HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/96TAPE #1360
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
COUNCIL
APPROVED
MAR 20 1996
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 1996
#0042
The regular 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, February 28, 1996, at 5:30 P.M.,
with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present
were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Cecil McConnell, Carlos Montgomery,
Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr, Richard Neville, and Lon Overson.
Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathy
McCluskey.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council
President Law and Invocation given by Councilman A1 Colvin.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes -- February 7, 1996
#AB96-040
M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve Consent Agenda as presented.
#0074
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.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on February 28, 1996, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: EFT3522, EFT3523, 195445 through 195466 in the amount
of $180,163.45; and Retiree Payroll for the period ending 2/29/96
in the amount of $97,395.85; and Regular Payroll for the period
ending 1-31-96, in the amount of $786,872.41.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Overson announced a meeting will be held on February 29, 5:30
P.M., in the Washington Mutual Building, that will address downtown
Bremerton's image. This meeting is sponsored by Bremerton Main
Street Association, The Sun, Bremerton Area Chamber Of Commerce,
Economic Development Council and Waterfront Task Force.
Mr. Neville thanked everyone for the cards, flowers and well wishes
as well as the help he received from professionals at Harrison
Hospital.
Mr. Farr noted Mr. Neville is a valued member of the Council and he
TAPE #1360
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 2 of 19
was glad to have him back.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated it was good to have Councilman Neville back
and in good health.
Mr. Montgomery echoed welcome back sentiments to Mr. Neville, and
the fact he was sorrily missed.
Mr. McConnell announced the next District #2 Neighborhood Meeting
will be held March 12, 6:30 P.M., at Fire Station #3. The guest
speaker at that meeting will be Police Chief Paul DuFresne and the
Beat Officers for that area.
Mr. Colvin was pleased to report 41 people turned out for the
District #1 Neighborhood Meeting and complimented Randy McGreal, of
Fletcher Wright, on the excellent presentation he made on the
downtown waterfront project. He encouraged residents of District
#1 to attend the District #2 Neighborhood Meeting on March 12. He
assured those concerned about the Scotch broom that the issue will
not go away and he expects it to accelerate.
Mr. Winters reported on Tuesday, February 27, he and Councilman
Montgomery attended a meeting of the Downtown Waterfront Task
Force. He acknowledged that the image of Bremerton has been
tainted, changed or needs an uplift and that process will begin at
the meeting on February 29, at the Washington Mutual building,
starting at 5:30 P.M.. He was pleased to announce applications for
housing at the new Max Hale Center are available for local people,
and copies of the application will be available in the City Council
Office. The Swing City Committee is sponsoring a fund raising
dance on March 15, at the Bremerton Eagles.
Mr. Law reported the Bremerton School District followed through on
their commitment to clean up the property on the east side of the
Middle School facing Trenton Avenue.
MAYOR'8 REPORT
Mayor Horton reported the Parks Commission voted to accept a
recommendation from Gold Mountain golfers and members of the
community to name the new and old golf courses at Gold Mountain.
The new course will be named Olympic Course At Gold Mountain and
the old course will be named the Cascade Course at Gold Mountain.
The new course construction is on schedule and is anticipated to
open for play in the fall.
Mayor Horton conveyed the BEST REPORT AWARD on the February 26th
Police Activity Report, which read as follows: "On February 26
Animal Control Officer Olson responded to a guinea pig stuck in a
wood stove vent pipe. She could not get the pig out on first
TAPE #1360
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 3 of 19
attempt and requested the Bremerton Fire Department. The Bremerton
Fire Department could not get the pig out. Olson used cooking oil
to lubricate the pig up and was able to remove the little ham
without harm. Pig advised his goose was cooked."
Police Chief Paul DuFresne, Lt. Ron Mox and K-9 Officer Bogen
introduced the City newest K-9 Police Dog - P.D. Rebel. Rebel was
funded through donations from citizens of Bremerton. Officer Bogen
extended a special thanks to the Rotarians for their part in
acquiring Rebel. Chief DuFrense pointed out Rebel comes with a
unique "replacement guarantee" in the event he didn't meet the
City's requirements.
Mayor Horton extended congratulations to the Bremerton High School
students, who were honored as outstanding academic students at a
special recognition event on February 27, and to the teachers and
School District personnel.
Henry Mincey, Manager Community Recourse Division, stated last year
his division was created as part of the Police Department
reorganization and one of the first things they did was establish
a partnership with the Bremerton School District. That partnership
involved the City providing a School Resource Officer along with
the duties of D.A.R.E., and G.R.E.A.T classes. Now, the Bremerton
School District wishes to report back to the City Council on how
that partnership is working. Carol Whitehead, Assistant
Superintendent, complimented the City, Chief DuFresne, and the
Police Officers for the outstanding job they are doing in the City.
The Bremerton School District is particularly appreciative for the
excellent support they receive on a day-to-day basis from the
Police Department, and have received for a number of years. This
year they have had the special opportunity to have Officer
Fitzpatrick, who works with the Middle School and Jr. High,
assigned to the School District full time. The partnership is
possible because of a State Security grant, which is for a two year
period, if the State Legislature continues to approve funding.
