Chapter 2.04.010 of the B.M.C. o RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. APPROVED 11. NOTICE OF ACTION DISAPPROVED DATE: AGENDA BILL NO: AMENDED 10A 1'15 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment. Section 2.04.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: 2.04.010 TIME AND PLACE. The time and place of the regular meeting of the City Council required by Charter shall be each Wednesday at five-thirty p.m. at the Council Chambers, City Hall, Bremerton, Washington, Provided, however, If such meeting day falls upon a legal holiday, upon the same day that either a primary or general election is held, or as approved by majority of the Council, then such regular meeting shall be rescheduled during the same week following procedures for setting a special meeting. COU~c~lb~siness'-~ng shall: COnsist: ~:f~~ 17::: ~::.cal!.to or~r (Flag Sal.te and Invocation) 5. : i M~S:.RePort 8~ !:!::!?::ii~iJ~ih~'r:'dinan~s and VOte thereon 9. :: 'IntrOductiOn and Fi~t Reading of Ordinances ;i01~' -i' Readi~ a'~d::vote upon ReSOlutiOn Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of 1999. 1999. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of MICHAEL SHEPHERD, Council President APPROVED this day of ,199. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CrFY COUNCIL 1. S .UILJECT: Public Hearing Determination of Nonconforming Use sign shop at 1533 Shorewood Drive. 22 FOR AGENDA OF: 9-J~1999 ORIGINATIN DEe .: ORIGINATOR: Jon.Holan ~,~7~ ,~ DATE SUBMITTED. 9-9-99~/ 2. CLEARANCES.' (Coming/it_ on back if...~ 3. EXHIBITS: necessary) D'~~ Comm. Dev. CC Resolution # City Clerk: ~ Notice of Public Hearing City Attorney;: / ~ Staff Report with Relevant Attachments ENDORSEMENT/~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR~ ~. ~ -- COUNCILPRES1DENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: On July 14, 1999 City Council held a public hearing to consider the Special Use Permit application of Jonathan Chang to change an existing nonconforming use sign shop to auto repair use at 1533 Shorewood Drive. City Council denied the application. During the hearing, testimony was received which raised concerns whether the sign shop met the legal nonconforming use criteria as defined by BMC 21.02.790 Nonconforming Uses. Subsection (g) Discontinuation ora Nonconforming Use. Based on the situation, a public hearing is scheduled to take testimony on this issue. RECOMMENDATION: Based on testimony and clear and convincing evidence received at the hearing, the Council has three options: 1) If the Council finds the s.:ign shop uso)has.been discont~uued for a period of one year or more, then the determination is the sign shop is an illegal use, and all sign shop activities 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: must cease; ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: 2) If Council can not make the EXPIRATION DAll~: N/A 0a 3) finding, then the sign shop is a legal, nonconforming use and is al lowed REVIEW DATE:N/A 7. NOTICE OF ACTION Council may continue the hearing for PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 25 9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: 11. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMF. NT OR OTI~E~R I~E~OURCES- 12. RESEARCH SOURCES: Zoning Ordinance File Determination of Nonconforming Use Bremerton City Council September 22, 1999 Property: 1533 Shorewood Drive Property Owner: Jonathan Chang Consideration: Review of the nonconforming use status of a sign shop to determine if a prior, nonconforming use exists on the property. ATTACHED DOCUMENTS Memo dated September 15, 1999 from Knute Rife to Jon Holan Copy of BMC Section 21.02.790 Minutes from July 14, 1999 Public Hearing for SLIP Application for Jonathan Chang. Staff Report for SUP for Jonathan Chang. Public Notice of Review. BACKGROUND On July 14, 1999 City Council held a public heating to consider the Special Use Permit application of Jonathan Chang to change an existing nonconforming use sign shop to auto repair use at 1533 Shorewood Drive. City Council denied the application. During the heating, testimony was received which raised concerns whether the sign shop met the legal nonconforming use criteria as defined by Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Section 21.02.790 Nonconforming Uses (see attached). However, the purpose of the July 14 hearing was to act on the Special Use Permit and not consider the issue of the status of the nonconforming use. Further, according to the Assistant City Attorney (see memo), the Council must decide on this issue since the City Code does not delegate the task to another entity. Thus, a public hearing is scheduled to take testimony on the nonconforming use issue. SUMMARY During the course of the Special Use Permit application process, staff'had determined that the sign shop was a legal nonconforming use. This determination was based on the past issuance of business licenses for a sign shop on the subject property and the issuance earlier this year of a fire inspection report indicating that there had been no apparent change in use of the facility. Case law suggests that issued licenses or paid taxes or fees are not absolute proof as to the establishment of a legal nonconforming use. As a result, other evidence may be considered in making any determination regarding the status of a nonconforming use. Thus, the purpose of this hearing is to consider additional evidence to help determine whether the sign shop has been discontinued or abandon consistent with the requirements of BMC 21.02.790 (g) (see below). 1 STAFF ANALYSIS BMC Requirements: Determining the status of the nonconforming sign shop use requires the review of several factors to determine whether or not the use has continued or been abandoned. The zoning code states in part in BMC 21.02.790 (g) that: "The discontinuation ora nonconforming use is defined as its cessation or terminatior~ The replacement ora nonconforming use by another use shall be considered a discontinuation of that use. The discontinuation of a nonconforming use for a period of om year or longer, or a change of the nonconforming use to a conforming use. shall constitute termination of the nonconforming status of the use." Other Relevant Legal Issues: The September 15 memo f~om the Assistant City Attorney summarizes various relevant legal issues for the City Council to consider in making its determination on the continuation of the sign shop use. These issues are as follows: Burden of Proof: According to one court case (Van Sant vs. Everett), the party alleging the abandonment has the burden of providing it. Thus, the City has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a discontinuance of the sign shop use for a period of one year or more has occurred. Intent: The Van Sant case also indicates that there must be a demonstration of intent by the owner to abandon the use. In order words, under this case the City would have to demonstrate that the current or prior owners were intending to abandon the sign shop use, which is a subjective determination. However, the Court found in another case (Jung Pi Choi vs. City of Fife) that local jurisdictions may expand the methods by which prior, nonconforming uses may be terminated. Thus, in the Choi case, the Court has shown that the property owner may cause abandonment in other than an intended, overt act. On the basis of this case the City Council needs to determine that abandonment or discontinuance has occurred based on objective evidence received at the heating rather than trying to determine the intent of the property owner. This is the standard recommended by the Assistant City Attorney. Definition of "Discontinuation": There is no definition of "discontinuation" or "abandonment" in the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC). Pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.070, undefined terms shall have there normal and customary meanings. Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary defines "discontinue" as "to break the continuity of, cease to operate, administer, use, produce, or take." Taking this definition together with the issue of intent, whether there has been a "discontinuation" would appear to depend not on the subjective intent of the owner but rather on the objective, observable fact of whether the owner "ceased to use" the property for the required period. Evidence Needed to Make a Deternfination of Abandonment: There are three levds of burden of proof.' preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the City Attorney's Orifice, there has been no legal determination in Washington State which establishes the level of proof needed to determine abandonment of a nonconforming use. It is the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office that the usual level of proof is "clear and convincing" evidence. "Clear and convincing" means that the issue is highly probable. Based on the above discussion, the City Council needs to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence, measured objectively (as opposed to determining the subjective intent of the owner), ora discontinuation of the sign shop use for a period of one year or more. Conclusion: Staff believes that City Council must decide consistent with BMC 21.02.790 (g) that testimony and any other evidence given at the public hearing, support the determination that there has been a discontinuance of the sign shop for a period one year or longer. Based on the testimony received at the public hearing, the Council has three options: If the Council can make a finding that the sign shop use had been discontinued for a period of one year or more measured on an objective basis and based on clear and convincing evidence, then staff recommends the Council make a determination that the sign shop is an illegal use and that all sign shop activities cease. If the Council cannot make a finding that the sign shop had been discontinued, then staff recommends that the City Council make a determination that the sign shop is a legal, nonconforming use and is allowed to continue subject to the requirements of BMC 21.02.790 (g). The Council may also continue the matter to a specified date. 3 To: BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 22, 1999 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR DETERMINATION OF NON-COFORMING USE SIGHN SHOP AT 1533 SHOREWOOD DRIVE (QUASI-JUDICAL) FROM: LEE G. CRAWFORD 1536 SHOREWOOD DR. BREMERTON, WA 98312 PLFASE FIND ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS FOR YOUR CONCIDERATION. 1. GENERAL AFFIDAVIT BY LEE G. CRAWFORD. 2. LETER FROM DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 3. TELEPHONE LOG FROM BREMERTON BUSINESS LICENSE DIVISION. 4. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION DAVE BARCELON'S TRUCK TOWN SIGNS,LTD. 5. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TAX NUMBER DAVE BARCELONS TRUCK TOWN LTD. 6. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION FOR GUERRO'S SIGHN SHOP. 7. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TAX NUMBER FOR MR. CHANG DOING BUSINESS AS: ORI1RNTAL REMEDIES. 8. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TAX NUMBER FOR GUERRO AUTO SALES & SERVICE. ACCOUNT OPENED ON 01/15/99 9. BREMERTON POLICE REPORT DATE 6/6/99 10. BREMERTON POLICE REPORT DATE 6]27/99 IT IS MY OPPNION THAT WE THE NEIGHBORS HAVE GIVEN YOU THE CITY COUNCIL MORE THAN ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT THE SIGN SHOP USE HAS BEF. N DISCONTINUED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR OR MORE AND BY THE BMC THE SIGN SHOP IS AN ILLEGAL USE AND THAT ALL SIGN SHOP ACTIVITIES CEASE. LEE G. CRAWFORD 1536 SHOREWOOD DR. BREMERTON.WA 98312 mbmm/ilnm~W IMmm~ ~~CITY OIt B~N * :239 4th Struet · B~~, WA DEPSI'rMENT GT ECONOMIC AND CoMMmqlTY DrVILO~ Fd)l~r~ 24. 1999 DevJd ami Anl#h Bareelon "4'701 Keen Su~et "' 1 B4'eUUflo~ WA ~311 re:. t 533 SMe,wood I~iv., Mle # C99-047 ~'lr. mi Mrs Blrulofl: The Deplmnem of Ecoimmto md 8~ ~ I~ ~ ~ M~ ~ ~, ~M to ~b ~ ~i~, ~ t~ m~ ~ m bo ~ dlmi~ ~r a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ u~ ~b site ~st ~ ~ a ~ ~i~ ~h itt ~M~ in this ~ ~. ~ a~flo~ it ~ ~ ~ iht ~ o~ ~oin~s ~ve mov~ b be advised that a~tiviti# at this propeRy must oouo and desist by March 9, 1999 and renuln so until this issue is resolved. In order to oondnue the auto deudllns u a I~u lfltonN non. conforminsV ule, a Speola! Uso Permit would be neoesssry. To Allow this use ss & obnformin8 use, a rezone would be rucluirod. Applications for either a Special Uso Permit or s ref~ee my be obtained by oontaotin8 Jams Coomtm at the Planning Depaamem, (360) 478. . aulldln~ and Devetopment Spec~iif Yim Rad ,~otm Oueavo NOT ~~ UNTIL YOUR LI~N Il/ID ~~. _'~ ? .... -~- I I mi iii I I1!111 I I I II II I IIII II Wl~ Imm~ roms mmm mmmm ms imm~ ams 4~ mm eT ~m~ II II ,© ~m mmmm mm! lira. mmmm~ m mmmm I mt mmmm~ m mmmm ~ ~ mmm L mm mmm u~mmt mmm mmmmm ~ mlm,lmmJ~mm bi~,-. . I . ~JLII I I ~]l .il t [ Ill Il l(i'l ~ ~:' * BREMERTON POLICE DEPAR ~NT ~f'; .~,c~rr ~: 99-06645 n~o~ ~X~: 6/6/99 .......................... im, o.T [] , , . . . o~'~ ~ ~~' B~ ~ Vio~on S~y ~6~9 J3~ , ..~1 ~1 ~ ........... ~,'~ ........ , .... , , / " . ~....~. [: ~ ......... .... ~ ~ ~ ................... .~ ,.~. s O~~O, JO~NS .....[ .... w , ~ H ~,~ Br~m~n Poli~ ~'~ 5202 Beach Dr. Bremerton, WA 98312 September 21, 1999 Bremerton City Council 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 "RECEIVED. CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" Dear City Council Members: Regarding the property at 1533 Shorewood Drive, I submit the following testimony to be considered at the public hearing. We, Jack and Michelle Lanham, purchased our home across from the subject property in September of 1998. When viewing the property, we inquired about the structure, at 1533 Shorewood Drive, regarding its use and status as a residence. We were told that it could no longer operate as a business. The selling realtor informed us that the property was used as a sign shop prior to incorporation into the city limits, but that no business would be allowed to operate at the property in the future. In fact, he offered that this was the reason for the seller disposing of the property, (not being able to operate a commercial enterprise from the property). It was discussed that the structure could either be used for storage, or torn down for a new home. Concerned with the impact a commercial site would have on a residential neighborhood, we were comforted to know that such activities were not allowed to take place here, and thus decided to make our purchase. Upon moving into our home, we found the neighborhood quiet and comfortable. The building on Shorewood Drive remained for sale several months following our occupancy, during which time we witnessed no commercial activities taking place. One boat was stored in the outdoor cover, and the owners came by occasionally, moving stored materials. We wondered what would become of the structure, as it could not be used for commercial purposes. When the property sold, activity increased. First, materials were being moved away, which was not alarming as anyone would want to clean-up newly purchased