The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/24/98 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1998 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. A. General Council Business CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. A. Pledge Of Allegiance B. 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. Purchase of Process Control System Equipment for #AB98-262 Wastewater Treatment Plant B. Interlocal Agreement (Renewal) for City of pOrt Orchard #AB98-263 Traffic Signal Maintenance 4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 6. MAYOR'S REPORT 7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Budget Adjustment for the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund and Street Fund #AB98-264 (CONTINUED ON BACK) ORDINANCES A. Ordinance (First Reading) Setting Water and Wastewater Rates #AB98-265 Ordinance (First Reading) Reducing the Business & Occupation (B&O) Tax on Garbage and Refuse Business #AB98-266 10. PUBLIC HEARING - (TO BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M. OR LATER) A. Public Hearing and Resolution No. 2680, Appealing of a Shoreline Variance -- Appellant: Paul Scheyer; Location: 922 Shoreline Drive, Bremerton #AB98-267 AGENDA BILL - BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: November 24, 1998 Public Works and Utilities John Poppe, WW Manager~ November 9, 1998 t 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back/~~ 3. EXHIBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities ~ j,~ _ Equipment list with costs. City Attorney ,J,,,/~'. ~ ~x ~~emorandum from John Poppe City Treasurer - Council Budget & Finance Committe~t~7~' Operations Committee ~-~ ct Purchasing Supervisor ENDORSEMENT K- ~RMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PJkESIDENT~ SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Department of Public Works and Utilities seeks approval for the sole source purchase of SCADA control system equipment for the Wastewater Facility. The equipment purchase from Cascade Controls totals $35,723.81, including tax. The purchase and installation of the equipment will increase ability to meet effluent water quality standards for the Wastewater Facility. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approves the sole source purchase of SCADA equipment from Cascade Controls for $35,723.81, including tax. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Wastewater Manager Wastewater Manager 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: (~ B- a(,,~. 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Decrease reliability of treatment plant process control. Increase liability of City should WWTP discharge to Puget Sound and violate water quality standards. Increase employee safety hazards. Violation of NPDES Permit. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: STAFFING: BUDGET: EQUIPMENT: The improved automation will reduce operations & maintenance time. The 1998 Wastewater Budget includes this hardware purchase. This will improve optimization of process equipment increasing the reliability of meeting water quality standards from the WWTP. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES AGENDABL g. PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES 3027 Olympus Drive ° Bremerton. WA 98310-4799 · (360) 478-5318 · FAX (360) 478-5018 November 9, 1998 TO' Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works and Utilities FROM: SUBJECT: John Poppe, Wastewater Manager~:?x SCADA Hardware Purchase The Bremerton Wastewater Facility is upgrading the Supervisory Control and Data Administration (SCADA) system. The original 1984 facility design for process control was based on the Texas Instrument (TI) format. The TI format included programmable logic controllers, supporting hardware, and control software. WWTP staff have reviewed the new TI format and have concluded that the City standardize with TI control sYstems by keeping the existing TI SCADA format, and replace components that are no longer supported by TI. This standardization will increase control system reliability allowing the treatment plant to meet discharge water quality standards. Please fmd attached the quotation from the manufacturer's representative detailing the costs for the TI hardware described above. Within the written descriptions, you will note the "SEIMENS" name prefacing the text. Seimens purchased TI in the early 1990's, but maintained the manufacture of TI-based SCADA hardware. Therefore, I am seeking approval to purchase the Siemens/TI hardware to upgrade the SCADA system at the Bremerton Wastewater Facility totaling $35,723.81 (including tax). The purchase and installation will increase our ability to meet effluent water quality standards for the Wastewater Facility. C: Pat Coxon, WWTP Manager File Attachment Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF BREMERTON PURCHASE REQUISITION R 81382 THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITIONING /_ - -- ~, DEPARTMENT ........................... ~ .....~......~....~.. ............................................................... MARK FOR .................... .~. ,~. ~,~-/~......,,'~Z. A./~.~ .......... 0NOIVlDUAL) (LOCAT:) ................................................................................................................. DATE .........// /~//?~// '"-'~'"'--'""-'~"-1 --*'-""'"'--~'-'"" ............................................................................... AUTHORIZED BY (DEPARTMENT HEAD) QUAN ITEM UNITS ORDERED DESCRIPTION INTENDED USE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE ....... t........~:~ ............................... / ................ ~/.'~..~..~r ................. £.~..~ : ·; F c ,~,,~ ..................... r~.~.~f.,....~ ~..r~....'~ ....... ............................................................................ ~._~....._/.~..~....~ ............ ~..~.: ~ _~ ......... ~..~. ........................ ~ .......... ~.~.~.~.~r ............ .~..~..~.~....2 ~ ~...~x ........ r..~...~ ....................... q..~_....~ ......... ~.tq ............. ................................................................ ~...~..~__..;~_~//~..'Z .2.~?:_~ ~.~.~ Z_.. ...~ ....................... ~ .................. r..~.~..~..~ ............. ~....~...~.~,i_ ....... / .~_ ..r~ ..... ~c ~.,.~ ...... r~ ~... : .... ~ ~... ~ ..... ~......~'~ ...................... g ................. ~...~.~..~.. . ~z~.i ..... /..~ x~.~ ............................................................................ ~..~ ~....~..~_..._z~:~z...~_~ _: P~._ ~...~.~z~ ..... : 5.c ~ ,. ~ ........ ~ 7 ~.......~ ..... ~ ~.~...:: ,9_ .~ ......................... .~ .................... ~. ~.~..~.._..~.~.~. ~.~ ....... zx...~.~ ~ .............. ............................................................................ (~.~...?~.e__.~.:~:....~,:.P~:....~ . ~~ ~ /f .~ . ~ ./.~ ....... ..~_ .... ~ .................. ~ ............. :~.~.~.~......:~..~.~.~ ........ ............................................................................. ~.~_...~_.~.,.~ ~..:.. ~o;~. ..~ o~..~ .............. r~. ~ ........ ~./.~_. Z ..... ~ ~ ~: ;:~';:~:: BARS;~CGDE'/:: '::'AMOUNT:: SUGGESTED VENDOR ::=.T~A~ [ ~ ~ OO ................................................................................................................. ~~ ~ ~ . Co ~ ~ ~ . ::m~.~:~:~,~ _ ................................................... : ..................................................................................................................................... ~ ~. :~..c ~_:.. .. ff~ ~_...... ~ ~...~ ............................ ........................................................................................................................................................................ ~~_; [.: g ~..~.. ~ ~F.E~ ~tC.q ............. PURCHASING DEPARTMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... DATE ............................................................................................................................................... PURCHASING - WHITE COPY ~ DEPARTMENT - YELLOW COPY CITY OF BREMERTON PURCHASE REQUISITION THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITIONING ,_ . DEPARTMENT ................ ~.~..~ MARK FOR ~/~/~ Y......L~/~..~.~ .......... __ (LOCATION) (INDIVIDUAL) AUTHORIZED BY ................................................................................................................... DATE ._~.~..l./.._ .¢...//....~._ _~....~ ................................................................................... (DEPARTMENT HEAD) QUAN ITEM UNITS ORDERED DESCRIPTION INTENDED USE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT ................................................................................................................................................. DATE PURCHASING - WHITE COPY ~ DEPARTMENT - YELLOW COPY CITY OF BREMERTON PURCHASE REQUISITION THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITIONING i/~.......~...%( ............................................................. DEPARTMENT _ MARK FOR ...... ~ X.,~ Y '~( ~.~d ............ (LOCATION) ,'INDIVIDUAL) / ) AUTHORIZED BY .............................................................................................................................................. DATE _ / ~ ./...~./..~.~..~.~ ................................................................................ (D~ENT H~D) ~.o. ~ ~_.~._~_~ .......................... (ASSI6N~ BY PU~OHASIN6 DEPT.) QUAN ITEM UNITS ORDERED DESCRIPTION INTENDED USE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE .l.~ ........~ .................... ~. ................ ~../~.~....:../...~ ................ <~..~_.~ ..... :7~ ?~....c. .:...~ f: C. ~ ~ ............. /...P.~..~,. ...~.~ .... ~l~........<.~., ........................................................................ ~...:~.~.~..~..~ .............. .~..~ ~.~... ..~..~Z~ ~ ~ ~... ...~_ .................... ~. ................... ~..~.~..~ .............. ~.~. . . . . ~ ~ Y~- ~Z~.~...~:_,.~..~ ................ ~.:.X.?c .................................. ~ c~.~ ~ ....................... /.~ ..: ....... : ...... ~ ................ [.~_ ....... ~ ..................... ~ .............. ~ ~~/x :/~ ~/~< ~.~.~..~..~4.~..:~ ......... ~ ~ x ~ ~.F~ x.~./ ........ : c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ./ ~ ....... ..................................................................................... ~.~ ........... %~?~..~.~.~._ ~ ................ ~/:~ ~D~ . ~. ~ ~ ::~:::: :{:; '::'~'~¢:;'~:'~: ":~ :'::"; SUGGESTED VENDOR SUB~- AMOUNT TOTAL. I!~ t Z ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... :: .:~1;~: ~; . ........................... :. ........ ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................. ................................................................................................................................................................................. :.: ~..:... ~..Z..