Officer Fitzpatrick's job with the schools is to be proactive with
students as well as being available on site if his services are
needed in an emergency situation. Officer Fitzpatrick teaches the
G.R.E.A.T. program, helping students learn early on about gangs in
the community and how they can make a choice to say "no" and make
the right decisions to move forward.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Jack Lefcoski, Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association - A group
addressing weeds in lakes within Kitsap County will hold a meeting
on March 5, 6:30 P.M., at the Cascade Natural Gas building on
Kitsap Way.
TAPE #1360
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 4 of 19
Gene Hart - recognition given to Bremerton High School students for
their outstanding academic achievements. The following question
was raised: "what is the real reason Pastor Larry Robertson is not
allowed to speak on Black History at Bremerton High School?
President Law suggested Mr. Hart contact the Bremerton School
Board.
Klaus Golombeck, Bremerton Central Lions Club - District Lions Club
Convention at the Bayview Inn on March 2-3. The Bremerton Central
Lions Club will sponsor the Armed Forces Day Parade.
Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association - Image Of
Bremerton Forum, February 29, 5:30 P.M., at the Washington Mutual
Community Room.
Gordy Byrd - enjoyed the presentation on the Sinclair Landing
project at the District #1 Neighborhood Meeting.
De1 Knauss - thanked Councilman Huff-Menees and Mayor Horton for
stepping down from the Sinclair Landing Association Board of
Directors. He asked the following questions and requested a
written response: (1) Has Mayor Horton signed a new Memorandum Of
Understanding with the Sinclair Landing Association. And, what are
the differences between.the new one and the one City Council voted
on a couple of months ago? (2) Concerning the City Utility Tax on
garbage bills, charging an 18% tax. I called the State Attorney
General's Office and State Representative Lois McMahan's Office.
It appears from the information I have from the Association Of
Washington Cities, that the City has been overcharging its
residences since 1986. The AWC Bulletin states we have concerns
regarding potential ambiguities relating to the authority of cities
and towns to impose solid waste taxes at rates exceeding 2/10th of
1%. Those concerns arose from the absence of a statutory amendment
to RCW 35.21.710. This happened by a series of bills in 1982, 1985
and 1986 that changed references and codification. In 1982 the
Legislature limited City Utility Taxes for telecommunications,
electricity and Natural Gas to 6%. The Legislature also limited
City B&O Taxes to 0.2% unless the activity was taxed under RCW
82.16. In 1985, the Legislature increased the State Utilities Tax
(RCW 82.16) on solid waste to help fund the Public Works Trust
Fund. In 1986, the Legislature moved the Solid Waste Tax from RCW
82.16 to a new Chapter RCW 82.18. This means the tax is no longer
exempt from the 0.2% limit, because it is no longer taxed under RCW
82.16. Question - since it appears to me that the City is in
violation of State Law, can the residents expect a roll back of
this tax and a refund for the years of overcharging?"
Thomas Delahay, Bremerton resident - questioned the Planning
TAPE #1360
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 5 of 19
Department requirement for professional drawings of projects
needing a Building Permit when doing small type rehabilitation work
on rental properties; and was there some type of drawing that he
could submit somewhere between a drawing on a napkin and a blue
print?
John Thomas, Bremerton resident - asked that individual property
owners clean up Scotch broom plants and by doing so may embarrass
the City into cleaning up Scotch broom on City properties.
7A - REOUEST TO COUNCIL TO ACCEPT A REVISED LETTER OF INTENT TO
ANNEX THE WERNER ROAD AREA, #AB96-041
On November 8, 1995, the City Council approved a Letter of Intent
to Annex the area designated as the Werner Road Annexation, into
the City of Bremerton. The process is defined by RCW 35.13.125.
The City Council determined that they would accept the area as
geographically proposed and require the area to assume a
proportional share of the City's current indebtedness as a
condition of any future petition for annexation. Additionally,
Council allowed for the provisional administrative assignment of
zoning according to BMC 21.02.260. This would exempt the staff
from taking the new area through the zoning process until after
annexation.
City Council is asked to accept a modified Letter of Intent to
Annex, which would replace the Letter of Intent accepted by Council
on November 8, 1995. The new Letter of Intent requires the City to
perform necessary work to obtain pre-annexation land use planning
and zoning. The new Letter of Intent reduces the area to exclude
properties that will not be included in the final petition.
Terrie O'Neill, Municipal Services Coordinator, reviewed the
Summary Statement data and explained at this point she is asking
Council to back up to the Letter Of Intent to consider requiring
staff to go through the zoning and Comprehensive planning of the
area prior to completing the annexation at the request of several
petitioners. Council is also being asked to eliminate some areas
from the annexation area since there were not sufficient petitions
for the City to proceed without the owners of those properties
being concerned. The City has been activity trying to address
concerns of the area property owners and a meeting is scheduled on
February 29, 1996, 7:00 P.M., at the Fire Station on Kitsap Way to
talk more about the annexation process.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson stated he could not see where the City could do
anything to the property related to zoning when the area is not
#1851
#1995
TAPE #1360
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 6 of 19
within the City? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated State statutes
RCW 35.13.177 and 35.13.178 allow cities to zone property that
would take affect upon annexation. The City Council, by State law,
is to indicate in the minutes of this meeting whether they will
require zoning to take affect simultaneously or whether there will
be zoning action after annexation. Mr. Overson stated because such
action is legal and if the process has been followed, there would
be no leverage on the Council. Mr. Sievers stated yes, the
decision here is not to decide the zoning, but whether to have it
in place by the time of annexation.