real estate. Soon the activities intensified, reaching a disturbing level of noise, traffic, and unsightly materials. The activity was discouraging, as we had enjoyed our tenure in Bremerton, thus far. We were further displeased to find the realtor, who had told us no business could operate there, participating in activities with the new tenants. At times, the realtor even parked a very large boat and truck on our lawn, and across our neighbor's yard as well. We believe the property was vigorously misrepresented, and that parties involved do not behave according to their words. Any amount of leniency in conforming to zoning restrictions appear to be taken as license to operate beyond reasonable limits, by the parties in question. Therefore, the only justifiable option is to revoke all special privileges granted individuals and properties in this situation. We would like to know that our neighborhood will remain as it was when we purchased our home, and moved to Bremerton. Facing an unusual structure from our living room window is still more palatable than suffering the dangers and aggravations of a commercial business operating next door to my family. I thank the council for considering this issue. Since,r.,ely, //, Michelle C. Lanham OFFICI~ S~L TOBI SONNEIM NOT~Y ~-~A~ ~ My ~mml~ ~lms May 14, ~ OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 239 4th Street · Bremerton, Washington 98337 · (360) 478-5345 · FAX (360) 478-5161 · E-mail: legal@ci.bremerton.wa.us MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Knute Rife Re: Nonconforming use hearing Date: 22 September 1999 You may have noticed there is no recommended ruling offered by staff in this matter. That is due to two reasons: 1) DECD is an advocate this evening, actually presenting a case, and 2) the ruling will depend entirely on the facts presented at the hearing. As set out in my 15 September memorandum to Jon Holan, you will be determining whether the owners have discontinued the prior nonconforming use pursuant to BMC 21.02.790(g). To be discontinued, the use must have ceased for at least a year. The owner's intention to discontinue is not the issue; the fact of cessation of the use for over a year is. DECD has the burden of proving this. DECD will be relying on the testimony of neighbors to meet this burden. The neighbors may testify to a number of things, but for the purpose of ruling on this hearing, the relevant evidence will concern wh~ the owners used the property for and when. Bad behavior by the owners is not what is at issue. You must be provided testimony that the nonconforming use stopped for at least a year. DECD must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. "Clear and convincing" means that the evidence shows that it is highly probable that the use was discontinued. Equal Opportunity Employer indicated that the drainaee ditch in front of the property goes under the street and onto the beach .-Xt high tide. water covers this drainage pipe. She feds this has a large environmental impact Her photographs were taken from the t'ront living room window of her house. 5Ir. Doug Adams. 5200 Beach Drive. lives at the property adjacent to this site He believes that this will cause a lot more impact than the owner states. He purchased his home in November 1998. He had visited the area frequently before he purchased the home and noticed that it was a very, quiet neighborhood. In January 1999 it started getting a little noisier and more crowded. He would come home from work dunng his lunch break and find cars t?om this business parked in his t-'font yard If the use is already causing overflow into his property, he is afraid that any future use would only get worse Call to the Public - Neutral Comments Don Holt:z, 1542 Madrona Pt. Drive, commented that he had met with Harold Hanson (fbrmer owner of Hanson Sign Company) on Monday (5/17) to get clarification on the history of the property. The property, has been a sig, n company since 194l. Mr Hanson owned and operated that company since 1968. He had eight employees. Over the years, boats, cars, trailers, signs and other items were painted at this facility. Over the 58 years of business at this company, hundreds and hundreds of old signs, sign poles and other "junk" accumulated inside and outside of this buildino_. Mr Holtz t'ett that the neighbors would agree that it was a pigsty and a disgrace to the neighborhood One and a half years ago ¥1r Barcelon purchased this property with the adjoining r-entat houses that had little or no maintenance .-Uq:er the sign company was purchased, it took two men workm~ eiuht hours a day tbr two month--~an ur~ the propeffV-V[WB-ai--cei0fi aiso repiaced the old doors that had been reaciv ~.o fail offthe hinges. Mr. Barcelon realized that a sign business was not his :-'o-rs:~. He then bez~E 3h~if~fi2 cars. boats and other items. He 31~s9~icL m~w_ork_rk~etailed cars. a~an a race car s-h-6p out o-FrNs~I:-ac~Tiv''' [t ,,',as not uncommon t{TS~,~5-d~$~'n to the shot~ at midnight and to find Mr Barce~5)n-t~ning or repairing his race ,:ar Nit Barcelon decided he ,,,,'anted a brand new t'aciiitv and sold this property, to Dr. Chang. Dr. Chang owns numerous cars that he would like to restore. He has spent thousands of dollars on the building {electrical. plumbing, heating, sheetrock and roof repairs) to make it more presentable This property had been (or sale on two separate occasions rbr over a year. but none of the neighbors chose to purchase it. He does not think someone would have the finances to purchase this property and to be able to tear the building down and build a singie (armlv residence, because the neighboring properties sold in the upper $70,000 to lower 580,000 range Carrentlv there are no regulations on the s;gn shop Dr. Chang could operate his sign shop just as the Hanson's did with the huge boom trucks starting up outside at 6:30 in the morning to head out to the job site. unlimited employees, junk eveo'where, no restrictions on cars, trailers or anything else that might be getting a sign installed on it. He commented that there are rumors in the neighborhood that the complaints against this property are racially motivated. Mr. Holtz recommended that the City of Bremerton purchase this property, have the neighbors purchase this property, or approve the business license with conditions. If this property reverts back to a sign company, there will be no control over it Plannmgn t_'ommlssion Meeting 3.la., t8. 