> :......~:O.~. .................. .......................... '. ::::::::::::::::::::: :. PURCHAS,NG ///:/: ¢¢? ......... DEPARTMENT .......................................................................................................................................................................... DATE PURCHASING - WHITE COPY ¢ DEPARTMENT - YELLOW COPY AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: November 24, 1998 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (RENEWAL): ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities CITY OF PORT ORCHARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL ORIGINATOR: Bob Tulp, PW Opms M~ MAINTENANCE DATE SUBMITTED: November 10, 1998 1/7 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back J~/~i~ 3. EXHIBITS Director, Public Works/Utilities ,~,_~ff' ~ ,,~ Interlocal Agreement with the City of Port City Attorney ~ ~/~ Orchard City Treasurer ~ .,~ _.. Council Budget & Finance Comm/~.'~::~__~~ Operations Committee ENDORSEMENT k' ~2RaMATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL P,~SIDJ~NT F(~ SUBMI~TTAL~ MAYO~ .xf- COUNCIL PRESIDEN~-'.~ ~U,~~---.-~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The proposed contract is for the City of Bremerton Public Works Operations/Electronics Division to maintain traffic signals in and for the City of Port Orchard. Electronics has been maintaining these signals for several years now. The City of Port Orchard has four signalized intersections. 8. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the attached inteflocal agreement with the City of Port Orchard and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Public Works & Utilities Director Public Works Operations Manager 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: qB- 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Loss of revenue. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Required stafftime is approximately 100 to 125 hours. No impact on facilities, equipment or other resources. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES We have been maintaining their system for several years. We are comfortable with its current condition and the working relationship with the City. of Port Orchard Public Works Director with regard to improvements and the like. AGENDABL [h--I'ERL O CAL AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Pert Orchard owns and operates Traffic Comrol Signals situated at the intersections of Sidney Avenue & Tremont Street. I~-emont Street & Pottery Avenue and Sidney Avenue and Sedgwick in the Port Orchard City limits: and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has perso~l skilled in maintaining traffic control equipment and is desirous ofproviiing maintenance ser~.izes to the traffic control equipmem owned and operated by Port Orchard: NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF IHE MUTUAL COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOW;S: Section 1: Parties: This A~_ eement is by and hetween the City of Bremerton, hereinafter referred to as "Bremerton" and the City of Port Orchard. hereinafter referred to as "Port Orchard". Section 2: Term: This .~?eement shall become ~',ffective on January 1, 1999 for up to one year, and ending on December 31. 1999. This Agreement shall automatically be renewed on a calendar year basis unless wrillen notice of termination is given by either party by the preceding October 1 of any such year. FmTl~e of either party to notify the other of such termination on or before October 1 of any such 3~n' shall cause this ~A_.~eement to automatically be renewed for the next ensuing calendar year. Section 3: Payment: In consideration for the ~rvices provided, Port Orchard shall pay Bremerton Two Hundred Sevetteea and 11/100 Dollars (5~217.11) per month, per signal for the first year of this agreement, due to 13nm~a'ton in quarterly i~adlments thirty (30) days after receipt, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ~l- Port O~hard. Agt - Nlq Agmts 1 - 3/18/98 beginning on January 1, 1999. In the event that Port Orchard adds traffic control signals requiring maintenance, Port Orchard shall pay the sum of Two Hundred Seventeen and 11/100 Dollars ($217.11) per month, per signal for each signal added, which will be paid quarterly thirty (30) days at~er receipt and pro-rated to the date to activation of the traffic control signals. At the beginning of each successive year thereafter, all charges shall automatically be adjusted by the percentage change in the "All Items" category of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor for the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan statistical area (1982-84= 100), as published for the month of June. If at any time during the term of the contract the practice of computing the Index for the City of Seattle shall be abandoned or altered by the U.S. Department of Labor, and not assumed by some other federal or state governmental agency, then there shall be substituted therefor in Bremerton's sole discretion the then most nearly comparable cost of living index. Section 4: Service Provided: (a) Bremerton shall provide electronic, electrical repairs, electrical inspection and preventative maintenance as requested or directed by the Port Orchard City Engineer. Provided, Bremerton shall not be required to perform major electrical repairs as determined by the Port Orchard City Engineer and Bremerton's Electronic's Supervisor, and, Provided, further, Bremerton shall not be required to perform electrical repairs where labor costs exceed Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($500.00) per occurrence. (b) Bremerton shall provide repair parts which shall include, but are not limited to, transistors, integrated circuit chips, resistors, diodes, capacitors, tubes, wire, and modules; Provided, Bremerton INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -2- Po~ Oreha~Agt - NN Asn~ 1 - 3/18/98 shall not be required to proxS/e major componems ancL/or assemblies; and Provided, further, the determination of what const/v, nes a major component and/or assembly shall be made by the Port Orchard City Engineer and Br~merton's Electronics Supervisor. Bremerton shall not be required to provide repair components assemblies in excess of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) in xalue. (c) Bremerton shall pro,,ide labor and materials to repair luminaries not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per calendar year. (d) Bremerton shall pro-,Scle annual lamp changes for all indications as required. All yellow lamps and the 3M heads will be mlamped once every ~'e (5) years. Bremerton will replace all lamps, L.E.D. indicators and heads, as needed, upon breakage or bum-om. Port Orchard to provide red L.E.D. indicators to replace red lamps at Port Orchard's cost. Bremerton will provide labor at no extra cost while performing annual lamp change to ~ L.E.D. indicators. (e) Bremerton shall proxite labor and materials for the repair of defective traffic signal loops. Bremerton shall not be responsffie for saw cutting and sealing of traffic signal loops, replacement of loops due to damage created by contractors, or additional loops necessary for intersection upgrade or design change. (f) In the performance of the services set forth in (a) through (e) above, Bremerton shall be responsible for and shall provide and pay all wages, salaries, tools, vehicle usage, training, utilities, postage, fi.eight, telephones, o~erhead costs, and all other direct or indirect costs or expenses incurred. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT-3- Port (;nOaa~t- NN Agn~s 1-3/18,98 Section 5: Equipment: Bremerton shaH provide services described in Section 4, for the traffic control equipment located within Port Orc~rd. The equipment includes and is limited to: a. Traffic s'~zgrml controller equipment: b. Traffic s'Kgr~l indicator lead switches; c. Traffic s'Kgnal detection equipment; d. Traffic s'~zgnal conflict monitor units: e. Traffic s'~zgn,al pre-emption equipment (OPTICOM); f. Traffic si~m:~l auxiliary cabinet w-king; g. Traffic s'Kgnal loops; h. Street ~ at traffic signal locations, including control, ballast, photo cells, igniters, and lamps; Section 6: Time of Service: The services set forth in Section 4 shall be available Monday through Friday during ~mgular business hours. After regular business hours and during weekends, and holidays, Bremerton shall have available for Port Orchard, those same services as it provided for its own needs. Provided, during weekends, holidays or after regular hours, if Port Orchard is unable to secure services from Bren~on listed in this Agreement, then Port Orchard may secure such services elsewhere and deduct the cost thereof from any amounts owning or to be owed to Bremerton under the contract. Bremerton shall make available to Port Orchard telephone numbers through which services can be obtained. Section 7: Hold Harmless: Port Orchard agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless Bremerton, its appointed and elected officers and employees, fi:om and against any and all liability, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -4- Po~t O~:ha~Agt - Nlq Agmts 1 - 3/18/9g loss, costs, damage and expense, including costs and attorney fees in defense thereof because of actions, claims or lawsuits for damages resulting from personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resuking therefrom, sustained or alleged to have been sustained by any person or persons and on account of damage to property, arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out of or in consequence of Port Orchard's performance of this Agreement, whether such injuries to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence of Port Orchard, its subcontractors, agents, successors or assigns. This provision shall be inapplicable to the extent such damage or injury is judicial found to be cause by the sole negligence of Bremerton. Section 8: General Conditions: a. Entire Agreement - 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. Amendments - The parties hereby further agree that this Agreement cannot be amended or modified without the written concurrence of both parties. c. Notices - Any notices required to be given by Bremerton to Port Orchard, or by Port Orchard to Bremerton shall be in writing and delivered to the following parties at the following addresses: Bremerton City Clerk 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Port Orchard City Clerk 736 Prospect Port Orchard, WA 98366 d. Waiver - Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -5- Port O~chnrd. Agt - NN Agmts 1-3/18/98 such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach. e. Compliance with State, Local and Federal Laws - Parties agree to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws in performance of all services under this Agreement. f. Applicable Law; Venue - This Agreemem shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and, in the event of dispute, the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in Kitsap County Superior Court. Section 9: Nondiscrimination: Bremerton shall not discriminate in employment or services provided on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status or disability in employment or the provision of services unless an employment action based on a bona fide occupational qualification. Section 10: Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by either party, without cause, upon six (6) months written notice to the other party, or for cause if either party fails substantially to perform through no fault of the other and does not commence correction within five (5) days of written notice and diligently completes the correction thereafter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the dates and year written below. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD CITY OF BREMERTON BY: BY: DATE: LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor DATE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -6- Port ~- NN Agmts 1- 3/18/9g APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: GLENNA MALANCA, City Attorney Received for filing: Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -7- Port O~hanl. Agt - NN Agmta 1 - 3/18/98 APPENDIX "A" The following is a list of the traffic signals that are covered by the Agreement and is hereby appended to the contract: Tremont Street & Sidney Avenue Tremont Street & Pottery Street Tremont Street & South Kitsap Boulevard Sidney Road & Sedgewick Road AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1, SUBJECT: BUDGET ADJUSTMENT For the EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE FUND and STREET FUND FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: Treasurer Rich Hanna Nov. 9, 1998 2. CLEARANCES: Comment of back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: - Dir. Admin. Serv. i--~"-'~ Budget Adjustment Request No. 98-32 I1,~' / ...-~ Dir. Public Works Public Works Op. Mgr'7--~~ .,.ca, · .u..e, ENDORSEMENTS ~ INFORMATION APPP,~)VED BY-C'OUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: This adjustment will correct the budget for the acquisition of computers from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund for use in traffic signal maintenance. The original budget anticipated the computers to be a capital acquisition however pdces on the equipment have decreased to the point that the computers do not exceed the City's $2,500 threshold for capitalization. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve Budget Adjustment Request No. 98-32. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Treasurer Mayor 12/31/98 N/A PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED 11. AGENDA BILL NO: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The computers will not be purchased. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FAClLIT1ES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Included in the current budget, but in the wrong expenditure category. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Current City budget, Equipment Rental Reserv~ Fund. CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST Requesting Department: STREET / EQUIP. RENTAL Adjustment Number: 98-32 Approval Authority Required: r']Treasurer SOURCE OF FUNDS: Description EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND: DECREASE: Capital STREET FUND: INCREASE: Transfer from Equipment Re '-]Mayor F Amount 4,000 4,000 Fiscal & Bud~tet [-~Council USE OF FUNDS: DescriDtion Amount INCREASE: Transfer to Street 4,000 INCREASE: Computer Purchase 4,000 NARRATIVE: This adjustment will allow the transfer of money from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund to the Street Fund and for the expenditure of that money by the Street Fund for the purchase of two lap-top computers. The computers will be used in the maintenance of traffic signals and telephone equipment. ~ Recommended ~ Not Recommended " Treasurer's Signature ' Mayor Comments: r~_ Recommended [~-] Not Recommended ~, /~' [--"-] Approved ~ Denied M~~ ~-~ Jl/5~ f~ ayor's Signature Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: Date ~,4 OF Bk.-, CITY OF BREMERTON PURCHASE REQUISITION RS18&1 THIS IS NOTA PURCHASE ORDER {ASSIGNED BY PURCHASING DEPT.) MARK FOR (LOCATION) (INDIVIDUAL) DATE· tO-- ~..':~ QUAN DESCRIPTION INTENDED USE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE ITEM UNITS ORDERED SUB- BARS CODE SUGGESTED VENDOR TOTAL ..~,~ AMOUNT · OTHER PURCHASING DEPARTMENT .... DATE PURCHASING - WHITE COPY 2...,O DEPARTMENT - YELLOW COPY 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. Setting Water and Wastewater Rates AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: Dc~c. 2, I Treasurer Rich Hanna Nov. 12,1998 2_ CLEARANCES~.' ~~f~ck if n ecessa ry) 3. EXHIBITS: Dir. Public~.x/~_~r~~~/~.-~/.J/'~' J .~ ~ /~/ _ ~' Proposed Ordinance Operations Corn ENDORSEMENTS ~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: ,/' '"-,.J 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The proposed ordinance will increase the City's retail water and wastewater rates by an average of three percent effective January 1, 1999. Staff analysis indicates that this increase is necessary to allow the utility to meet the costs of current operations and to implement the capital improvements which are mandated to meet environmental and. water quality regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve on first reading Ordinance No. Motion to pass on second reading Ordinance No. __ setting utility rates. setting utility rates. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Treasurer Mayor N/A PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED 11. AGENDA BILL NO: (~- 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Current water and wastewater rates will remain in effect. This will result in a shortage of revenues to the utilities. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ B ,UDGETS~ FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Included in the 1999 - 2000 preliminary budget. The rate adjustment will increase the operating revenue of the Water Utility by approximately $90,000 and of the Wastewater Utility by approximately $215,000. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: Capital Improvement Plan. Rate analysis by staff. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE amending rates and charges for municipal water and wastewater services commencing January 1, 1999; and amending Ordinance No. 4618. THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Amendment. Sections I and II of Ordinance No. 4618 are amended as Section 1. follows: PURPOSE. This ordinance establishes assessments, rates and charges for municipal water, wastewater and stormwater services effective for billings subsequent to January 1, 1999. Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this ordinance shall affect the application of annual adjustments of General Facility Fees, or Connection Fees as set forth in BMC 15.06.020. I. WATER. (A) ASSESSMENTS: The fees stated herein are those set by Ordinance No. 4309 and do not reflect CPI adjustments as authorized by BMC 15.06.020. (1) General Facility Fee. (a) Within City limits $150.00/ERU Co) Outside City limits $225.00/ERU (2) Front Footage Fee. (a) Within City limits (b) Outside City limits $8.00 per foot $12.00 per foot (3) Connection Fee. Rate Per Connection Size Within City Limits Outside City Limits 3/4" $ 733.00 $1099.00 1" 788.00 1182.00 1 1/2" 1408.00 2112.00 2" 1579.00 2368.00 Greater than 2" Time & Materials 150% of Time & Materials (4) Pavement Restoration. * Asphalt Concrete $300.00 $300.00 * Refundable, if assessed and not required. (5) County Road Permit N/A $450.0O $450.00 Cost (B) RATES: (1) Retail Water Service Rates. Monthly Service Charge Meter Size 5/8 & 3/4 inches 1 inch 1-1/2 inch WASTEWTR. ORD Within City Limits 2 Outside City Limits 2 inch 3 inch 4 inch ............. 6 inch 8 inch 259.S0 10 inch 92S.95 12 inch Commodity Ch~ge $0.75/H.C.F. $1.125/H.C.F. (2) Fire Protection Service. Monthly Service Charge Service Size Within City Limits 2 inch $ 10.05 3 inch i i. 1O 4 inch 12.19 6 inch ' ~ ' ~ 8 inch "" '~ 10 inch 2E.15 12 inch 40-2-5 Outside City Limits (3) Low-Income Senior Citizen and Low-Income Disabled Citizen Rates. Monthly Service Charge WASTEWTR. ORD 3 Meter Size 5/8 X 3/4" Base Charge Within City Limits s2.35 Outside City Limits $3.50 ~i~/Acct Commodity Charge 0 - 1000 CF/Billing Over 1000 CF/Billing No charge $0.75/H.C.F. No charge $1.125/H.C.F. (4) Temporary/Construction Meter. Within City Limits Size Deposit 3/4" & 1" $ 75.00 Hydrant meter 300.00 Commodity Charge Base Fee r'~ '~r ~i}g~/mo $0.75/H.C.F. Outside City Limits Base Fee ..,,,. ~,.., mo · ~,.ov ...................... mo $1.125/H.C.F. (5) Water Inspection Fees. Main Extensions Pump Stations Miscellaneous Within City Limits $0.75/ft. but not less than $300.00 $500.00 $40.00/Hr. Outside City Limits $1.125/ft. but not less than $450.00 $750.00 $60.O0/Hr. WASTEW'rR. ORD 4 II. WASTEWATER (A) ASSESSMENTS: The fees stated herein are those set bv Ordinance No. 4309 and 4565 and do not reflect CPI adjustments as authorized by BMC 15.06.020. (1) General Facility Fee. (a) Within City limits Co) Outside City limits (2) Front Footage Fee. (a) Within City limits (b) Outside City limits (c) Properties not included in ULID ~27 fronting the sewer main in Northlake Way installed as part of the Kitsap Lake Sewer Extension (3) (ULID #327) Project. Inspection Fee. Lateral connection at P/L Lateral connection at main Conveyance Facility Ext. Pump Station Within City Limits $ 40.0O $250.00 $1.25/Ft. but not less than $300.00 $500.00 $150.00/ERU $225.00/ERU $ 8.00 per foot $12.00 per foot $64.30 per foot Outside City Limits $60.00 $375.00 $1.90/Ft. but not less than $450.00 $750.00 WAS~.ORD Miscellaneous $40.00/Hr. $60.00/Hr. (B) RATES: (1) Retail Wastewater Service Rates. Monthly Service Charge Single Family Base Charge Commodity Charge Within City Limits $6:40 ~i~/Acct 3.70/H.C.F. Outside City Limits Duplex on 1 Meter or 2 Bldgs. on 1 Meter or Single Parcel Base Charge Commodity Charge $ ....~i~/Umt 3.70/H.C.F. ~:~ o~ ~/Unit 4.25/H.C.F. Multiple Family Base Charge Commodity Charge $5. I0 ~i}~/Unit 3.70/H.C.F. $5.°,5 ~$/Unit 4.25/H.C.F. Commercial I Base Charge Commodity Charge $:/-:4-5 ~i~/Acct 3.70/H.C.F. $°,?,.55 ~$i~/Acct 4.25/H.C.F. WASTEWTR. ORD 6 Commercial II Base Charge Commodity Charge $¢:45 ~!~/Acct 5.80/H.C.F. q:o cz ~8~/Acct 6.67/H.C.F. (2) Low-Income Senior Citizen and Low-Income Disabled Citizen Rates. Monthly Service Charge Single Family Account Class Base Charge Commodity Charge 0-1000 CF/Billing Over 1000 CF/Billing (3) Septage Disposal $0.10/gal of tank capacity. Within City Limits $4-:40 ~li.