Mr. Colvln asked if zoning action would be taken without a public
hearing. Mr. Sievers stated no, identifying a zoning designation
would require Planning Commission review, Council hearings and
adoption of an Ordinance. Typically, the City uses the same
Ordinance to implement the annexation. Mr. Colvin asked the amount
of increased taxes to the City once the area is annexed into the
City? Ms. O'Neill explained the assessed value of the property
proposed for annexation is $12,000,000, and could include other
kinds of tax revenue benefits.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Farr) to accept the Werner Road Annexation as
geographically modified in the Letter of Intent dated February 20,
1996, subject to the assumption of a share of the City's current
indebtedness, and require the simultaneous adoption of a
comprehensive plan and zoning designations upon annexation.
7B - APPOINTMENT OF DONNA R. ADAMS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
#AB96-042
There is a vacancy on the Planning Commission and it is recommended
that the vacancy be filled by Donna R. Adams.
Mayor Hotton reviewed Ms. Adams background noting the value of her
bringing the perspective of the Washington State Ferries to the
City. Ms. Adams planned to be at this meeting, however, she had
not yet arrived.
Public comment.
M/S/C/U(Neville/Montgomery) to confirm the appointment of Donna R.
Adams to the Planning Commission.
8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4543 (SECOND READING) RESTRICTING STORAGE OF
OVERSIZE VEHICLES, #AB96-030
Deborah Goods11, Parking Supervisor, stated this proposal is to
restrict reparking oversized vehicles over 10,000 lbs., or 22 feet
in length, to 120 hours in a 30-day period.
Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, made a statement of clarification
TAPE #1360
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 7 of 19
that the wording "except motor homes" is in the proposed ordinance.
Council rescinded an earlier motion to "include motor homes", so
first reading of the ordinance was as approved on February 7th.
Mr. Overson talked about prior Council action to include "motor
homes" in the restriction and the adverse affect it would have on
motor home visitors coming to Bremerton. He questioned if
his understanding was correct. Ms. Goodell stated if the motor
home is an oversized vehicle, they would be allowed to park 120
hours within a 30-day period. When the discussion had motor homes
excepted, they had unrestrictive parking. Mr. Overson asked Mr.
Montgomery if that was the intent of his prior position on this
issue? Mr. Montgomery stated his intent was to not have oversized
vehicles, including motor homes, parking on narrow City streets for
long periods of time. And, if a person owns a motor home they
should park it on their own property or in a storage lot. Ms.
Goodell explained the problem they have encountered has been the
need to chase around the City large, and generally commercial
vehicles, buses, etc., every 72 hours. Currently, there is no
other law to apply to address these problems; however, there are
laws addressing visibility. Mr. Overson asked why Ms. Goodell did
not want a 34 foot motor home parked on the street in a residential
neighborhood. Ms. Goodell stated her original proposal was to
include motor homes, since they are oversized vehicles. If motor
homes are exempted, it would depend on the width of the street and
the attitude of the neighborhood. She believed it should be
enforced City wide, not street-by-street. Mayor Hotton emphasized
when the ordinance was originally drafted, it included motor homes,
so they too would be banned from long term storage on City streets.
It was her position, for political reasons, that issue would be too
tough to deal with at this point, especially when the primary
concern had to do with buses, horse trailers, construction
vehicles, etc. At the second reading of the ordinance, Council
changed the ordinance to ban motor homes as well and she asked
Council to rescind that motion to allow the public an opportunity
to give their input on such a proposal. The Administrative
recommendation was to exempt motor homes, which was supported at
the time of first reading of the ordinance. From an Administrative
standpoint, their main concern was dealing with the non-motor home
vehicles and Council brought a different element at the time of
second reading of the ordinance.
Mr. McConne11 asked why the weight of oversized vehicles increased
from 8,000 lbs., to 10,000 lbs. Ms. Goodell stated that increase
came about based on research of auto dealerships and the fact most
motor homes were in the 10,00-12,000 lb. range. Mr. McConne11 asked
if motor homes are to be exempted then why aren't RV trailers
exempted as well? Ms. Goodell pointed out the ordinance states
motorized conveyances. In the case of a travel trailer, a motor
TAPE #1360
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 8 of 19
vehicle would have to be attached to it in order to have a
Residential Parking Permit. Vehicles that end up being stored on
the street are junk vehicles, old buses, construction vehicles and
trailers. Mr. McConnell stated if motor homes are exempted, he
believes it will be a temptation for people to take out their motor
homes that are currently being stored and park them on the street.
Ms. Goodell explained motor homes are defined differently as far as
the definition the City is using than RV trailers. Mr. McConnell
stated he did not have a 2-hour parking limit on his street, but he
has a problem with a trailer being parked on his street.. Ms.
Goodell explained the trailer could be parked on the street, but it
would have to be moved once every 72-hours.