1999 Page 7 oll t OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 239 4th Street · Bremerton. Washington 98337 · (360) 478-5345 · FAX 1360) 478-5161 · E-mail: legal@ci.bremerton.wa, us MEMORANDUM To: Jon Holan From: Knute Rife Re: Chang property Date: 15 September 1999 In response to yesterday's e-mail and attached staff report, I am providing the following analysis: The City Council is reviewing this matter to determine if a prior, nonconforming use exists on the Chang property. Historically, there has been such a use, namely a sign shop. The issue before the Council is whether that use has been abandoned or otherwise discontinued. The Council is deciding this issue because nowhere in the City Code has this task been delegated to another entity, such as the Planning Commission or DECD. The following are the legal guidelines for reviewing the matter. A prior, nonconforming use may be terminated by abandonment. Abandonment consists of two elements: 1) intent to abandon and 2) an act or failure to act demonstrating that intent. The party alleging the abandonment has the burden of proving it. Van Sant vs. Everett, 69 Wn. App. 641,849 P.2d 1276 (Div. I 1993). In the present hearing, the City has the burden of proof. There are three levels of burden of proof: preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. No case, at least no Washington case, has established the level for this sort of proceeding. The last level is reserved for criminal proceedings and challenges to the constitutionality of legislative acts and so should not apply here. "Preponderance" is the typical level for civil actions, but in actions that trigger procedural due process (that seek to deprive life, liberty, or property) or actions in equity, such as is the case here, "clear and convincing" is the usual level. "Clear and convincing" means that the issue is highly probable. Queen City Farms vs. Central National Insurance, 126 Wn.2d 50, 882 P.2d 703 (1994); Richards v~, Pacific National Bank, 10 Wn. App. 542, 519 P.2d 272 (Div. II 1974). Whether a matter has been proved is up to the trier of fact, in this case the Council. Andrew vs. King County, 21 Wn. App. 566, 586 P.2d 509 (Div. I 1978). Temporary cessation of the use does not by itself constitute abandonment or discontinuance. Andrew. Failure to obtain a business license does not by itself constitute abandonment...Van Sant. Application for the special use permit does not constitute Equal Opportunity Employer Chang Page 2 of 2 abandonment. Summit-Waller Association vs. Pierce County, 77 Wn. App. 384, 895 P.2d 405 (Div. II 1995). Local jurisdictions may expand the methods by which prior, nonconforming uses may be terminated. This may include methods that do not involve the owner's intent. Choi vs. City of Fife, 60 Wn. App. 458, 803 P.2d 1330 (Div. II 1991). BMC 21.02.790(g) provides for "discontinuation" of nonconforming uses. "Discontinuation" includes a change of use. To be effective the discontinuation must last at least one year. "Discontinuation" is not defined in the BMC. Pursuant to BMC 21.02.070, undefined terms shall have there normal and customary meanings. Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary defines "discontinue" as "to break the continuity of', cease to operate, administer, use, produce, or take." As in Choi, where the court was interpreting "vacate," whether there has been a "discontinuation" would appear to depend not on the subjective intent of the owner but rather on the objective, observable fact of whether the owner "ceased to use" the property for the required period. The Council therefore needs to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence of a discontinuation, measured objectively, of the owner's prior, nonconforming use. Knute Rife Assistant City Attorney cc: Council real property by the City, lots that were legally in e.,dstence prior to annexation shall become legal nonconforming lots if they do not conform to the lot requirements of the City's zoning district in Milch they are located following the annexation. (d) Illegal Lot Reduction or Split: No land may be reduced in area or otherwise divided or adjusted in such a manner that would result in a lot that is in violation of the minimum lot size or dimensions required by the zoning district in which the property is located. (Ord. 4325 {}3 (in part), 1991; Ord. 4172, 1988). 2~.02.790 NONCONFORMING USES. (a) Definition of Nonconforming Use: Any activity, development or condition which v-as legally established prior to the effective date of tiffs chapter or subsequent amendments to this chapter and which would not be permitted outright or as an accessory use under this chapter and is not specifically listed as being permitted by Special Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or other special permitting process, is a legal nonconforming use. A nonconforming use may or may not involve buildings or structures and may involve part or all of a building or property. A party asserting the existence of a lawfully nonconforming use has the burden of establishing that, as of the effective date of this chapter, or subsequent amendments, the use was either consistent with the zoning provisions or was a pre-existing legal nonconforming use. (b) Continuation: Should any zoning district or district requirement be amended by the City, any previously existing nonconforming use and any use that becomes nonconforming as a result of that change may be continued unless otherwise provided under this section, or unless mused to be discontinued by exercise of the lawful authority of the City. (c) Anne.cation: Upon annexation of real property by the City, land uses that were legally in existence prior to annexation but that do not conform to the zoning district requirements following annexation shall become legal nonconforming uses. (d) Change in Use Intensity: A land use of equal intensity or impact may not be substituted for a nonconforming use un/ess the new use conforms to the current zoning. Another nonconforming use may be allowed to replace a nonconforming use by Special Use Permit, but only when the new use is clearly a reduction in the nonconformity or intensity, or when the new use is found to be umquely suited to e.,dsting buildings, structures, or other site improvements which themselves may be legal nonconformities. (e) Change to a Nonconforming Use: A change in ownership, tenancy, or management of any nonconforming use shall not affect its legal, nonconforming status. However, any nonconforming use that has been changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be re-established as a nonconformity. (0 Expansion of a Nonconforming Use: A nonconforming use may not be enlarged or expanded, except as follows: (1) Alterations to a nonconforming use are permitted within its physical space, provided the use is not physically enlarged or changed to a different use; (2) A single-family dwelling anywhere in the City or a duplex in any residential zone may be altered or enlarged in conformance with the site development requirements of the zone in which it is located, provided no additional dwelling units result; and (3) The acquisition of additional accessory parking to serve an existing nonconforming use is permitted and is not considered an expansion of the nonconformity. (g) Discontinuation of a Nonconforraing Use: The discontinuation of a nonconforming use is defined as its cessation or termination. The replacement of a nonconforming use by another use shall be considered a discontinuation of that use. The discontinuation of a nonconforming use for a period of one year or longer, or a change of the nonconforming use to a conforming use, shall constitute termination of the nonconforming status of the use. Any further use of the subject property or structure wherein the nonconformity existed prior to termination shall be in conformance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. (h) Repair and Maintenance: Repair and maintenance work on a m'ucture containing a not,coMorming use amy be carried out for Ire improvement and restoration of .