~/Acct Outside City Limits Sl.S0 ~!.~/^cct No charge No charge 3.70/H.C.F. 4.25/H.C.F. III. MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES. (A) METER TEST FEE SCHEDULE: Size 3/4" & 1" 1 1/2 & 2" 3" or greater (B) OFFICE SERVICES: WASTEWTR.ORD Utility Customers Others $72.00 $ 72.00 $88.00 $ 88.00 $105.00 (W/Test Port) $105.00 Time and Materials (WO/Test Port) Within City Limits Outside City Limits 7 Account Maintenance Delinquency Notice (Mailer) A.C.H. Per Service Lien Recovery Charge Duplicate Bill Charge (per billing period) (C) FIELD SERVICES: Wet tapping (water main only) Fire Hydrant Installation Water Meter Removal Charge Cross-Connection Control Device Test/Inspection Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on - (Customer Request) Regular Hours After Hours Delinquency Notice (Door Knocker) Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on - (Delinquent Accounts) Regular Hours After Hours Flow and Pressure Test (Uncertified) 3/4" & 1" meters only Utility Plant Locates Regular Hours After Hours Emergency 5.00 2.50 < 1.00> 50.00 1.00 2179.00 3153.00 40.00 30.00 N/C 80.00 10.00 30.00 80.00 30.00 N/C 80.00 N/C 2.50 < 1.00> 50.00 1.00 3268.00 4729.00 40.00 30.00 N/C 80.00 10.00 30.00 80.00 30.00 N/C 80.00 N/C 30 Within City Limits Outside City Limits (D) UTILITY PLANT INSPECTIONS: (Miscellaneous) 30.00 (E) PARK RESERVATION FEE: (non-refundable) 25.00 (F) PLAN CHECK: (1) Water: (a) Main Extensions (Includes hydrants and appurtenances and connection to water system) Co)Pump Stations (c) Fireline Extensions (d) Irrigation Systems (e) System Connections (f) Miscellaneous $54.00 $0.10/ft but not less than $100.00. $500.00 $54.00 $54.00 $27.00/Hr IV. (2) Wastewater: (a) Conveyance Facility Extensions $0.10/ft but not (Includes manholes and less than $100.00. appurtenances and connection to wastewater system) Co) Pump Stations $500.00 (c) System Connections $ 54.00 (d) Miscellaneous STORMWATER WASTEWTR. ORD $ 27.00/Hr 9 30.00 25.00 (A) ASSESSMENTS:The fees stated herein are those set by Ordinance No. 4529 and do not reflect CPI adjustments as authorized by BMC 15.06.020. (1) Storm Drainage Plan Review Fees** Preliminary Drainage Plans Residential Development Non-Residential Development Within City Limits (2) Final Detailed Drainage Plans (a) Residential Development 0-20 Lots 21-50 Lots 51-100 Lots 100+ Lots Minimum Charge Non-Residential Development Minimum Charge (b) Resubmittal Fees First Resubmittal Subsequent Resubmittal (3) Storm Drainage Inspection Fees** Residential Development WASTEWTR. ORD 10 $325.00 N/A $225.00 + N/A $10.00/ISU N/A $35.00/Lot N/A $25.00/Lot N/A $22.50/Lot N/A $20.00/Lot N/A $250.00 N/A $10.00/ISU N/A $150.00 N/A No Charge N/A $250.00 N/A $15.00/Lot N/A Outside City Limits 32. Non-Residential Development Minimum Charge Conveyance Fac. Ext. Unscheduled Inspections $10.00/IS U N/A $100.00 N/A $ .75/Ft with a minimum of $300.00 N/A $40.00/Site Visit N/A (Unscheduled inspections shall be tracked through the course of project and billed after the final site inspection. Fees for unscheduled inspections shall be paid prior to final occupancy approval) **Storm drainage plan review and inspection fees do not apply to single family residence or duplex construction on an existing established lot. Fees payable at time of submittal. (B) RATES: (1) Retail Stormwater Service Rates. Monthly Service Charge Single Family Base Charge Low Income Senior Citizen and Low Income Disabled Citizen Rate Exception: Duplex W/2 Meters Multiple Family Base Charge Within City Limits Outside City Limits $4.00/Acct N/A $2.50/Acct N/A $2.00/Acct N/A $4.00/ISU N/A Commercial WASTEWTR. ORD 11 33 Base Charge $4.00/ISU N/A Public School Districts $4.00/Acct* N/A *Parcels owned or leased by public school districts which provide activities which directly benefit the surface and stormwater management program. The activities may include: curriculum specific to the issues and problems of surface and stormwater management and student activities in the community to expose students to the efforts required to restore, monitor, or enhance the surface and stormwater management system. Pursuant to RCW 35.92.021, the amount of the service charge shall be determined by the Director, based upon the cost of the activities to the school district, but not to exceed the value of the activity to the stormwater management program. Determination of which activities qualify for the stormwater management service charge reduction will be made by the Director. Reductions in Stormwater Management service charges will only be granted to school districts which provide programs that have been evaluated by the Director. The service charge adjustment for the school activity may be applied to any parcel in the service area which is owned or operated by the school district. Retail Stormwater Rate Adjustment Multiple Family & Commercial Within City Limits Outside City Limits Water Quality Water Quantity $.50/ISU $1.50/ISU N/A N/A Stormwater Penalty for new Multiple Family & Commercial development without on-site detention (BMC 15.06.050Co)) $.50/ISU N/A WASTEWTR. ORD 12 (2) Implementation Schedule for Annexed Properties. When annexed to the Ci~, all multiple family and commercial properties with two or more ISU's will receive the credits in b.(1)(v) above per ISU for 2 years from the date of annexation; Provided, the property owner submits engineering plans and specifications for on-site stormwater quantity and quality improvements for their property within 9 months of annexation, and said plans are approved by the Department according to System Development and Construction Standards. Failure to comply with any of the aforementioned provisions will result in these accounts being charged at the rate of $4.00/ISU/Month beginning 1 year from annexation. V. REBATE. A rebate of the portion of the front footage and facilities fees in excess of the fees charged City residents shall be made to any owner(s) whose property becomes annexed into the City of Bremerton within twelve (12) months from the date of payment of such fees. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten days after its publication as provided by Section 15 of the City Charter. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1998. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1998. day of day of DAVID FARR, Council President WASTEWTR. ORD 13 35- APPROVED this day of ,1998. LYNN HORTON, Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk WASTEWTR.ORD 14 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. Reducing the B & O Tax on Garbage and Refuse Business FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: Treasurer~ Rich Hanha~ Nov. 5, 1998 ' 2. CLEARANCES: Comment of back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: Dir. Admin. Services ,~ .__~__~/ Proposed Ordinance DeputyCity~~ ~.~ _ City Attorney ~ ~~'--~ '~ .//J _ . _ Fiscal&BudgetComm.~~/ ~ ' ~ ~~ O/~~ ENDORSEMENTS ~ INFORMATION ~PROVED BY CO~IL PRESIDENT FOR~BMI~AL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: This ordinance will continue the process, begun in January of 1995, of gradually reducing the B & O Tax on garbage and refuse businesses within the City to a level consistent with other utility tax rates. The intention is to reduce the tax rate by one percent each year until the rate is reduced to six percent. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve on first reading the Ordinance reducing B & O tax on garbage and refuse businesses. Motion to pass on second reading the Ordinance No. __ reducing B & O tax on garbage and refuse businesses. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Treasurer Mayor N/A November 1999 PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED '11. AGENDA BILL NO: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The tax rate on garbage and refuse businesses will remain at the current level. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: This change is included in the revenue assumptions of the 1999 - 2000 Preliminary Budget. This creates a reduction of General Fund revenues of approximately $47,500 compared to the prior tax rate. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: BMC 5.02.070(p) ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE relating to occupation tax for the garbage/refuse business, and amending Chapter 5.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code. THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment. Section 5.02.070 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 5.02.070 OCCUPATION TAX - RATES - WHO MUST PAY - UTILITIES. There is hereby levied upon and there shall be collected from every person as hereinafter provided for the act or privilege of engaging in business activities within the City, whether his office or place of business be within and/or without the City, an occupation tax, sometimes herein referred to as the "tax", in amounts to be determined by application of the rates given against the value of products, including byproducts, gross proceeds of sales or gross income of the business, as the case may be, as follows: (p) Upon every person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of collecting garbage, refuse, hazardous materials or other waste within the corporate limits of the City an annual tax of six't'een ~[!~?~ percent (--1-6%) ~Z~ of the total gross income rendered within the City, effective January 1, -1-998 ~i~g Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days from passage and publication. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,1998. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ~ day of ,1998. APPROVED this __ day of DAVID FARR, Council President ,1998. ATTEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING/RESOLUTION # ~0 ACTION: Appeal of a shoreline variance a reduction in setback from 25 feet to 15 feet. APPELLANT: Paul Scheyer LOCATION: 922 Shore Drive FOR AGENDA OF: November 24, 1998 DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DECD 7,Planning ORIGINATOR: Jon Holan,~,~, DATE SUBMITTED: Noven%ber 17, 1998 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment, on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: DECD Director : ~_~~ City Attorney:/ /4 ENDO~E~NT/><' INFORMA. TION APPRO~D BY COUNCIL P~SIDENT FOR SUBMITTJ~I~: 4. S~Y STATE~NT ~ ~QUI~NT FOR CO~CIL ACTION: CC Resolution No.~O Staff Analysis Public Notice of Appeal. Appeal Application and Arguments in Support. PC Minutes (10/20/98). PC Resolution No #98-06. PC Findings of Fact, Conclusion & Decision. Coutts Shoreline Variance Application. Council must decide if the appellant's arguments for denial of the Coutts Shoreline Variance SLV 98-0002 justify rescinding the Planning Commission's decision of approval of October 20, 1998. 5. RECOMMENDATION: ~ ~se~o~ No. .......... ~ ................... affirming the Planning Commission's decision. ~X~I~TION ~VIEW DATE: 7. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED DATE: CLEARANCE COMMENTS: Appeal (APL 98-0016) application fee of S65.00 was paid on October 30, 1998. 10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: If the shoreline variance is denied, the applicant's options for development of the proper~y will be si~ificantly reduced. 11. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Additional staff resources will be required to review final plans and permits· 12. RESEARCH SOURCES: Zoning Ordinance File Site Visits Shoreline Master Program Relevant State Laws RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING Tlt-E COUTTS APPLICATION FOR A SHORELINE SETBACK VARIANCE (SLV 98-0002) WltEREAS, Gary and Heather Coutts requested a variance of a shoreline setback for a new residence at 922 Shore Drive; and WItEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on October 20, 1998, during which it received oral and written comments pertaining to the subject application; and WItEREAS, the Planning Commission approved application SLV 98-0002; and WHEREAS, Paul Scheyer has requested a review of that decision by the Bremerton City Council (APL 98-0016) and that review was heard in a closed record public hearing on November 24, 1998; NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bremerton City Council makes the following findings: Staff and the Planning Commission have unanimously agreed that the applicant has shown sufficient hardship to justify the approved shoreline variance. o The appellant has not provided any evidence, based on the record, that this hardship is not warranted. The consolidation of permits is not germane to the issuance of the shoreline variance since such consolidation is not required. NOW TItEREFORE, the Bremerton City Council hereby affirms the Planning Commission's approval of the Coutts Shoreline Variance SLV 98-0002. PASSED by 5a~ ~r~ 5ouncil of the C~ _-~erton this ,1998. day of ~I~xVID FARR, President -~emenon City Council APPROVED day of ,1998. ATTEST: ~-.~x3_'N S. ItORTON, Mayor Er~~ of Bremerton PAULA JOHNSTO~N, ~ City Clerk APPEAL OF A SHORELINE VARIANCE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL November 24, 1998 1. Appellant: Paul Scheyer 2111 Madrona Point Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 File Number: APL98-0016 2. Request: REVIEW OF SHORELINE VARIANCE FILE NO. VAR98-0002 3. Attached Documents: · Appeal Application dated October 30, 1998. · Public Notice of Appeal. · Appellant arguments in support of his appeal received November 12, 1998. · Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 20, 1998 pertaining to appeal. · Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-06. · Findings of Fact, Conclusion & Decision of the Planning Commission. · Coutts Application for Shoreline Variance No. SLV 98-0002. 4. Background: The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission's decision of approval dated October 20, 1998 of Gary and Heather Coutts' request for a shoreline variance for a setback reduction from 25 feet to 15 feet for a residence, as described in the attached staff report prepared for the Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission held an Open Record Public Hearing on October 20, 1998. The Notice of Decision approving the shoreline variance was issued on October 21, 1998 and required a 14 day appeal period which closed on November 4, 1998. The appellant submitted an appeal (APL98-0016) on October 30, 1998, within the appeal period and with payment of the appropriate fee. The October 30, 1998 appeal included the application, a letter from the applicant addressing the shoreline variance, and a prior staffletter dated August 11, 1998 addressed to the appellant discussing a separate building permit application the appellant had with the City. The Coutts Shoreline Variance request was subject to the Review Criteria A through F, as set forth in WAC 173-27-170. 5. Summary of Appeal: The appellant alleges that proper procedural requirements of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) were not followed and the shoreline variance application was incomplete because all required permits for future residential building projects were not filed simultaneously. He further alleges that no extraordinary hardship has been shown that would justify this shoreline variance and that approval of this shoreline variance shows selective enforcement. The appellant feels that the SIMP requires a consolidated permit process. He asserts that the Coutts' application was incomplete because it did not include a request for a Conditional Use Permit for potential view corridor issues, or an additional variance for possibly exceeding allowable lot coverage. Both of these issues are potentially related to an anticipated building permit for future development on the property which has yet to be designed or submitted. The appellant also alleges a lack of enforcement of the Growth Management Act, but does not give any specific reference. 6. Staff Analysis: The following is a staff discussion of the relevant issues based on the record and applicable laws: Open Record vs. Closed Record Public Hearing: Although not part of Appellant's arguments, there is an apparent conflict between the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) and state law as to whether the review of an appeal on a shoreline variance is conducted by an open or dosed record public hearing. BMC 21.02.860(c) states that the Planning Commission decides shoreline variances after holding open public hearing. Further, BMC 21.02.860 (d) states that an appeal of shoreline variance is an open record hearing to City Council. However, RCW 36.70B.060 (3) stipulates that the permit review process shall provide for not more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an open record pre-decision hearing is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent open public record appeal hearing. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the matter and concluded that Washington State law supersedes and overrules our local code concerning this issue of shoreline variance appeals. As a result, the matter is before the City Council as a closed record appeal. Complete Application / Consolidated Permit Process: The appellant contends that the Coutts Shoreline Variance application was incomplete because it was not a consolidated permit application containing all anticipated development applications for a future residence. KCW 36.70B.060 outlines provisions for local governments establishing integrated and consolidated project permit process, Subsection (3) of this rule indicates that the consolidated project permit review process as "optional." In addition, RCW 36.70B.120 outlines the permit review process, Subsection (1) states in part, "If an applicant elects the consolidated permit review process, ..." [emphasis added]. No language in the BMC requires an applicant to file for a consolidated permit review process. It can then be concluded that the consolidated permit review process is clearly intended to be an optional and not mandatory permit review process. Thus, the applicant is not required to file for any other permits at this time. Further, a building permit is not required in requesting a shoreline variance and a building permit has not been submitted or requested to date by the Coutts. As a result, it cannot be determined whether a zoning variance for lot coverage or a shoreline conditional use permit for reduction in the view corridor, as mentioned by the appellant, is required. Therefore, the Coutts Shoreline Variance Application can be viewed as a complete application by itself, even though the applicant elected not to submit a consolidated permit application. Hardship Issue: The appellant alleges that sufficient hardship justifying this shoreline variance was not shown. He offers no evidence in support of this allegation. Staff analyzed the Coutts Shoreline Variance request subject to the Review Criteria A through F, as set forth in WAC 173-27-170 and concluded and recommended that based upon the circumstances of the parcel location, location of existing homes on adjacent properties, the natural restrictions and standards of city codes, this shoreline variance would not be considered a special privilege, is a minimum request, and will not affect the public interest. The Planning Commission made the following findings in support of the shoreline variance request: 1. The requested shoreline variance is reasonable and complies with the existing development pattern in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The shoreline variance action is exempt from SEPA review. 4¢ 3. The shoreline variance is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, and the Review Criteria for Variance Permits. The Planning Commission passed unanimously Resolution No. 98-06 approving Shoreline Variance Application No. SLV 98-0002. 7. Conclusions: Staff and the Planning Commission have unanimously agreed that the applicant has shown sufficient hardship to justify the approved shoreline variance. The appellant has not provided any evidence based on the record that the hardship is not warranted. Further, the consolidation of permits is not germane to the issuance of the shoreline variance since such consolidation is not required. Thus, the appellant's arguments for denial of the Courts Shoreline Variance No. SLV 98-0002 do not justify rescinding the Planning Commission's approval. CITY OF BRE~~N · ~9 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 NOTICE OF APPEAL Bremerton City Council The Bremerton City Council will conduct a closed record hearing on the following item during its regular meeting on Tuesday, November 24, 1998 which will begin at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Hall, 239 4"' Street, Bremerton, WA. APL98-0016 - Appeal of Shoreline Variance VAR98-0002 at 922 Shore Drive. Appellant Paul Scheyer is appealing this variance decision for reason that no extraordinary hardship has been shown by applicant. Copies of pertinent materials can be viewed at The Department of Economic and Community Development, located at 286 4ta St., Bremerton, WA 98337. Call il'ames Coombes at (360) 478-5845 for additional information. · Celebrating 50 Years of Freedom ~ ~111111 PERMIT CENTER 286 Fourth Street, Phone: (360)478-5275 Bremerton WA 98337 Fax: (360)478-5278 Request Party: Request for Review of Decision of Dir-eet, or,/$Z Planning Commission ~--~o-AppcMa Cease & Reference: Zoning Code Section 21.02. 935 & 2I. 02. 945 O/our name) - (Your mailing address) (Telephone Number) Decision Being Appealed: ~/'/4- f~ ~..~ ~ ~ ~'~ 3 OCT 3 0 1998 BREMERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT Please prm, idea concise statement of the specific finding(s) or conclusion(s) to be reviewed, together with mater/al facts claimed to support your contentions. Use additional paper if necessary. Please provide a brief statement of the relief sought and the reasons why the decision/action should bo reversed, modified or remanded. Use additional pages if necessary. Appellant's Signature' Review to Reviews will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton City Council as soon as possible, allowing for adequate preparation and notice. You will receive written notification of the Council hearing date mailed to vour address given above. The City Council decision is the final legislative decision. Last printed 04/29/98 9:46 )uMC:XMy Documents~q. equest for Review of Decision of Director.doc 4~ OCT 3 0 1998 BREMERTON 8UILD!NG DEPARTMENT CITY OF BREMERTON · 239 4th Street * Bremerton. V~[[ 98337 Department of Community Development Building, Land Use, and Environmental Services August 11, 1998 Paul Scheyer 2111 Madrona Point Ddve Bremerton, WA 98312 Re: Building Permit Application 98-0439 & 98-0443. Dear Paul: The Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) requires provisions for a view ccnfidor for new construction on shoreline property in the City of Bremerton or an ability to meet the conditions of Key 2 in Table 3-2 of the SMP (see enclosure). The proposed Phase One deck shown on your plans for Permit Appiica~cn 98-0439 appears to encroach into your required view corridor, though the view corddor width is not shown on your plans nor can it be determined from the information provided (percentage of view comdor width is determined by the height of the house). Furthermore, the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance requires 5 FT side yard setbacks in this 'SF-3' zoning area (BMC Title 21 Appendix, Figure 130, LOT REQUIREMENTS). The site plan for Permit Application 98-0443 indicates a setback of 3 FT at the indicated south property line for the proposed deck. Since the indicated deck height exceeds the maximum 30 inch height allowed for decks allowed to within 3 ~ of the side yard setback, the deck dimensions need to conform to the 5 FT setback provision of the Zoning Ordinance. Please contact me at this office or by phone at 478-5275 for any clarifications you need to correct your Permit plans to meet the SMP or Zoning Ordinance. Sincerely, James Ccombes Land Use & Environmental Services Division cc: Judy Johnson enclosure. · Celebrating 50 Yea~ of Freedom OCT 3 0 1998 BREMERTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUiLD!NG DEPARTMENi The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 1998 were approved as presented at the November 17, 1998 meeting. Respectfully submitted by: Pattie Haas, Recording Secretary Draft Mirrutes for Approval Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1998 I. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Robinson, Commissioners Boyd, Dingfield, Stone, Griggs, Adams. Commissioner Wolfe had an excused absence. Quorum certified. II. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robinson at 6:00 p.m. III. Approval of the Agenda Motion by Commissioner Stone to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Agenda approved. IV. Public Hearing 1. Shoreline Variance Application (SLV98-0002) Applicant: Gary and Heather Coutts, 922 Shore Drive (a vacant lot). Mr. Jori Holan presented the staff report. Applicants are requesting a shoreline variance in the setback to reduce the shore yard setback 10 feet so that a new single family residence will be in alignment with existing structures on adjacent parcels. In reference to variance criteria there are several requkements that have to be met. Staff supports approval of the variance. A hardship has been created as a result of the parcel being platted in the early 1900's which created lots between Shore Drive and the waterfront. A th/rd of this parcel is in tidelands and does not allow itself for construction to a standard residential design. The variance request is partially based on a 4,200 square foot buildable area of the lot due to the relative nature of the beach location restriction of the developable area, As referenced by staff research efforts, the adjacent parcel has received the benefit for a shoreline variance in which the residence is at 15 feet from the shoreline and the City has maintained flexibility within the shoreline and zoning codes for special exceptions to address the limits of the Shore Drive older residences. The applicant has also indicated an impact with regards to view limitation as a result if the strict implementation of the shoreline setback is imposed. The applicant is obtaining a fight which has been granted to other residences in the area. This will be aligning th~/residence with two neighboring structures on either side of the property and the public will not suffer any substantial detrimental effect as a result of approval of the variance. We believe the reduction in shoreline setback from 25 to 15 feet is reasonable, it is Planning Commimon Meeting October 20, 1998 Page I of 9 based on the circumstances of the parcel location, the natural restrictions coupled w/th standards of the City code. This is compatible with other residences in the area and will not be considered as a special privilege, and will not effect the public interest. Staff'recommends to the Planning Commission to concur with the request for the shoreline setback variance (SLV98-0002) and we suggest the adoption of Resolution 98-06 to enact the approval. Commission Griggs commented that he lives on Shore Drive and is familiar with the property. He questioned the wording of"existing bulkhead" regarding the property. He did not believe there was a bulkhead at this site. He also questioned reference to a retaining wall at Bachman Park. Mr. ltolan noted that he did not believe either of these issues had a substantive impact in terms of the variance request. Chairman Robinson asked if there was any written testimony concerning this application. He asked if the applicant or their representative would like to make any comments or presentation. Mr. ltolan noted for the record that there was no written testimony submitted. Mr. Jeffrey Hecker (Hecker Architects, Bremerton) commented that he was representing the applicants, Gary and Heather Courts. Mr. Hecker thanked Jori Holan for his presentation and the Department of Economic and Community Development staff for their preparation of the application. Mr. Hecker referred to a photograph in the application packet that the Commissioners had received that shows an existing masonry bulkhead on the property (stacked concrete with masonry blocks on top of it). They are requesting a reduction of the setback to a siteline setback between the two adjoining properties. Mr. Hecker indicated that the photographs in the packet illustrate the proposal (proposed setbacks and current requirements). If they build at the 25 foot setback it will cause a view blockage issue because the two adjoining properties are built closer to the bulkhead than what is currently required. Mr. Hecker also mentioned that they have addressed all the criteria for the variance requirements from the State of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) as follows: 1) the dimensional requirements would cause a hardship for this particular piece of property (view blockage); 2) the project is compatible with existing uses in the area if the requested variance is approved; 3) there have been past variances and special exceptions granted to other neighbors because it is an older neighborhood and things have developed in a certain manner that sometimes requires flexibility in how you plan a new project; 4) they are only requesting going to a siteline setback between the two adjoining houses which would correct the view blockage issue; and 5) based on the development patterns used from the surrounding areas, it should not have any substantial detrimental effect on public interest. Mr, Heeker also asked that the Commission note that he and the applicants have met with the Planning staff, the adjoining neighbors, and also with the Department of Ecology (DOE) to get their opinion on this proposal. Both the neighbors on either side and above have indicated that they have no problem with this proposal. A representative from DOE was on site and she indicated that they would be ~pportive of this application and it was an appropriate instance for a variance because of the view blockage problems and the existing pattern of development. Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1998 Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Dingfield asked if the bulkhead would be repaired. Mr. Hecker answered yes the bulkhead would be repaired/strengthened at a future date Chairman Robinson asked if there were any additional questions or any other public testimony in favor or in opposition to the project. Pubfic Comment Mr. Paul Scheyer, a resident of Madrona Point Drive, presented a litany of his concerns regarding other development standards for the parcel. It was his opinion that view corridor, building height, building setbacks, spray hitting the house, and requirements were not adequately addressed. Mr. ltolan replied that the view corridor requirements would have been reviewed with staff and they would not have recommended approval if there was an issue. He also reminded the Planning Commissioners that some of the other issues that Mr. Scheyer brought up are building permit issues and no building permit has been applied for at this time. These issues would be discussed at the time the building permit is applied for. Commissioner Dingfieid asked if the view corridor issue would be brought up during the building permit process and asked if the applicants are penalized by the clear variance that was allowed on the other side where they built their house right up to the property line. How is that adjusted so that these people do not get penalized? Commissioner Stone asked about proper notice being given. He believed he had read it in the Legal Notices. Mr. ltolan responded that yes it had been in the newspaper and showed a copy of the ad. It had been noticed on October 5, 1998. There was also a notice placed on the property and notices were sent to the appropriate property owners. Commissioner Griggs noted that he had seen the bulkhead on the property but that it was blocks and not a real blockhead. His concern was that a ferry wake could damage it. He felt the bulkhead in place at this time was high enough that damage would not occur. He would like to see a stronger bulkhead in place in the future. In response to the view corridor issue, this is a dead end street, people are not cruising around there. It is a City street, there is no turn-around, but they can and they do. A lot of people walk along there and they probably would like a view of the water, but it's not there. The property in question is near Bachman Park and people can go there and sit at the gazebo and be by the water and enjoy it. He saw no problem with this request as presented. ,t'i Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1998 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Hecker indicated that he had discussed the scope of the project with the Planning staff, specifically the variance issue. The view corridor issue had been addressed and they do not feel it will be a problem. They are in compliance with the Shoreline Master Program, as indicated on the drawing. He also noted that the property had been legally posted for quite some time and he had seen the legal notice in the newspaper. The bulkhead will be reinforced. Chairman Robinson asked that the Commissioners keep the comments made by Mr. Scheyer in perspective. The issue before them tonight was simply the setback variance issue. The building of a residence and the issues surrounding that (view corridor, height of building, the footprint in conjunction with the lot, side setbacks, etc.) are covered under the Uniform Building Code and zoning ordinances and are very specific on their requirements. Commissioner Dingfield commented that she is familiar with Shore Drive and in her opinion the plans submitted reflects the neighborhood very well and, therefore, made a motion to adopt resolution//98-06 as outlined and presented before them. Seconded by Commissioner Boyd. Question Called: Boyd, yes; Stone, yes; Dingfield, yes; Griggs, yes; Adams, yes; Robinson, yes. Motion passes unanimously. 2. Presentation by Public Works Department (Mr. Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works and Utilities) on City sewer and storm drain facilities. Mr. Sampley discussed the storm system has some limited capacities, as it is an old system, but it is fairly new as a utility and they are focusing on the new connections and the CSO program with their stormwater utility. Mr. Sampley presented Exhibits A and B, maps of the City of Bremerton service area. There are several basins. It takes a great deal of effort to get the wastewater from East Bremerton over to West Bremerton, where the treatment plant is located. In order to do that there are a total of 33 pump stations. There is a secondary treatment plant that has a capacity of 10.1 million gallons a day average monthly capacity. It has a hydraulic capacity on a peaking period of 29.1 million gallons a day. They can take in flows through the plant approaching 40 million gallons a day. There is a lot of range when you look at the average summer flow, which is about 4.5 million gallons. This presents a lot of challenges for the City because they have a combined sewer system which accepts storm water in most of the areas east of SR-3. All of East Bremerton and most of West Bremerton is combined sewers. In response to the Federal Clean Water Act in 1992 they adopted the Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan. There is a total of 17 overflows in the City. These combined sewers at peak storms will overflow and there is a significant effort in implementation of a plan to expend approximately twenty millions dollars (in 1989 dollars) by the year 2011 to reduce the overflow throughout the City to no more than one event per year. Mr. Sampley went on to say that the combined sewer overflows are different than an overflow which would occur due to a power failure at a pump station or something similar. This is strictly a storm-related event. They are plagued by factors in storms that are almost immeasurable, i.e., the intensity and duration of the storm. They get information basically on how many inches of rain did we have over a 24 ho~ period, but the real impact of a storm is how quickly it comes and how fast it hits the system. T~fieir reliability has increased dramatically over the past couple of years. All stations have more back-up power, more reliable equipment, and their response time is Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1998 Page 4 of 9 advantageous, it really isn't in certain cases. They would like to dis,courage that. It is in the applicant's favor to take care of the planning matters first and theft/hove on to the building permit, because that is what actually happens when the department receives them. Terrie O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, Department of Economic and Community Development, noted that these changes are not only a mandate from the Mayor to take a look at the zoning ordinance, it is really a mandate from the public that the City do something to streamline the process to make development in Bremerton a real pleasure for people. You will be hearing a lot about efficiency, economy and customer service from their department, because they are really making a lot of positive change. Terrie also wanted to congratulate Jon Holan on all the work he has done in the department, taking inventory of things that need to be changed, and feels that he is making very positive changes. IX. Old Business. Nothing to report for subcommittee. Commissioner Stone asked what was the status of the moratorium on docks, as the moratorium ends November 5, 1998. Doug Fortner, City Attorney, responded that it is on the City Council agenda for November 4, 1998. X. New Business. Nothing to report. ,31I. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Pattie Haas, Recording Secretary Approved by: Bill Robinson, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1998 P~ge 9 of 9 CITY OF BREMERTON DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC & COMML,.-NITY DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION & DECISION OF THE PLANNING CO~O. flSSION SHORELINE VARIANCE File No. 98 - 0002 I. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance to reduce the shoreyard setback from the required 25 feet to 15 feet for the construction of =_ new single family residence. Attachments: A. Application B. Site Plan C. ViciniD- Map D. Shoreline Environment Desigmtion Map IL FINDINGS OF FACTS A. Applicant: Gary & Heather Coutts Seattle, WA Be Application: Shoreline Variance (setback) Reduce the shoreyard setback I0 feet so the new single family residence will be in alignment with the existing structures on adjacent parcels. C. Location: 922 Shore Drive Within NWl/4, Section 18, Township 24, Range, 2 East Sinclair Inlet D. Tax Lot No.: 3923-004-010-0008, Plat of Crrand View Addition E. Project Description: Applicant seeks a reduced shoreline setback variance to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Table 3-2 Site Development Standards, Residential Detached Dwelling Unit 25' - Shoreline setback requirement. F. Existing Conditions: The parcel fronts 60 feet along the south side of Shore Drive, 72 feet along the east side, 67 feet along the west side, and 60 feet alone the beach bulkhead. There are existing residences on the neig3bofing parcels. The subject site is vacant. The site configuration appears to indicate that a structure was formerly lecated on the Parcel. Also, a review of a old aerial photo indicates a prior structure. The site is adjacent to the south side of Shore Drive. On the north side of the street is a 25 foot high cement retaining wall with Bachman Park upon the crest of the hill. G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The surrounding area is zoned SF-3, a medium density residential neighborhood. H. Shoreline Master Program Environment Designation Map: The site is designated Residential along this dead-end section of Shore Drive. I. Shoreline/Use Activity: The Shoreline Use/Activity is Urban Residential. The construction of a new single family residence is a permitted activity within this area, subject to applicable development standards. J. Permit Processing Procedure: The decision on a Shoreline Variance, a Type II process, is made by the Bremerton Planning Commission, and may be appealed to the City Council. K. Public Notice: Determination of Completeness was issued on September 2, 1998 Notice of Application was published on September 8th & 15, 1998. Notice of Application was mailed and posted on site on September 4, 1998. Notice of Comment Period ended on October 14, 1998. L. SEPA Review: Statement of Categorical Exemption. This project is categorical exempt from SEPA review pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6)(b) III CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Shoreline Master Program (SMP) The City Shoreline Master Program setback for a detached dwelling unit in the environment designation of Residential is required to be 25 feet (SMP Table 3-2 Site Development Standards p. 3-26). The City SMP further states that the requested Variance must meet the Review Criteria as outlined in WAC 173-14-150. (NOTE: At the time of the adoption of the SMP in 1977 the WAC reference was 173-14-150. However, the current WAC reference is 173-27-170. The applicant's representative, Mr. Jeff Hecker has submitted his response to the WAC 173-27- 170 review criteria and photographs. (Attached as Exhibits to the Application) The Staff concurs with Mr. Hecker's analysis and supports the notion that the request is in keeping with the existing development pattern in this area of the shoreline. Staff researched some of the city files of the typical land use applications associated with the continuous development of the Shore Drive community. The effort found flexibility within the SMP to accommodate the remodeling, renovation, expansion, and site improvements for this older beach community south of the Manette area. Also of note, the adjacent parcel (Brachner-924 Shore Drive) was granted in 1986 an Conditional Use permit to expand their legal non-conforming structure and also secured a variance for a shoreyard setback of 15 feet. (File SL-02-86) Analysis and Conclusions of the Variance Review Criteria. The criteria is listed below, followed by staff's analysis. A) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; A circumstance in this particular variance is the hardship as a result of the parcel being platted in the early 1900's which created lots between Shore Drive and the waterfront. A third of the parcel is tideland in nature and does not allow itself for fulfilling a standard residential design. B) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; This variance request is partially based on the 4,200 square buildable area of the lot due to the relative nature of the beach location restriction of developable area, and the restrictions associated with the shoreline setback code. The area of the variance is the width of the residence at 46 feet with the varied setback area of 10 feet for a total of 460 square feet of affected dwelling space. C) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. As referenced by staff research efforts, the adjacent parcel received the benefit for a shoreyard setback variance, which set the residence at 15 feet from the shoreline. The city has maintained flexibility within its shoreline and zoning codes for special exceptions to address the limits of the Shore Drive older residences. The consideration of the replacement of some former residence on the site is in keeping with the general upgrade of this community. D) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; The City files supports the variance request by the prior actions granting variances and conditional uses along this dead-end section of Shore Drive. E) the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; The applicant is not asking more then needed to align the residence with the two neighboring structures. F) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; The public will not suffer from any substantial detrimental effect. IV CONCLUSION The Variance from the shoreyard set back requirement of 25 feet to 15 feet is a reasonable request, based upon the circumstances of the parcel location; and the natural restrictions coupled with the standards of the city codes. Also, the footprint of the floor plan is compatible with the other residences in the area, and will not be considered as a special privilege, is a minimum request, and will not affect the public interest. V RECOMMENDATION The Staff recommends to the City of Bremerton Planning Commission to concur with the request for the shoreline setback variance for the proposed Coutts residence, File SL V 98-0002. Staff suggest the adoption of Resolution 98-06 to enact the approval. APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT, SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOP, COND~ION~ USE, REVISION TO AN EXISTING PERMIT, OR VAR/3tNCE PERMIT TO T~TR APPLICANT: This is an application for a Substantial Development, Conditional Use, Revision to an Existing Permit, or Variance Permit as authorized by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. It.is suggested that you check with appropriate local, state, or federal officials to determine whether your pro~ec% ~alls within any other permit systems. Additional information may be requested from the applicant as project review proceeds. Check applicable box: Substantial Development [] Conditional Use Revision ~ Variance 1. Applicant: Gary & Heather Courts 12711 - 37th Ave. N. E. Address: City: Seattle, WA 98125 zip: 98125 Day phone: , (206) 251-8700 Owner [] Purchaser [] Lessee ~ Other Contact person: Jelirey A. Hecker / Hecker Architects (if different than #1) Address: City:. Day phone: 225 Shore Drive, WA 98310 Bremerton, WA (360) 479-5459 zip: 98310 Property owner: (Same as above) (If different than ;1) Address: City: Day phone: Zip: Fair Market Value of Project $250,000 AUG 1 3 '~,o BR=MERTON BUILDh"IS DEPARTMENT General location of proposed project (please list section to the nearest quarter section, township, and range) with street address (if address exists): Township. Section. and RanQ~: NW-18-24-O2-EAST Address: 922 Shore Drive, Bremerton, WA 98210 Name of water area and/or wetlands within which development is proposed (within 200 feet): Sinclair Inlet (Marine) Describe current use of the property with existing improvements: .. The property classilic,~iion/~'~;e is single lamily residential and is currently undeveloped lane. Structures existing on the property are limited to a concrete and masonry (CMU) bulkhead. '7. Describe proposed use of the prDperty (be specific): 5i.ngle lamily residence: 2,500 square loot. three bedroom. ~vo car garage, ~n accordance with current building codes and City ol Bremerton Department ol Community Development requirements. NOTE: ITEMS 8, 9 AND 10 ARE TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIALS. Nature of existing shoreline: Type of Shoreline: Marine (i.e. marine, strea~, lake, lagoon, marsh, bog, swamp, etc.) Type of Marsh: how bank (i.e. accretion, erosion, high bank, low bank, etc.) Material ( s ): Sand & Gravel (i.e. sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap, etc.) Butkheading: Existing concrete and masonry (CMU) (show extent and type, if any) In the event any of the proposed buildings or structures will exceed 35 feet above the average grade level, indicate the approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view. Applicant's proposal will not exceed height indicated. !0. ll. Zf ~he appli _ion involves a conditiona se or variance, set for~5 in fu!l, that portion of ~%e ~'s~er proqr~m which provides that proposed use may be a conditional use, or, in the case of a variance, from which the variance is being sought: Shoreline setback requirement. APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS: NOTE: USE ONLY 11" x 17" OR LARGEI~ PAPER. DRAW ALT. SITE PLANS AND MAPS TO SCar.R, CLEARLY INDICATING SCALE ON LOWERRIGHT-HAND CORNER. ATTACH ~LL PLANS AND MAPS TO THE APPLICATION. A. SITE PLAN (include the following): 1. Site boundary. 2. Property dimensions in vicinity of project. 3. Ordinary high-water mark. Typical cross section or sections showing: a. Existing and proposed ground elevations. b. Height of existing and proposed structures. Where appropriate, proposed land contours using 5' intervals in water area and 10' intervals on areas landward of ordinary high-water mark, if development involves grading, cutting, filling, or other alterations of land contours. Show dimensions and locations of proposed structures and of existing structures which will be maintained. Identify source, composition, and volume of fill material. Identify composition and volume of any extracted materials, and identify proposed disposal area. Location of proposed utilities, such as sewer, septic tanks and drainfields, water, gas, or electricity. 10. If the development proposes septic tanks, does the proposed development comply with local health and state regulations? 11. Shoreline designation according to master program. 12. Show which areas are shorelines and which are shorelines of state-wide significance. B. VTCINITr MAP - Indicate site location using natural points of reference (roads, state highways, prominent land marks, etc.) If the development involves the removal of any soils by dredging or otherwise, please identify the proposed disposal site on the map. If the disposal site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map, provide another vicinity map showing the precise location of the disposal site and its distance to the nearest city or town. Give a brief narrative description of the general nature of the improvements and land use within one thousand feet in all direction from development site. (i.e., residential to the north, commercial to the south, etc.). I, , am the above named applicant for a permit pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and hereby state that the foregoing statements, answers, and information are, in all respects, true and correct to the best of _ WAC 173-27-170 Courts - Variance Application WAC 173-27-170 Review criteria for variance permits. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character of configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (2) Variance permits Ior development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high wa~er mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate the following: Summary - Applicant is seeking a variance to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) - Table 3-2 Site Development Standards, Residential, Detached Dwelling Unit, Shoreline setback- 25'. (See attached site plan and photographs illustrating the applicants proposal.) (a) That the strict application ot the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set lorth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; Strict application of the bulk, dimensional and performance standards set forth in the SMP precludes the applicants reasonable enjoyment of water and shoreline views. Specifically, the application of the 25' shorelines setback will impose view blockage due to the structures built within the 25' setback on both adjoining properties thus creating "tunnel vision". (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not for example, from deed restrictions or the applicants own actions; Application of the SMP 25' setback in conjunction with the structures built within this area on both adjoining properties creates a view blockage hardship for which the applicant is seeking relief. (see attached site plan depicting the reduced "s/gM line" setback) '(c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned Ior the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts ~o the shoreline environment; The applicant's proposal to build a single family residence is compatible with and comparable to other existing and or planned uses / structures built within the shoreline neighborhood and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. '¥AC 173-27-170 Courts - Variance Application (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; As indicated in (a), (b), and (c) of this subsection, the majority of the waterfront structures in the vicinity are built inside the 25' shorelines setback. Therefore, reducing the setback for this applicant would not constitute a grant of special privilege since this pattern of development already exists. (see photographs of adjoining neighborhood) (e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford re, fei; The proposed setback reduction is the only practical means to solve the view blockage or "tunnel vision" issue caused by the SMP in conjunction with the adjoining structures. Since these buildings existed prior to - or - are in compliance with the SMP, the proposed variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. (f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Other than seeking a reduced setback to cure the imposed view blockage, the applicant's proposal is in compliance with SMP requirements. The public's enjoyment of Bachmann Park, allowing visual and physical access te the neighboring shoreline environment, will suffer no substantial detrimental effect as a result of this proposat. NOIIV31 ]dc:IV :IONVI~VA - 'ISV::I (]NV HIFIOS 3HI Ol SISIX::I AV~ B::IIV~ I:]INI BIVIONIS 'S::lll~::lclOl:Icl INOI::IJI::I::IIV/~ (]NV aNYqaD JO :I~f11XIIAI V -I0 SlSlSNO0 V::II::IV SIHL '1S:::1/~ (]NV HI~ION :IH1 011SIX3 s:1~!131or1~11s (]NV ~lSfl ]VIIN3(]IS~]I::t A'IIINV:I ~I'IgNIS '::]11S :IH1 -I0 1:1::t4 (]NvsnoH1 V NIHII~ :~iAIIVUUVN NIIVd NNV~dH:)VI! 3AI1:10 ~]WOHS gZ6 :ILLS C~ W I- W 0 W W Z 0 W o. I I-- Z 0 Z LU D. I I I i' (It'~NH~OIIG) :JON:JOIS'gll J. SlXlt I OY~H~lflB DNOS (O~SOdOBd) 1:77NI ~tlVTONI$ ~BV~4 B31VM HglH ABYNI(3BO 03OY]d3B / O3BIVd3B 3B ~ (~?~~OI~Js ~NINIO£OVN~9 (O]$gdOBd) _~ A l U E] :7~10H$ I'I ,0'07 ,O'OJ, I (INZ,LIIi'I¥~ (~,3V~ ! 9,S -S'v, ISIX :. (1SOMNt[1.OS IHt 01 tNZUNIVS - (]NV - 1S'~HIJJON ('M'O'B 3AIWa ]BORS ~-,07 (3Nll3B§HS 9NOIV S]IWVA HldOa lC'l)