Elizabeth Buell, High Avenue, asked if this included rental trucks
used for moving? Ms. Goodell stated if the Oversized Vehicle
Ordinance was not in effect the vehicle would only have to be moved
once every 72-hours. If that ordinance is in effect and the
vehicle is over 10,000 lbs., and longer than 22 feet, it could not
be parked for more than a 5-day period, that is provided it is not
posing any blocking problems.
Klaus Golombek, 2505 E. Phinney Bay Pi., stated he preferred the
City fix a problem that exists rather than make it more difficult
for people to live in the City. Personally, he could bring his
vehicle under the 22 foot length regulation by removing two
bumpers. He questioned how will the City determine the weight? He
described pickup trucks 22 ft. in length could also present
blocking and visual hazards; however, not all problems can be
addressed by this ordinance. He cited the ugliness of the power
lines and poles that exist in the City, but there is not an easy
solution to rid of the City of that blight as well. He had no
objection to purchasing a City Residential Parking Permit to place
in his motor home as an identification of the owner for benefit of
the Police. He felt strongly that out-of-state licensed motor
homes should be exempted, and such action is precedented in Salt
Lake City, Utah and some areas of Seattle.
Andy Parypa, Hayward Avenue, raised several concerns having to do
with the Council providing the public ample opportunity to give
input on whether or not motor homes and travel trailers should be
allowed to park on City streets for indefinite period of time; and
the process used in approving the ordinance. He concurred in the
proposal to remove oversized vehicles off City streets. He
referenced BMC Chapter 10.11,010 and noted in his travels around
the City he has not been aware of any logging trucks, tractors with
double trailers, etc., parking long term on the streets or planting
strips. However, he has observed many boats and RV's parked on
City streets for long periods of time and questioned will the
oversized vehicles have to be driven around the City for thirty
TAPE #1360
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 9 of 19
days before reparking or must they leave the City. He questioned
"does the requirement of having a right-of-way permit to park a
vehicle in excess of 72 consecutive hours include those within
Residential Parking Zones? And, how does the City plan on keeping
track of how long any vehicle has parked or if it has been moved?
TAPE #1361
Mr. Parype pointed out section 10.09.050 (Eligibility Criteria)
reads after the words motor vehicles "not in excess of ten thousand
Pounds", but fails to add "or 22 feet in length. And, the first
paragraph of sub-paragraph (a), was completely wiped out so there
is no definition except for those items numbered b-f, which would
be renumbered. He interpreted BMC 10.11.010 to read that oversized
vehicles in residential parking zones only go up to 10,000 lbs.,
and 22 feet in length, but when reading Section 10.11.010 as
amended it tells him that you must move a vehicle after it has been
parked in one spot for 72 consecutive hours. It also tells him
that motor vehicles or motorized conveyances exceeding 10,000 lbs..
gross legal weight or exceeding 22 feet in length, except motor
homes, may not repark in excess of 120 hours within any 30-day
period. That tells him anywhere in East Bremerton or any where
outside of a 2-hour zone, you could have a 120,000 lb. vehicle that
is 55 feet long.
Mr. Parypa brought up the issue of parking on City right-of-way
and asked if the proposed ordinance included non-posted for parking
planting strips? He presented photos showing how a planting strip
was damaged by a trailered boat being parked on it for several
days. At the present time, three vehicles parked on that same
site. He agreed with Mr. Montgomery that those owning motor homes
and travel trailers should be able to afford to pay for storage
and/or park the recreational vehicles on their own property. Many
people pay higher taxes because they have a "view" from their
residence and he did not consider oversize vehicles on the street
as "view". Photos were provided showing various situations where
boats and motor homes were parked on sidewalks, across sidewalks,
and on planting strips.
Mr. Parypa suggested decreasing the authorized weight of vehicles
rather than increasing it; grant a short permit for a visiting
motor homes to park on the street, providing there is sufficient
width of roadway; allow temporary parking to commercial trucks
making deliveries or providing a service; allow no non-motorized
conveyances, boats, recreational motorized vehicles, or commercial
trucks, other than those previously mentioned on any part of the
right-of-way for the purpose of parking.
Earl Melson, Olympic Avenue, supported including motor homes in the
TAPE #1361
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 10 of 19
ordinance.
Del Knauss, Olympic Avenue, supported including motor homes in the
ordinance.
Mr. Meville stated due to there being some confusion about the
number of readings this issue has already received, he asked the
City Clerk to read into the record Ordinance #4543 starting from
Section 2. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated for
clarification the first reading of the ordinance took place on
February 7, second reading took place on February 14, which
included motor homes, but later in the evening that motion was
rescinded. Therefore, Council is at a point of second reading on
the same ordinance that was before them at first reading on
February 7, and reads as follows: "Section 2. Amendment. Section
10.09,050 is amended to read as follows: ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.
Parking permits may be issued for motor vehicles not in excess of
ten thousand pounds only upon application of the following persons:
(a) A legal resident of the residential parking permit area who has
a motor vehicle registered in his name, or who has a motor vehicle
for his exclusive use and under his control. (b) A person who owns
or leases commercial property and actively engages in business
activity within a residential parking permit area.