~e and sanitary 21-53 conditions therein, but such repair and maintenance shall neither: (1) Increase the cubical content of that portion of the structure in which a nonconformity is located, except as provided in section 2-F-2 above; (2) Constitute structural alterations allowing for an expansion of the nonconforming use, except as provided in section 2-F-2; (3) Increase the number of dwelling traits provided in a building; nor (4) Restore a structure from substantial destruction, as defined in this section, for the purpose of resuming a nonconforming use that is no longer lawful. (i) Destruction ora Nonconforming Use: The elimination or destruction of a nonconforming use, including the substantial or total destruction of the structure in which it is located, shall constitute a discontinuation of the use, subject to the provisions of Section 3-G of this chapter. (j) Unlawful Uses: Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as authorization for or approval of the continuation of the use of a structure that is in violation of any ordinance in effect at the time of the passage of this chapter. The intermittent, temporary, or illegal use of land or structures shall not be sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use. (Ord. 4325 §3 (in part), 1991; Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.800 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. (a) Definition of Nonconforming Structure: (1) A nonconforming structure is one which was legally constructed prior to the effective date of this chapter or subsequent amendments to this chapter, but which does not comply with the required setback.s, height, lot coverage, or other development requirements of the zoning district in which it is now located. The term 'structure' shall include, but not be limited to, principal and accessory structures, fences, edifices, signs, and other site improvements intended for use, occupancy or ornamentation. A party exerting the e,,dstence of a lawful nonconforming structure has the burden of establishing that. as of the effective date of this Zoning Code, the structure was either: i. Consistent with the requirements of the amended zoning provisions as they applied to the property; ii. A prior legal nonconforming structure under those provisions; or iii. Built pursuant to the granting of a variance by the City. (b) Continuation: A nonconforming structure may be continued unless caused to be discontinued by exercise of the lawfizl authority of the City. (c) Annexation: Upon annexation of real property by the City, structures that were legally in existence prior to annexation, but that do not conform to the zoning district requirements following annexation, shall become legal nonconforming structures. (d) Change of Ownership, Tenancy or Management: Any change in the ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming structure shall not affect its legal nonconforming status. (e) Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure: A nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended or strucnmflly altered without a variance, Provided, That: (1) Any structural enlargement or alteration complies with the setback, height, lot coverage, and other development requirements of the zoning district in which the structure is located; (2) Structural alterations may be required by the City pursuant to the provisions of BMC 17.20 where such alteration is immediately necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or occupants of the nonconforming structure or adjacent properties. (f) Repair and Maintenance: Repair and maintenance work on a nonconforming structure may be carried out for the improvement and restoration of safe and sanitary conditions, but shall neither: (1) Increase the number of dwelling units within the structure unless all nonconformities are eliminated; nor (2) Restore a structu, te from substantial destruction, as defined in this section, 21-54 TAPES #1630 & #1631 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 6 of 7 #1110 M/S/C (Reed/IVicConnetl) Motion to amend the Main MoTion to double the width of the buffer area from 25 feet to 50 feet and only remove marketable timber and dangerous trees along Anderson Hill Road, relevant to forest practice issues only, to lessen the impact on the neighborhood. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In favor: Opposed: Reed, Olsen, McConnell, Law, Farr, Arenas, Shepherd Montgomery Mrs. Arenas concurred with Mr. Law's comments and commended Mr. Sciepko for being so accommodating. President Shepherd referred to the Appeal of the Application, and asked why the City would consider the use of surface water from Anderson Creek as the "emergency water supply" for the City. Mr. Sampley clarified that the City has 'water rights" on Anderson Creek, and therefore did not want to change the designation even though it is not likely that it will be utilized except in an emergency. It is one of the key reasons the City maintained the stdp of land. President Shepherd also asked if the City would perform a separate biological assessment to address the issue of endangered species. Mr. Holan responded that the Forest Practices Act has adopted emergency regulations with regard to endangered species, in particular, to preserve salmon, and the City is exceeding these requirements. #1337 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Law) Main Motion to uphoid the DNS, and pass Resolution No. 2712. provided the mapping requested be done au the earliest convenience. 11B PUBLIC HEARING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CHANGE AN EXISTING NON- CONFORMING USE SIGN SHOP TO AN AUTO REPAIR; APPLICANT: JONATHON CHANG: LOCATION: 1533 SHOREWOOD DRIVE, #AB99-13,~ Jori Holan, Planning Manager, reported that Council must decide if the applicant's Special Use Permit Appiicadon (SUP99-0006) meet, s ~he necessary, tests and criteria for approvai of a less intense nonconforming use. He further s~a[ed that the P!anning Commission denied the Special Use Permit. and addressed a number of s~ecific issues r.o support this decision, along with a brief staff repo~. President Shepherd announced this was also a Quasi-Judicial issue, and asked ff any Council Member believed their participation would conflict W/th the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". and if they should be excused? Mr. Law stated he knew a number of residents in the affected area, and has noticed the proper~y over the years. He has heard the issue discussed many times, so he has knowledge of the prope~¥, however, he aid not feel that would affect his ai3ility to participate tonight. Mr. Reed stated that Mr. Chang contac;ed him questioning what to do with a "Cease & Desist Order'' he had received, but he was referred to the Department of Community Development. In addition, since this business is located in his District. he received calls from constituents long before it became a City issue. He concluded that these past incidents did not preclude him from being impartial. Mr. Montgomery stated he received a number of phone calls from citizens on this issue, but also did not feel it had any affect on the decision being made tonight. Mr. Mcdonnell and President Shepherd added that they have driven by the property. President Shepherd then asked members of the public if they believed any Council members should excuse themselves due to a conflict with the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". Norae Larson felt that Mr. Reed could not remain impartial due to his being involved in the car business. Ms. Malanca stated the "Appearance of Fairness" doctrine did not apply, and Mr. Reed could remain seated. President Shepherd declared that Mr. Reed, as weft as other Council members, may remain seated. TAPES #1630 & ¢1631 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 7 of 7 Members of the public who voiced their concerns to support that the Special Use Permit be denied: Norae Larson; Betty Davies; Lee Crawford; Doug Adams; Lawana Wartman; ~L.