There shall be a limit of two (2) residential permits issued per
dwelling unit, unless parking availability allows a greater number.
No more than one parking permit may be issued for each business
establishment for a motor vehicle registered to or under the
control of such person.
Section 3. Amendment. Section 10.11.010(1) is amended to read as
follows: 10.11.010 ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS. In addition to those
statues adopted by reference in BMC 10.04.010 restricting standing,
stopping and parking of vehicles, it shall be unlawful and
punishable as a civil infraction for any person to commit any of
the following actions: (1) Storage of vehicles within Right-Of-Way.
Parking in excess of seventy-two (72) consecutive hours, of non-
motorized conveyance or motor vehicles in a public right-of-way
shall be unlawful without a right-of-way permit. Motor vehicles or
non-motorized conveyances exceeding ten thousand pounds (10,000
lbs.) gross vehicle weight or twenty two (22) feet in length,
except motor homes, may not repark in excess of one hundred twenty
(120) hours within any consecutive thirty (30) day period. As used
in this section motor homes are vehicles, originally manufactured
as a recreational vehicle, which do not require a special permit
for highway travel." Mr. Neville stated he believed the proposed
ordinance would address and correct current problems and would lend
his support to the proposal as presented.
Mr. Montgomery restated his position that motor homes should not be
TAPE #1361
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 11 of 19
stored on City streets because most City streets are too narrow and
in many instances the motorized vehicles are unsightly.
Mr. Colvin asked the City Attorney if the second reading is the
same as that approved at first reading on February 77 Mr. Sievers
stated yes. In answer to Mr. Parypa's comment that the ordinance
contained reference to two B.M.C. Chapters, the subject of the
ordinance is reparking oversized vehicles and the intent is to have
a comprehensive legislative scheme, which is why they included
Chapter 10.09 as well as 10.011, which included specific
restriction on long-term parking. Chapter 10.09 was included
because it deals with the City's Residential Parking Permit areas
and a threshold was established as to what is a normal vehicle and
what is a large vehicle, previously it was 8,000 lbs., and needed
to be increased to 10,000 lbs., to make it consistent with the new
restrictions. Again, vehicle owners will be required to abide by
the short parking limits in the Residential Parking Permit areas
if the vehicles are under 10,000 lbs.. Mr. Parypa raised the
question why use 10,000 lbs., instead of an alternate 10,000 lbs.,
or 22 feet in length in the Residential Parking Permit chapter.
Mr. Sievers wasn't sure why just 10,000 lbs., was listed and may
have been an oversight; however, it may be a good point to include
both criteria in that section. In reference to Mr. Parypa's
comments about where in the right-of-way oversized vehicles would
be allowed, that would be a different topic than this legislation.
The proposed ordinance address duration, it does not talk about
where it is legal to park. If there is another issue that needs to
be addressed on further limitations of large vehicles in places
such as planting strips, then that would need to be addressed in
the Parking Code. Ms. Goodell was asked to response to Mr.
Parypa's question as to how the City would track the 120 hours.
Ms. Goodell pointed out weight has been a problem in certain areas
as far as travel on the street and the length of time a vehicle has
been parked. Upon researching that point, she found most of the
ordinances written in Washington included weight. On the length of
time issue, currently the City is using tire stem location to judge
the length of time a vehicle has been parked in one spot rather
than chalking tires, which can be easily removed.
Mr. Overson stated of the seven pictures presented by Mr. Parypa,
six of them would not be influenced by what is being proposed. He
questioned one of the pictures identified as one area since in his
opinion they were two different locations. The only area pictured
that would have been influenced was the single 24 ft. motor home.
Based on his experience traveling in his motor home, many cities
welcome visitors and he personally enjoyed their friendly
treatment. He was sorry that there were people in Bremerton, who
wanted to be unfriendly to motor home owners by making it difficult
for them to park when visiting. He supported excluding motor homes
#1204
TAPE #1361
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 12 of 19
from the ordinance. Mr. PazTpa challenged Mr. Overson's statement
relating to one of the pictures he handed out... it is the same
location.
Mr. McConnell emphasized motor homes, trailers, and other oversized
vehicles, that are parked on City streets are a problem. He has
such a situation in his own neighborhood that causes a visibility
problem. Whether a vehicle is motorized or non-motorized, the
danger is still the same. He pointed out the absence of normal
sized vehicles parked on the streets in the photographs distributed
by Mr. Parypa. He disagreed with the increase in weight from 8,000
lbs., to 10,000 lbs. This past weekend he drove around the City
and observed many of the violators, as identified under this
ordinance, were located on narrow streets. He believed the motor
home exception in the ordinance should be removed because a motor
home or trailer is a recreation vehicle.
Mr. Winters stated he drove around his district and observed most
people with RV type vehicles parked them in their yards, except for
the one down the street from his residence. He was not aware of
anyone lodging a complaint that particular oversized vehicle.
Mr. Colvin asked if the proposed ordinance addressed safety issues?
Ms. Goodell stated no; however, State law does addresses safety and
any hazard created by restricting visibility.