~; and Michele Lanham. Jonathan Chang stated the building was purchased in December with the understanding it was a "commercial building" for the use of a business. He knew the previous owner had used the building for repairing and detailing cars, so when he was approached by a gentleman who wanted to run the same type of business, he said "ok", and was not aware he was doing anything wrong. Mr. Chang applied for a Special Use Permit once he found out it was required, tn the meantime, the other gentleman found another location for his auto detail business, so if the Special Use Permit is no[ approved, he stated he would then continue to operate the sign shop, but not tear down the building. Mr. McConnell pointed out that five criteda items must be met, and according to the information provided, only two have been met. He questioned if tax records from the previous business were checked. Mr. Holan stated that per advice from the Legal Department, the focus of this discussion was to remain on the Special Use Permit rather than the Non-Conforming Use. However, his staff is exploring the Non-Conforming Use issue, and they anticipate action in the near future. Mr. Law was concerned the posted "Cease & Desist" order was not adhered to, and the one-year vacated business issue was not addressed. He hooed if there are further appeals or discussions on this property in the future, these issues should be dealt with. He saw no reason to reverse :he Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Holan confirmed that a "Cease & Desist" order and "Notice of Vacation" have both been issued, and his staff is currently working with the Police Department on citation issuance. Mr. Reed stated that since Mr. Chang nas an existing sign business permit, and will run a business at this location, the issue for the neighborhood to declde is, do they want a controlled and limited automotive-related business, or a less-controlled sign shop? He suggested a continuance. Mr. Montgomery_ pointed out a number of concerns not addressed in the SEPA Rules Checklist. #3323 M/S/C (Farr/lVlontgomery) IVlotion to uphold :he Planning Commission decision and deny the Special Use Permit. Vote on Motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Abstained: Arends, Mont~ccmew, Olsen, McConnetl, Law, Farr, Shepherd Reed With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President City of Bremerton PJIMS/Is C: Normal Distribution File 35' AGENDA ITEM BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AGENDA OF: May 18, 1999 ORIGINATOR: James Coombes COM3~TTEE CHAIR: Joan Dingfield PUBLIC MEETING STUDY SESSION INFORMATION SUBJECT: Special Use Permit Applicant: JonathanChang 8708 - 5ga Street W, University Place, WA 98467 e SUMMARY STATEMENT & REQUIREMENT FOR COMMISSION ACTION: The issuance of a Non-administrative Special Use Permit is a Type m decision with review by the Planning Commission and decision by the City Council (Ref. BMC 21.02.905). The Commission reviews and makes recommendation based on the evidence available and testimony presented at the public meeting. ATTACHMENTS: eStaffReport eApplication & SEPA Checklist · Site Plan · Zoning Map · Letters of Complaint RECOMMENDATION: MODEL MOTION: I move that the Bremerton Planning Commission find that the Special Use Permit does not meet the requirements of BMC Section 21.02.905 and recommend that the use be denied. CITY Of: BREMERTON BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING: PREPARED BY: James Coornbes SUMMARY 1. Applicant: w Jonathan H. Chang 8708 - 58th Street West University Place, WA 98467 Location: 1533 Shorewood Drive Tax Assessor's Lot No.: 3719-001-018-0301 Attachments: o SUP Application o Site Plan o Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Map: Low-Density Residential (LDR) Zoning: Single-Family Residential (SF-3) FINDINGS 1. Property & Development: The property consists of an irregular, approximately 11,000 square foot lot at the corner of Shorewood and Beach Drive. An existing commercial building occupies approximately half the site. 2. Surrounding Land Uses: Single-family residential neighborhood. 3. Requested Special Use Pursuant to Section 21.02.790 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), the applicant is requesting a special use permit to change a nonconforming use sign shop to auto repair, detail, and minor body work. Applicants states that vehicles would be washed at off-site location and brought to this property for detailing. 4. SEPA Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, a threshold Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) has been issued for this proposed use. 5. Background The sign shop has existed on the site for many years before the area was annexed into the City of Bremerton. When the City's residential zoning was applied on the site, the sign shop was allowed to continue as a legal nonconforming use. In January, 1999 the site was inspected by a City fire inspector and found to still being used as a sign shop. There may have been other business activities conducted in the building in the past. Within the past few months complaints from neighbors have indicated that the property has been additionally used for automotive repair and service. However, a cease and desist order was issued on March 10, 1999 requiring the discontinuance of any activity other than that of a sign shop. It should be noted that several complaints concerning an automotive activity were received after the cease and desist order was issued although staff has been unable to verify the nature of the operation. 6. Analysis Development Standards - The existing commercial building is nonconforming in setback requirements. The code requires a 20 foot front yard setback for commercial structures in commercial zones and a 10 foot side yard setback when adjacent to a residential zone. The existing nonconforming commercial structure is setback less than 5 foot from Shorewood Drive and the adjacent residential property to the north. No change to the existing building is proposed. 2 Use - An existing nonconforming sign shop has been located on the subject property since before the property was annexed into the City. The use described in the application fits the Zoning Ordinance listed use of a automotive service including repair, detailing, painting and body work. These activities are not permitted in any residential zoning district according to the BMC Figure 140 Land Use Table, but allowed in general business and industrial zones. BMC Section 21.02.790 (d) allows for another nonconforming use to replace an existing nonconforming use by Special Use Permit, but only when the new use: · is clearly a reduction in the nonconformity or intensity, or when the new use is found to be uniquely suited to existing buildings, structures, · or other site improvements which themselves may be legal nonconformities. The existing building on the site is not uniquely suited for either a sign shop or automotive repair use. Thus, a determination must be made as to whether the proposed automotive use is less intense than the sign shop. The following discussion will evaluate the proposed request on that basis. Parking - The sign shop would generate parking needs for employees and customers. For this site the BMC would require nine (9) parking spaces for a sign shop (1 per 600 SF) and approximately thirty (30) parking spaces (1 per 200 SF, plus 1 space for each service bay) for automotive service use. Furthermore, as an automotive service use, vehicle storage before and after service would likely be stored outdoors on the property and create a visual impact. Thus, an automotive service use would have potentially a greater parking impact than the sign shop which could also result in visual impacts on the neighborhood. Traffic & Circulation - Automotive service typically would generate more traffic than the existing nonconforming sign shop. Auto service requires that vehicles be brought to the site for work, while a sign shop typically conducts its work at other sites. Sign shop traffic does not have the same level of vehicle traffic as an auto service facility. No specific traffic data is available comparing sign shops to automotive service. However, due to the nature of each use, it appears that an automotive use would be expected to generate more traffic than a sign shop would from employees, deliveries, and company trucks. The sign shop operated in the past apparently did not generate substantial amounts of traffic on Shorewood Drive since staff did not receive any complaints on traffic. An automotive facility would not only generate employee and delivery traffic, but also traffic from vehicles to be worked on. Therefore, a reduction in this aspect of the nonconformity would be unlikely to occur. Noise - Automotive service that includes repair, body work, painting and detailing will generate noise that is not compatible with a single-family residential neighborhood. Without limiting the hours of operation, the noise from the automotive service use could be disruptive to adjacent properties. By comparison, staff is not aware of any substantial noise generating use caused by a sign shop. Further, to staff's knowledge, there has not been any noise complaints due to the sign shop's operation. This potential for noise associated with various proposed forms of automotive service would likely increase the noise associated with the current nonconforming sign shop use. Therefore, noise is not likely to decrease as a result of this proposed nonconforming use. Air Quality - Puget Sound Pollution Control Agency (PSPCA) requires that the painting of vehicles be done in either a UL approved paint spray booth or a paint room with an approved filtration system and a vertical stack extending a minimum of six foot above the roof of the building. Larry Vaughn of the PSPCA stated that such required standards can minimize paint spray and odor but not completely eliminate paint and odor from traveling through the air to adjacent properties. He further stated that even if the vertical stack is higher than the minimum six foot and includes either an afterburner or activated charcoal system, paint spray and odor would not be totally eliminated from the air. In typical application, Bond stated, the vehicles are moved out of the booth or room before it is completely dry. This further adds to the possibility of fumes and odor emanating to adjacent properties in the neighborhood. Painting in the existing sign shop does not appear to have been much of a concern to the neighborhood since no complaints were received for this activity. Sign painting is typically done at a smaller scale than auto painting. Thus, painting vehicles and the associated air quality would not appear to be a reduction in this existing nonconforming use. Further, it appears that odors emanating from the automotive use would be detected from nearby residential properties even though the applicant would comply with current PSPCA requirements. Thus, for this issue, the proposed automotive use would likely result in a degradation in air quality. Automotive service, including repair, detailing, body work and painting, does not appear to be a reduction in intensity of the nonconforming sign shop, nor is the = existing commercial building uniquely suited to any particular use. Thus, the proposed use would not appear to meet the change in use intensity requirement. It is possible these issues could be addressed by possible conditions of approval. If the Commission decides to recommend approval, the following issues and potential conditions need consideration: 1. Parking - condition to limit or prohibit outdoor parking/sight obscuring fence. 2. Traffic and Circulation - limit area of ingress/egress to street/limit number of cars which can be worked on at any one time. 3. Noise - condition on acceptable levels and/or hours of operation. 4. Air Quality - condition on the addition of afterburners or charcoal filtration system and painting and wet vehicles to paint room area or the prohibition to paint any vehicle. While many of these potential conditions could address the above issues, staff is concerned that there would still likely be an air quality impact on the neighborhood resulting in a more intense use. It should also be noted that staff is concerned about the ability to enforce these conditions. It would be difficult to properly enforce such conditions as limiting or prohibiting outdoor parking or limiting the number of cars which can be worked on at one time. While strict enforcement may not be a critical issue in an industrial area where automotive uses are more compatible with the area, it can become a constant issue where the use is nonconforming in a residential area. Altematives: The Commission has the following options to act on this permit: a. Deny the permit pursuant to staff recommendation; b. Approve the application making findings in support of such approval; c. Approve the permit with conditions making findings in support of approval; or d. Continue the matter to a date certain. such Comment Survey: The application was routed to Departments for review and comment. comments were received: various City The following Buildina Dept.: The building must conform to all requirements for a S3 occupancy, H4 if welding or open flame is used. Building must conform to 1997 Uniform Building Code for change of use. 5 Fire Marshal: The building was inspected by a City fire inspector and it was reported that everything appears okay. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Bremerton Zoninq Ordinance 21.02.905 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, [d] "Criteria for Special Use Permits" states that approval of a Special Use Permit may be granted only if all of the following are true: Is the proposal substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and either desi.qnated "SUP" in the Zoning Ordinance, or is bein.q processed as an "Unlisted Use"? NO. Under The Plan's Housing Element Goals, Policies and Strategies, (4) Livable Neighborhoods Policies, (5) states a goal to promote safe, attractive, livable neighborhoods that will attract homeowners. A use which is not less conforming does not support promoting livable neighborhoods. Will the proposal be consistent with all applicable development standards and requirements, includin.q the availability of all needed utilities and services? NO. It does not meet applicable zoning standards for this single-family residential district since it is not an allowed use and does not appear to meet the requirement of a less intense nonconforming use replacing another nonconforming use. The applicant could, however, comply with all applicable development standards including State and City building, health, and fire safety codes, but would not appear to meet the requirement of replacing a nonconforming use with a less intense nonconforming use. Will the proposal, alon.q with any miti.qation measures or other conditions of approval, avoid si.qnificant adverse environmental consequences? YES. It appears that no significant adverse environmental consequence will occur as a result of this use. However, conforming to PSAPCA standards would not totally eliminate paint spray, fumes, and odor from 6 emanating to adjacent residential properties and increased vehicle traffic and noise associated with automotive service would likely be noticeable in this residential district. Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surroundin.- neiahborhood? NO. The automotive service use would not be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood. The nature of the proposed use typically conflicts with the residential neighborhood. Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or desi,qn guidelines that are applicable to the specific use or type of development? YES. The proposal will comply with all other criteria or design guidelines associated with this type of use. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that: The proposed use does not appear to be less intense than the existing nonconformity, does not meet the zoning criteria, and is therefore not in the public interest. The proposed use does not meet the necessary tests and criteria required for approval of a Special Use Permit. MODEL RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the findings, the Commission moves to conclude that the request for a Special Use Permit to allow an automotive service use including repair, detailing, and minor body work at 1533 Shorewood as a replacement nonconforming use of less intensity than an existing nonconformity does not meet the necessary tests, and it is therefore recommended, that the application be DENIED as described and shown on the attached application and site plan. 7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC ltEARING Bremerton City Council The Bremerton City Council will conduct a public hearing on the following item during its regular meeting on Wednesday, September 15, 1999, which will begin at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall, 239 4a' Street, Bremerton, WA. Determination of non-conforming use at 1533 Shorewood Drive Property owner: Jonathan Chang All interested persons may appear and provide testimony on the matter. The Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD), located at 286 4th Street, Bremerton, WA 98337, will receive written comments and other exhibits on the above item up to 5:00 PM on the day of hearing. Written comments and other exhibits may also be submitted to the council prior to the close of the public hearing. Staff reports and copies of pertinent materials can be obtained from the ECD. Staff reports will be available by 5:00PM on SEPTEMBER 9, 1999. Call James Coombes at (360) 478-5845 for additional information. e~ ~ ?~7- B~ ~,MERTON POLICE DEPART'-~NT / / . D~'~SCLOSUFIF_, NFORMATION -- Bremerton, Washington -- JUVENILE INVOLVEMENt' ' , VICTIM REPORTT1TLE:~t,~F(~4 ~-~,~3{. --- AUG ~: [~ ORIOINALREPORTi SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT [~ DAY~ ~ - ASSIS~NG O~C~(S)' ' ' f ~ MIL~ARY~VOLV~u~{ DIS~ ~ON I C~AR~CE EXCE~ONAL CLEARANCE REASON ~ARANCE DATE N~C ~e N~C ~ Al C H~ Ufing ~afi~ Activity t En~ Foxed Wca~n Motive DE NA~T, R~T, MIDDY) AKA SEX HG~o~ { W~ ~0 I~A{~ ~J' HAIRSTY~ I E~]~[O I COMPLEXION { BU,~ {"' GLASSES { FACIALHAIR A~I~ . O~ANDING SCARS / MARKS / TA~S CONDEN5~ NARRATI~ / STATEME~ OF PROfiLE CAU~ [ ~fy u~r ~t2 of ~rju~ ~r ~ I~ws of the St~t~ of W~hinSto~ thit tE fo~$oi~ i~ ~ ~ c~ct. DISTIB~ION ,1 Bremerton Police Department · - PROPERTY REPORT MANUFACTURER ~MODEL SERIAL ~ / VIN I LIC ~ ~ ~RIm~OLOR SUSPECT PR~ER~ OWNER ~ R~URNE~S PH~E ~ ,, MANUFA~URER MODEL ~ ~ERIAL ~ I VlN ' ~ . LIC · STA~ P~E~RI~L~ SUSPECT ~ER~ ~N~~ R~URNE~S {I I __ ~IAL t / VlN I MANUFAC~RERI I ~ MODEL ] ~A~ SUSPE~ ~OPE~ ~N~ ~ I R~URNE. S P.ONE ' II DRUG ~UFAC~RER MODEL SERIAL N I YIN LI~STA~ PRO~R~ DESC~COLOR SUSPECT ~ PR~ER~ OWNER ~ R~RNE~S PHONE /:OR VEH/CLE THEFTS ONLY I, The Undersigned, Do Declare This To Be A True And Co.eot Report. I Did Not G~e Anyone Pen'nission To Take Or Use The Descl~bed Vehicle. I Am The Ow~r Or In Legal Po6ses.sion Of The Described Vehicle, And I Will Testify In Cou~ Under Oatll, To The Faot~ Herein. I Understand That I May Be Charged With Viclatic~ Of Rcw 9.89.0~0 'Obstructing Justise" By Filing A False Report_ If I Regain Possession Of This Vehicte~ I Undemtand That The Polic. e Deparlment Will Not Be Res~3nsibte For Any TOWing And ~ · Costs Incunred In The Recover/Of This VM~icle. SIGNATURE OF REPORTING PERSON DATE/TIME OFFICER REPORTING (PRIN'r) WHITE- RE~ORI~ ~'- PINK- ~HI~ROPERTY PageI Of/ Bremerton Police Department NARRATIVE REPORT REPORT NUMBER: ORIGINAL REPORT ~ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT 171 IREPORT DATE: Officer Reporting (Pdnt) ·/ - -[ DISTRIBUTION Board Detective Division SOG Juvenile City Attorney TOTAL Traffic Patrol Division Court KC Prosecutor Other REPORT NUMBER: ORIGINAL REPORT Bremerton Police Department NARRATIVE REPORT 99-09106 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT REPORT DATE: 8/3/99 Officer Repro'ting (prim) D. CLEVENGER 8/3/99, 2146 hours, I responded to the area of the corner of Beach Drive and Shorewood in response to a complaint of someone working in an abandoned building. Officer Berntsen, LC Woffe, and I arrived in the area. As they checked around the building I saw two vehicles parked next to the building. I ran the Washington plate 70984J on a blue van and it came back no record from DOL. A DOL check of the 2000 lab number U991112 on the rear plate also came back with no record. A check of the vehicle VIN indicated that the plates that were on the vehicle wcrc not thc ones t~t_ matched the VIN record. DISPOSITION: I seized the plates and they were placed in the BPD property room as seized property. [ ,I cerlify under ~l~Itl/of perju~ under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct : ~lix~/~ II ~"~iatrictCourt ~ Municipal Court fl JuveniloCom't Il ~ __ Di~I'R..I~UTION ' Other DATP, ~JePg. O VKO CITY OF BREath.ON · 9--39 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMM~NrrY DEV~m'M~NT February24, 1999 David and Ardith Barcelon 4701 Kean Street Bremertom WA 98311 re: 1533 Shorewood Drive, File # C99-047 M.r. and Mrs. Barcelon: The Department of Economic and Community Developmem has rec~-~dv received numerous complaints re~marding "Guerrero's Sign Shop" on your property, located at !533 Shorewood Drive. Over the past several years, Hanson Signs operated a i~ non-conforming sign shop at this location,, which is zoned Sin~e-Family 3 (SF-3). Business License r~ords show that you obtained a business license for Dave Barceton's Imck Iown Signs, Ltd. in October of 1997. In January. of 1999, you closed out your business license, stating you had never done any business at that location and had generated no revenues. According to the Zoning Ordinance, once the sign shop use has been discontinued for a period of more than one year, the use of the site must revert to a use consistent with its residential zoning. Complainants have staxed thai Cmerrero's Sigma Shop is not a sign shop but an auto detailing shop, which is an ill _egal non-conforming use in this zoning district. In addition, k has been reported that two other businesses have moved into this structure, neither of which are licensed by the City to operate at this location. Please be advised that activities at this property must cease and desist by March 9, 1999 and remain so until this issue is resolved. In order to continue the auto detailing as a less intense · Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom * non-conforming use, a Special Use Permit would be necessary. To allow this use as a contbrming use, a rezone would be required. Applications for either a Special Use Permit or a rezone may be obtained by contacting James Coombes at the Planning Department, (360) 478- 5275. Sincerely, Building and Development Specia Mayor Horton Jim Reed John Guerrero Jonathan Chang file . ---'" .,..-r'- IDAIE