M/S/C(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to pass Ordinance No. 4543 on second
reading, modified under Section 3 (1) deleting the words "except
motor homes" and deleting the last sentence: "AS used in this
section motor homes are vehicles, originally manufactured as a
recreational vehicle, which do not require a special permit for
highway travel.,, amending the parking code to restrict re-parking
of oversize vehicles; and amending BMC Title 10.
Vote on motion:
In Favor: Montgomery, McConnell, Winters, Farr,
Huff-Menees, Law
Motion carried.
Oppose:
Abstain:
Overson, Neville
Colvin
8B - RESOLUTION NO. 2541 AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE
WATER FUND TO THE WASTEWATER FUND, #/e~B96-043
The City's Wastewater Fund will receive over $6.25 million during
fiscal 1996 from various non-operating sources. These include
moneys due from the U.S. Navy, the State of Washington, and Kitsap
County. However, it is possible that the timing of the receipt of
these funds may be such that a temporary cash flow deficit in the
Wastewater Fund will occur.
#1517
TAPE #1361
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 13 of 19
Rioh Hanna, City Treasurer, reviewed the Summary Statement and
assured everyone that the proposed action was not indicative that
the budget is broken or any way in jeopardy, but there is a
possibility that a significant amount of the expenses associated
with capital improvements will occur before receiving the funds
from the various sources.
John Thomas asked the following questions: (1) Is this two million
dollar shortfall generated by the condemnation of property near the
wastewater treatment plant? (2) How much money is in the Water
Fund? (3) What was the original purpose of the Water Fund money?
Mr. Hanna responded as follows: (1) Yes, that is one of the capital
projects undertaken, but it is not limited to just that one. (2)
The present cash balance in the Water Fund is approximately five
million dollars. (3) The use of the money will be to carry out
several capital projects of the Water Fund both in 1996 and future
years. It is anticipated that the Water Fund will end 1996 with a
substantial cash balance, based on the anticipated completion of
the replacement of the main water transmission line between Cascad
Dam and Bremerton. That improvement will cost approximately 3.5
million dollars and will be constructed in 1997.
Mr. McConnell pointed out the Wastewater Fund started out the year
with 3.1 million dollars and asked the current balance in that
account? Mr. Hanna stated at the end of January the fund balance
was approximately 2 million dollars. Mr. McOonnell referenced
wording in the Summary Statement...',it is possible if it should
occur." When he votes on something he prefers a more definitive
statement. Mr. Hanna stated he felt confident the City would
receive funding from the several non-operating sources, which
include two Public Works Trust Fund loans, two Centennial Clean
Water Fund loans, the Assessment Rolls for LID #327 and LID #328,
and two contractual issues with the United States Navy. What he
was not as confident about was the timing of receipt of those funds
and wanting to assure that the Wastewater Fund would not get into
a deficit condition.
Mr. Montgomery asked if he understood correctly that the funds
would not be spent unless there was a need to borrow from that
fund? Mr. Hanna stated yes, it is his intention to use the
requested authority only if there is a need.
Mr. Overson pointed out the loan will bear interest at 5%'and it
shall be repaid in its entirety before 12-31-96. Generally,
interfund loans are discouraged and are not a good practice, but if
it is necessary, then those kind of principles need to be observed.
M/S/CU(Overson/Montgomery) to adopt Resolution No. 2541,
authorizing an interfund loan to the Wastewater Operating Fund from
TAPE #1361
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 14 of 19
the Water Operating Fund.
9A - PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE BREMERTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO
BETTER ACCOMMODATE RECYCLING FACILITIES; AND ORDINANCE (FIRST
READING), #AB96-044
The Bremerton Zoning Ordinance allows "recycling centers" in two
zones -- Industrial General and General Business. To better
administer these types of uses throughout the community, amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance have been drafted to better define the
terms for recycling facilities, to include those facilities in more
zones in the Land Use Tables, and to establish design standards for
collection stations intended for public use. The Bremerton
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
amendments on January 16, 1996, and unanimously recommended City
Council approval.
President Law asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all Council members being seated. He also
announced the presentation made to the City Council can only
contain the information that was presented to the Planning
Commission, whether it is the comments or documentation. Mr. Hough
will be asked to alert Council if the information being presented
was not part of the Planning Commission's discussion on this issue.
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, pointed out this is one issue within
the Zoning Ordinance that was not adequately covered previously and
the City is being asked to address "recycling centers" separately
from the rest of the Zoning Ordinance. The City's current Zoning
Ordinance, which was adopted in 1988, included a definition for
recycling center and allowed them in two zones, Industrial General
(IG), the heavy industrial zone, and General Business (GB) with a
Special Use Permit. There were no provisions for lighter weight
facilities, drop off stations or collection stations and the
definition of recycling center was a little vague, which presented
a problem when a new use came in and there were only two zones that
allowed that kind of activity. The City was asked to open up the
opportunity for recycling centers in more locations and provide a
clear definition, which is what this proposal attempts to do.
The ordinance contains three main components, the first being
DEFINITIONS - defining Recycling Center, which is where materials
are taken after being collected to be crushed, sorted and packaged
and made ready to process into other things or trucked away.
Recyclinq Collection Station, which is the more intense of the two
collection station types that would allow the collection of all
kinds of things. Recycling Collection Station Limited would allow
the collection of glass, tin cans, aluminum, cardboard, newspapers,
magazines, plastics and other recyclable in small units, but would
not include furniture, large appliances, auto parts, tires or
TAPE #1361
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 15 of 19
hazardous liquid waste or any form of garbage.
The second component is the development of STANDARDS. The following'
standards would only apply to public facilities: (1) gravel,
concrete or asphalt on the surface; and landscaped according to
landscaping requirements of any business; (2) fenced or some kind
of containment and locked between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 6:00
A.M.; (3) no lighting between 8:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. (4) a sight-
obscuring fence or wall along the sides and rear lot lines,
particularly in residential areas; (5) wire/chain link type fence
would be required where it abuts the street; and the area must be
monitored and maintained in a clean safe and healthful manner.
Private collection facilities related to a business, such as K-Mart
or a large apartment complex, designed to sort their own recycling
products would be exempt. There are several ways to allow types of
uses outright, if it is a type of use that is not a problem in a
particular zone. In other cases, if there is something that the
City needs to look at or it is not clear as to what it might look
like when it comes through the Planning office, they might attach
the Special Use designation, which can be approved administratively
or by the Planning Commission. The intent of the ordinance is to
allow more uses outright and fewer uses by Special Use Permit.
The third component is the Land Use Table, which now reflects
Recycling Center, Recycling collection Station and Recycling
Collection Station (Limited). What is being proposed is a
recycling center allowed by a Special Use Permit in the Industrial
Park Zone and allowed outright in the Industrial General Zone. The
Recycling Collection Station would be allowed with a Special Use
Permit in a General Business, Shopping, Industrial Park and
Industrial General Zone. The Recycling Collection Station
(Limited) would be allowed virtually anywhere. The Planning
Commission has recommended to Council approval of those kinds of
facilities outright in all zones. Mr. Hough noted Council may want
to reconsider that particular point based on some comments about
whether or not they would be appropriate in all zones. He pointed
out the City recently approved a Recycling Collection Station about
two months ago in a General Business Zone on Kitsap Way. As of this
date, there has not been a request for an appeal on that proposal
and he views this as a test case.
Mr. Winters questioned Mr. Hough's comments regarding the "test
case" application? Mr. Houqh stated it was not designed to be a
test case, but it is a test of the proposed design standards, which
is the first time they have been applied to an actual Special Use
Permit. Mr. Winters asked if the City had received applications
for such facilities prior to the Kitsap Way facility? Mr. Hough
stated not to his knowledge. He has talked with people about
putting recycling facilities in other zones, but those were denied
TAPE #1361
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 16 of 19
because they were not allowed in those particular zones. Mr.
Montgomer]F asked the zoning designation and if any restrictions
were place on the Kitsap Way recycling facility? Mr. Hough stated
it is a recycling Collection Station with a Special Use Permit
under General Business.
The following comments were made by the individuals listed:
Elizabeth Buell, High Avenue; Tom Trlggs, 700 D Werner Road; John
Thomas; James Castle, 3415 Mathews Drive W.; (1) If the citizens of
Bremerton have to pay Brem-Air Disposal for recycling we don't need
recycling centers. (2) There is a need for a place to dispose of
cardboard and other recyclable materials not already collected by
Brem-Air. (3) Concerned such a facility will draw mice and rats.
(4) According to current City ordinances, no permit should be
issued for a recycling center in the City. (5) Under current City
law every recycling container in the City of Bremerton is illegal
by the Land Use Table. (6) The City telling a business they must
shut off their security lights at 8:00 P.M., is inviting thieving.
(7) Special Use Permits in Industrial Park Zone is another ticket
to "procrastination and infringement on freedom" by Planning
Department when a developer tries to fit a recycling facility
within the City. (8) The proposed ordinance is a way to get
recycling business back in Bremerton. (9) Recycling Centers should
not be located in residential areas. (10) Because the City's
process for issuing a Special Use Permit took so long, the
developers of the proposed recycling center on Kitsap Way lost
their site and must now reapply for a different location. (11) A
lot of the misconception about cleanliness of recycling centers
came about when absentee owners took over Peninsula Recycling.
(12) Did not want a recycling center located in a residential area.
Mr. Hough stated in response to Mr. Castle's questions about how
long it would take to start over the permit process, Mr. Castle has
an active Administrative approved Special Use Permit, which
required the surrounding property owners to sign off on the request
and would be usable within a year. In response to Mr. Triggs
comments about the lighting between 8:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. applied
only to residential areas. If that facility was located in an
Industrial Park Zone or a Commercial Zone, those standards would
not apply, i.e., lights could be left on all night, closing time
would be not limited to 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Farr stated he supports recycling and wants to see it brought
back into the City. Responses from his constituents have been in
support of having a drop off site for recyclable items. He
strongly disagreed with the proposal to allow recycling center
stations in residential neighborhoods. He believed there are
abundant zones where such facilities can be placed without bringing
them into the residential neighborhoods.
TAPE #1361
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 17 of 19
Mr. Colvin stated he is in support of having a recycling center in
Bremerton, but not in residential neighborhoods; and he was
concerned about the possibility of such areas being littered with
debris and garbage. M:. Hough stated if Council wanted to exclude
residential neighborhoods, then Recycling Center Station (Limited)
should be removed from the first four categories on the Land Use
Table or any others that might be objectionable.
Mr. Winters thanked Mr. Castle for providing the opportunity to
recycle when he owned Peninsula Recycling Center. He questioned,
how did the decision to allow location of recycling centers across
the board on the Land Use Table get through the Operations
Committee?. He expressed emphatically that common sense would have
told him that there are certain areas that certain zoning and items
should be allowed. A few months ago, he was contacted by residents
of a mobile home park about their having to pay for dumpster
service in their park as well as being billed individually,
including the cost of recycling. He supports making changes to
allow entrepreneurs to pursue the freedom of being in business, but
in the right places and under the right conditions. He also
acknowledged the importance of lighting as a safety issue and felt
that standard needed rethinking because of the benefit derived by
the business owner and surrounding area. He expressed concern over
how the City has dealt with Brem-Air over the years; however that
is another issue. He also felt the City had been very slow in
bringing the proposed change forward. Mr. Montgomery stated in
answer to Mr. Winters earlier question, the Committee does not make
changes on issues prior to presentation before the full Council.
The committee can make recommendations and it was the their
decision to recommend that the issue be presented to the full
Council as presented instead of being sent back to the Planning
Commission or Planning staff. Mr. Winters stated his question is
how did we get to the point before it came to Committee? Mr. Hough
explained Planning staff saw drop or collection station as limited
to a small scale for aluminum cans, paper, etc., which would be
minor facilities that could be accommodated fairly easy within
neighborhoods, almost as an accessory to a neighborhood. And, it
may be an alternative to curb side pick up some time in the future,
or it may be useful to pick up items that are not picked up as part
of the curb side recycling program. Such a facility could be a
small dumpster placed on a corner or alley. But, they concluded
design guidelines were needed in order to have control and not just
leave it wide open. It is a liberal beginning, but if Council
desires they can trim it back to selective areas.
TAPE #1362
Mayor Horton reminded Councilman Winters that she has very
professional staff members and they go through a process with the
TAPE #1362
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 18 of 19
staff, Council and in some instances with the community. Mr.
Winters had an ample opportunity to raise his question with Mr.
Hough as to how he got through the process developing this issue
and she saw no reason for him or any other Council member or anyone
else at a City Council meeting to try and embarrass any staff
member, Council member or anyone else. She resented the
implication that the staff is incompetent.
Mr. McConnell asked why are the proposed standards mandatory, but
applied voluntarily? Mr. Hough explained the standards would be
required for any recycling collection station open to the public,
and are voluntary for any collection station that is exempt from
those regulations, such as on-premise collection facilities for a
large apartment complex, mobile home park, business complex, etc.
Mr. M~Oonnell asked if a commercial Recycling Collection Station
(Limited) could be set up in all of the designated areas. Mr.
Hough stated yes, it doesn't specify if it is commercial,
organizational, or a private operation. Mr. McConnell questioned
why can't a collection station be allowed outright in an Industrial
Park area? Mr. Hough stated Recycling Collection Station (Limited)
is allowed outright in all zones because it comes with design
guidelines. The recycling collection station that is not limited
is the one they want to look at more closely.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated she felt there was an unfortunate over
reaction to the issue of this use in a residential area. She
reminded everyone that we have had a very successful recycling drop
off center up against a residential area and the entire residential
area and surrounding residential areas were saddened to see it
relocated to a distant industrial site. It is not as though this
is some outrageous idea that was inappropriate utilized in this
situation.
Mr. Overson pointed out an example of a limited recycling operation
located between 5th and 6th Street at an apartment complex, which
appears to be working without any visible problems.
President Law raised the question what would happen if a Special
Use Permit was used for Recycling Center Station (Limited) within
the first four areas on the Land Use Table? Mr. Hough stated it
would require a permit process that is more substantial than would
be allowed otherwise. If the zoning area has an "A" designation,
it would require a site plan review. A Special Use Permit could be
handled administratively, but is a little more detailed and
provides more notice to the surrounding property owners and it may
go to the Planning Commission if someone registers an objection.
The Special Use Permit process allows public input ahead of time
and the allowed outright process allows public input through an
appeal process.
#0207
TAPE #1362
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
February 28, 1996
Page 19 of 19
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) to approve ordinance on first
reading, with the following modification to the Land Use Table:
delete use in SF-1, SF-2, SF-3 and DR, MF, CBR, MR and HD allowed
with a Special Use Permit and all other zones be allowed usage; to
amend the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance to better accommodate
recycling facilities and amending Chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
Mr. Overson strongly urged non passage of the motion as presented
by Mr. McConnell. He supports the proposal as presented by staff
and if there is any intent to vary from what is proposed, an
amendment should be presented, not a rewrite of the ordinance.
Mrs. Huff-Menees supported Mr. Overson's position and reminded
Council this item was unanimously approved by the Planning
Commission.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor: Colvin, Winters, Farr, Montgomery,
McConnell, Law
Opposed: Overson, Neville, Huff-Menees
With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M..
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
City of Bremerton
KLM/JL/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault