Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/94 TAPE #1172 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ~EETING MINUTES FEBRUARY Z. 1994 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 2, 1994, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Eileen Fitz presiding. Council members present were Richard Neville, Morrie Dawkins, Bob Winters, Lon Overson, and John Law. Council members A1 Colvin, David Fart and Sherril Nuff-Menees were absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian sievers and Acting City Clerk Gil Johnson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Fitz and Invocation given by Reverend Jim Hill of the Neighborhood Christian Center. CONSENT ~GENDA A. Minutes of Meeting -- January 19, 1994 #AB94-028 #001~ M/S/C/U(Neville/Law) to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CL~IMS/~R~NT ~ISTERS 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. #0035 M/S/C/U(Overson/Dawkins) February 2, 1994, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 172693 through 172882, 172884 in the total amount of $242,868.48 and Retirees Payroll for the period ending January 31, 1994, in the amount of $95,277.55. COUNCIL MEMBER I~NDRTS President Fitz reported Councilmen David Farr and A1 Colvin were absent due to their attending the AWC Legislative Conference in Olympia, and Councilman Huff-Menees was out-of-town on a pre- planned trip. ~ stated he enjoyed his time off last week and was glad to be back. Mr. Law announced District #3 will hold its monthly neighborhood meeting on February 15, at the Senior Center. The subjects to be TAPE #1172 city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 2 of 17 discussed at that meeting will be a briefing from the Parks and Recreation Director on some changes and concerns on parks, the Fire Department will provide advice on emergency services available, and the Building Department will provide an update on permits issued in the District area. When possible, someone from the Police Department will attend District #3 meetings so people within the district can voice their concerns directly to the Police Department. ~ reported on a recent Christmas In April Board meeting where he learned there is a shortage of applicants for the "Christmas In April" housing rehab program. He encouraged anyone in the public who feels they feel they could qualify for this program to please contact Terrie O'Neil, Municipal Services Coordinator. Mr. Winters was please to report that he has received calls from people in District #9. A n~mber of callers expressed their concern with the speed of traffic along Harlow Drive as they travel past the Kitsap Lake Elementary School. Mr. Winters did observe some dump trucks being pulled over by the Police for traveling too fast in that area and he encouraged more Police patrols be made around 9:00 A.M. Not only are school children being put in danger, but it also affects the joggers and walkers in that same area. He also pointed out that school buses have been observed exceeding the speed limit in that "school" area as well. A public meeting is being planned so that the City Engineer Randy Witt can discuss and provide a display of the proposed design for the West Kitsap Lake sewer project. He is looking forward to working with POWER, INC., on their first annual "You've Got The Power" celebration on Saturday March 5, 8:00 P.M. to 1:00 AM, 920 Park Avenue. He will be performing at that event in a fund raising situation for the POWER organization. Lastly, he extended a "Thank you" to Mayor Horton and Public Works And Utilities Director Eddy Chu for the tour of the wastewater facilities, water utilities, watershed and public works complex. President Fitz noted there were a number of citizens on that tour and others had to be turned away due to limited space. She also extended her "thanks" to the Utilities Department for the tour. Mrs. F~tz reported on Monday, January 31, 1994, she attended a meeting, at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center, to help organize the City into four neighborhood areas. The people attending that meeting were very enthused and more information will be forth coming from Mayor Horton. She acknowledged Boy Scout Troop 1542 in the audience. Mr. Overson reported on Tuesday, February 1, the Police Department TAPE #1172 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 3 of 17 lead a tour of Police Department facilities, which was very info£mative and enlightening. PUBLIC RECOGNITION ~a¥or L~nn Horton reported the tour of the Water/Wastewater Utilities and Public Works facilities was a success. During her Department Head meeting this past week they discussed having such tours in different departments on a quarterly basis. Fire Chief McKinley volunteered to host a tour of the Fire Department as the next departmental tour. The meeting held on Monday evening to discuss "four neighborhood areas" brought out some discussion on the good things in neighborhoods, why people live there and some of the things they would like to see improved. Some things were generic to certain areas and some generic across the board, i.e., street lighting and the fact it was inadequate. The participants at that meeting committed to meeting again, two groups will be meeting the end of February and two groups will meet at the beginning of March. She believes this will be an augmentation to the Council District meetings that are already occurring and will be a way to get people involved in some of the less active districts. This date she attended the Kitsap Regional Planning Council where the major topic had to do with emergency preparedness in light of the California earthquake. One of the things talked about was that the medical community in Kitsap County have come up with an agreement whereby doctors will provide medical aid during emergencies and continue to be paid by their employer even if they are providing that service in temporary medical facilities. She felt that was good indication of team work in making sure that we are prepared in the County for medical provisions, if there is such an occurrence. Phyllis Mann, Director of Emergency Management. Division, reported Kitsap Transit has worked out an alternate route pattern for buses in the event of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake. An outcome from the California earthquake is that other areas are reviewing and/or developing their emergency management plans. She did discuss earthquake preparedness with the City's Department Heads and members of the City staff will be attending a seminar within the next few weeks. She expects to have the City's Emergency Plan before Council for adoption in the near future. Jack Lefaosk~, West Kitsap Lake, stated he listens to a lot of radio programs and many times has heard the "Emergency Warning" signal. He questioned what actual message would be given following that warning signal in the event of an natural disaster type emergency and how would it apply to Bremerton? Robert Boddie, POWER - 920 Park Avenue, was pleased to report the internship training program with TCI Cable Vision started this TAPE #1172 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 4 of 17 week. This program will give "at risk youth" of low income families the opportunity to learn job hunting skills, interviewing skills and learning techniques in installing cable in homes and businesses. POWER's next open community forum will be held February 3, at the Skill Center on National Avenue, from 6:00 - 9:00 P.M. A special "thank you" was given to The Sun for their news articles on POWER's efforts within the community. A fund raising event will be held March 5 at 920 Park Avenue - an opportunity for people to become acquainted with their neighbors and learn about what is happening within the community. Councilman Bob Winters will be providing the entertainment for this event. Blacks In Government is holding a Community Unity Banquet on February 26, 7:00 P.M., at the Kitsap Pavilion. The Black Historical Society will be holding an event at the Bremerton High School on February 26. Mr. Boddie thanked Beau Erickson, POWER's Program Coordinator, for his efforts in developing many of the programs being presented. In the month of March, The Sun will be starting their internship program for "at risk youth". Mr. Boddie will be working with US West and Puget Power to see if Internship Programs can be implemented within their companies. ~, 2435 N. Wycoff, expressed concern over the possibility that Puget Sound Naval Shipyard be designated as a nuclear waste site. What such a designation may mean to residents of Bremerton is the decline in property values and he questioned what happens to the public's safety from hazardous materials in the event of an earthquake or other calamity. He felt the city should be concerned that having a nuclear waste depository site within its boundaries would bring about a negative affect in drawing new residents and new businesses to the City and possibly cause the loss of current residents and businesses, which would adversely affect the City's tax base. He felt such hazardous waste should be shipped to Hanford and/or consider other possible uses for the shipyard in the event the Navy closed the facility, such as a facility for building and maintenance of the Ferry fleet, president Fitz stated Council will be speaking to the Navy and to Congressman Norm Dicks on this issue. M&rv Lou Long, Baymont Place, stated at the previous City Council meeting she requested information concerning the establishment of a Stormwater Utility as it was interpreted and presented to the public during the public hearing on proposed increases to water/sewer rates. The literature that was given to the public at that hearing identified a "Stormwater Utility", but the City Charter provides that any new Utility created or purchased by the City be ratified by the voters. She had expected to receive that information at this Council meeting, however, the City Attorney indicated to her that he was still finalizing the draft of his TAPE #1172 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 5 of 17 response. At this time, she presented Council with a formal letter requesting the following info£mation: copies of originating City Ordinances and, pursuant to Bremerton City Charter, Chapter 16, Section 59, the ratifying count of the voters who voted for enactment of said ordinances which established a Wastewater, a Water and/or a Stormwater Utility to be owned and operated by the City of Bremerton. She noted that the ordinance refers to the "Stormwater Operation Fund", however, it was alluded to as a Separate "Stormwater Utility" during the public hearing discussions. She believe establishing a "Stormwater Utility" may also have been one of the requirements that was decided upon between the City and Puget Sound Alliance in consideration of the problems the City has with its sewage and stormwater. As historically data, it was her understanding that the sewage treatment plants that the City took over operation were built and funded wholly by Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. So, in essence, the City was just the instruments of the operation of those facilities. When the City initiated the proposal to build a secondary treatment plant, the funding mode was established as a rate structure, which was never submitted to the public for consideration as the mechanism to build the sewage treatment plant. At that time, she challenged the government and asked the City to provide the residents with a U.L.I.D. as an alternate, which would have been a more efficient, effective and equitable proposal for funding that facility. She believed the U.L.I.D. method would have cost the citizens a lot less and possibly avoided the lawsuits now and in the future. She did not believe that today there is an established Utility in any of these areas and she wanted to see documents that prove their formation. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he would have his response to Ms. Long's request from the previous Council meeting by February 3. What Mrs. Long is requesting at this time is different than what she requested previously and the documentation would involve both the Water and Wastewater Utility rather than the recent enactment of the Stormwater Fund and rate. Providing that information will require additional document research in the City Clerk's office. Rioh Hanna, City Treasurer, gave a brief explanation, in response to Mrs. Long's inquiry at the previous Council meeting, for the need of an "emergency" reading of a Tax Anticipation Ordinance that was approved. 6A - LEASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY/BOAT SHED RESTAURANT (101 BHORE DRIVE)~ #AB94-029 The Boat Shed Restaurant at 101 Shore Drive, has requested to lease 21 square feet of the unimproved llth Street right-of-way from the City as shown on the attached drawing. The right-of-way will be TAPE #1172 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 6 of 17 used for expansion of the existing restaurant kitchen. The rent for right-of-way is $46.00/year. Randy Nitt, City Engineer, identified the location of the subject right-of-way. The basis of the $46.00 per year goes back to the value of the land that is being expanded upon. ~r, Ovsrson noted this item was brought before the Fiscal and Budget Committee twice, the first time a number of questions were generated and Mr. Witt followed up with answers at the second Committee presentation. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson noted the Boat Shed Restaurant has been a good business in the City and was he was glad to have this working relationship with them. He urged Council to support the proposal as presented. #1205 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Winters) to authorize and direct the Mayor to execute the attached right-of-way lease with the Boat Shed Restaurant. 6B - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -- YWCA ALIVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PRO~I~u~, #AB94-018 Using a State of Washington Department of Community Development Criminal Justice Funding Grant provided to the City of Bremerton, the YWCA ALIVE Program will provide 24-hour-a-day crisis intervention, safe shelter, legal advocacy, support groups, parenting classes, community education, and children's programming for women and their children who are victims of domestic violence in an effort to bring them out of crisis and into a healthier, more manageable lifestyle. This program will be funded from previously unbudgeted state criminal justice revenue. (These are pass thru funds). Police Chief Del McNeal stated these fund originated late last year when the State passed on some funding, however, at that time it was not known what it would be used for. He did discussed the availability of funding with representatives of A.L.I.V.E and the possibility of supporting their program. What he is proposing is to formally have the City's domestic violence people work with A.L.I.V.E. personnel so that more people will be served through this process. Funding for this proposal is "pass through" funds from the State to the City and, in his opinion, about the only way these funds can be used. Er- Nevi11~ questioned if the $16,890.00 covered the entire year? TAPE #1172 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 7 of 17 ~ stated yes. Judy Bennett, Interim Executive Director, stated they will be coordinating with Chief McNeal's office to receive reports of people who have been arrested or calls that they have responded to relating to domestic violence. If the person is incarcerated and information provided indicates that A.L.I.V.E. can provide outreach to the victim, they will then make contact and make available their services. Such action is always with the victim's safety in mind. President Fitz asked if any men have been served by the A.L.I.V.E. program? Ms. Bennett stated yes, they respond to men by phone, but they do not house them. Mr. Law stated it was very refreshing to hear the presentation made by the YWCA to the Fiscal and Budget Committee the prior week. He believed the benefits from this program were greater than the dollars being spent through this proposal. Public comment - none. #1402 M/S/C/U(Overson/Neville) to approve this Professional Services Agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign. 7A - PUBLIC HEARINgs AN APPEAL OF A PL~NNIN~ COMMISSION DENIAL OF A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT /%ND CONDITIOI~AL USE PERMIT~ APPLICANTS J/qM~B MARIS~ LOCATIONs 603 BHORE DRIve. #AB94-030 At its regular meeting of December 21, 1993, the Bremerton Planning Commission DENIED the Maris application for a Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of an existing duplex into a portion of the required 25% View Corridor. Decision options for the City Council are: 1) REvsRSE the Planning Commission's decision; 2) UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision; or 3) RENAND the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. C0uncilmanOverson stepped down from this issue due to a conflict. President Fit~ asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all remaining Council members being seated. Mr. Law explained that at District #3's Neighborhood meeting there was concern expressed that people may have contacted him regarding this item. He emphasized he did not hear any thing about this issue other than it was to be presented to the City Council. 8ievers, City Attorney, acknowledged that Mr. Law could remain seated after making the above declaration. James Maris, applicant, TAPE #1172 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 8 of 17 stated Mr. Law answered his one question about the discussion at the Neighborhood meeting. He also wanted to point out the Didio's wrote a letter to the Planning Commission in December 1993, and the copy he received indicated Mr. Law was also provided a copy. He was not sure if Mr. Law actually received that letter as indicated. Mr. Law stated he did receive a letter from the Didio's, however, he believed other Council members also received copies. Mr. Law offered that if there was any concern about his being seated on this issue, he would step down. Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, explained the Didio's letter was entered as evidence at the Planning Commission hearing and is part of the record that everyone received. Mr. Maris stated he was satisfied with Mr. Law remaining seated. Shane Jensen, Planner, stated the original application is for a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit. These two permits were voted on at one time by the Planning Commission. A Substantial Development Permit was necessary because the subject structure is a duplex, not a single family home, which is exempt and the project exceeded $2,500.00. Usually such action can be processed administratively, but since it was in combination with the Conditional Use Permit a public hearing was required. The Conditional Use Pe=mit was a request for the applicant to build within the required 25% view corridor on the subject property. View graphs were provided showing the zoning and shoreline requirements, what currently exists on the subject site and what is being proposed. Mr. Jensen explained currently there is a duplex with an existing breezeway that already intrudes into the view corridor. What is being proposed by the applicant is a carport addition and a 4.5' ft. X 8' addition on the second floor in the area of the existing breezeway, and a partial enclosure of the breezeway and lowering the roof line from a pitched room to a flat roof. What is at issue during this hearing is only the intrusions into the view corridor. Slides were shown of the subject site viewed both from the Shore Drive level and also from the upper Shore Drive level, revealing vegetation currently within the view corridor. The Planning Commissions Findings reflected in the analysis of the criteria the main findings that caused the Commission to deny this application: Findina #5 - that the public interest suffers a detrimental affect in that the proposed additions would demonstrate excessive view blockage; and Findina #6 regarding cumulative impact of additional requests in the area. Considering the age of the structures in the area, it is foreseeable that similar applications TAPE #1172 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 9 of 17 will be requested as redevelopment and refurbishing of structures occurs along Lower Shore Drive. Very few lots in the area comply with the current View Corridor requirements. The City's development regulations allow those nonconforming structures to remain in place; normal repair and maintenance is also allowed. The cumulative impact of similar additional requests is that the few remaining views of the water that exist could be diminished. Any project requests will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Different circumstances exist with every individual piece of property. James Maris stated he is the owner and currently resides at 603 Shore Drive. He felt this proposal was a complex issue for someone who has not spent a great deal of time reviewing it. Using slides he pointed out the current structure with its partially enclosed breezeway and the vegetation within the view corridor. The reason he submitted the appeal to the Planning Commission's decision is that he believes there is virtually no view currently within the view corridor. He noted a question was been raised about the property line and he requested his builder to clarify that point through a survey. He is satisfied with the current property line on both sides of this residence. On the right side of the property there is a wooden fence with a cement footing that appears to have been in place for many years and looks very permanent. He made the assumption, when he purchased the property, that the fence was a reasonable boundary. He is willing to remove the vegetation, on his side of the fence, once the property line dispute is resolved. And, on the left side of his property there is also a cement bulkhead tYPe structure that runs the length of his property, which he again believed identified the property line. When he purchased the property, he did search the County's files and found no property surveys on file. He gave a description of his proposal to modify the current roof line and enclosure of the breezeway, pointing out that he would be opening additional view with the lowered roof line. The Zoning ordinance allows a 30 foot high roof and he is proposing an 18 ft. high roof, which is 3 ft. 8 inches less than what is currently in place. Mr. Marls provided view graphs that showed a computer enhancement detailing of the outline of the proposed changes to the existing building and how they changed the opportunities for view via the roof line and view corridor area. During this presentation, he emphasized the fact that the Planning staff recommended approving his proposal even though the Planning Commission denied his request based primarily on view corridor blockage. Following the Planning Commission denial he did contact Carol Dickinson, Development Manager, who conveyed her continued support of his proposal. He pointed out his proposal did meet the criteria outlined in the TAPE #1172 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 10 of 17 Housing Bremerton Neighborhood Strategies, which is to rehabilitate owner occupied homes in Manette. He disagreed that a precedent would be set if his proposal was approve thereby allowing other property owners exemption from the view corridor requirements. He pointed out the Planning Commission addressed that point that other proposals would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As proof of such action, in January the Planning Department approved an intrusion into the view corridor, based on special exceptions, on a residence on 17th Street. TAPE #1173 In response to some letters received relating to this proposal, he wanted to clarify for the record that Mr. Hall, a neighbor, had originally signed off approving his design in June/July of 1993, but after talking with other neighbors he understood that there were numerous changes made to the plan. Mr. Maris emphasized that statement was not true and Mr. Jensen can agree that the plans he submitted on May 27, 1993, are the same plans before Council at this meeting. Mr. Law questioned the height variance and its impact from upper Shore Drive? Mr. Maris used a view graph to illustrate the proposed roof line and the proposed change, which would decrease the roof height by 3'8". Rtohard Prvor, HYC Incorporated, stated he designed the proposed change to Mr. Maris's residence. His presentation consisted of providing a mental image of the proposed project and how it would relate to the surrounding neighbors and any impacts on the view corridor. He felt strongly that the plan was reasonable and that they had compromised their proposal by lowering the roof line, which would allow more open space. Russ Johnson, Bremerton resident and former City Council member, stated he was not so much supportive of this proposal, but he is supportive that Council hold the course in a couple of very major thrusts that they have had over the past 10 years and that was: (a) protect the shorelines; (b) better views of the water and wildlife and to improve the liveability of our city; (c) need to improve the City's housing stock and have affordable housing at all levels. His initial response to this proposal did not evoke a positive feeling, however, after further study it becomes apparent that there is more view, if approved, and better housing, if approved. If a "no" vote is given, vegetation would remain and continue to block the view corridor, the higher roof would remain and a rather mediocre house would remain or the owner would built "up", which would cost more of the view. If the permit is approved, the view corridor, which isn't really a view corridor except by name only, TAPE #1173 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 11 of 17 allows more view by the public and the roof would be lowered, which would enhance the view of the homes located on the upper elevation behind the subject site. He pointed out the trade off of side view for elevation view is encouraged in the Zoning Ordinance. He urged Council to take a positive vote to approve the Special Use Permit. Charles Cash, 6710 Anderson Hill Road, stated he owns property along Lower Shore Drive and is in support of Mr. Maris's proposal. After an on site inspection of the view corridor, he felt the amount of view corridor to be lost would be negligible and there would be an enhancement of view from Upper Shore Drive. B~Heth, 607 Shore Drive, stated prior to this meeting he had no knowledge about the project and felt he was unbiased in either direction. He found Mr. Maris's presentation to be logical to support the project. From his experience of the view, he felt the small amount of encroachment by the proposed project into the view corridor would be insignificant. He encourages improvement of homes in that area and encouraged Council to vote favorable on this proposal. Dorothy Kirby Haves stated she owns property at 810 Ironside and supports people fixing up their property. Currently, her property is a rental, but she may someday want to relocate on that site as her permanent resident and may want to remodel it as well. Jennifer Didio, 616 Shore Drive, stated it was her feeling the Planning Department failed to take into consideration the unique character of the neighborhood. She quoted the following comments made by the Planning Commission in their analysis: " .... The' cumulative impact of similar additional requests is that the few remaining views of water that exist could be diminished. Any project requests will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Different circumstances exist with every individual piece of property". She emphasized if the Council had reviewed their letter, dated January 26, 1994, they would understand why they had no confidence in that statement as a safeguard for the few remaining views. Mr. Maris claimed if he and others are not allowed to bypass these laws, Shore Drive will not be a viable neighborhood in 10-15 years. She strongly disagreed with that statement in that Shore Drive has been a viable neighborhood for nearly 100 years. Its quiet unassuming character continues to attract middle class homeowners. She and her husband would never have bought a home in a neighborhood they couldn't expect to be viable for the rest of their lives. Mr. Marls' plans for his duplex does not blend in with the rest of the neighborhood and threatens to set a precedent for a loss of what makes that neighborhood viable in the first place. In reference to TAPE #1173 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 12 of 17 Mr. Maris' comments about Carol Dickinson, she questioned if Ms. Dickinson had visited the subject area or spoken with any of the surrounding residents. She questioned "what does she know about Shore Drive and should the neighborhood concern be the one that determines its strategy for development rather than a group of bureaucrats who don't know the area concerned and developers who have their own agenda"? Mrs. Didio read responses from the Planning Commissioners discussion on this issue addressing building design alternatives, protection of the few remaining views, the fact that homes within the subject area were built prior to shoreline management Act. She emphasized this was not a simple case of closing view in one area and opening it in another...if Mr. Marls is allowed to build in the view corridor, it will set a precedent for others to follow. They have learned by experience that the Planning Department does not look at how variances come to be allowed, only that they exist. She urged the Council and Planning Commission to take a long hard look at how the Planning Department interprets the criteria they are suppose to use in deciding whether or not to approve plans such as Mr. Maris'. She also emphasized that some things are more important, such as views, than one individuals desires. She urged denial of Mr. Maris' appeal. Lonnie Holt, property owner adjacent to the subject site, read into the record a letter from the Holt family, dated January 31, 1994, opposing this proposal. Their main concerns had to do with upholding adopted codes addressing view corridor and the fact that several people in support of this proposal live at least 1/Sth of a mile from the proposed project and is doubtful that it can be seen from that distance. He pointed out that Mr. Marls cited that 65 ft. of view would be restored when the roof line was lowered, however, that would only affect those residents on upper Shore Drive and would be a sky view, not a water view, from where he is located. Mr. Marls emphasized that the Planning Department supports this proposal, however, their latest recommendation is for denial of this proposal. There is another property line dispute that relates to the overhang of eves onto Mr. Holt's adjoining property. If the impact to the view corridor is so significant, he questioned why not just leave it off, which would result in Mr. Maris losing a few feet of floor space. His closing comment was that re-examining endlessly a bad idea will never make it into a good idea. Jerr~ Soriano, Attorney representing Mrs. Burrell whose home is adjacent to the subject site, stated his client is against further encroachment into the view corridor. He agreed with Mr. Holt's comment that the recommendation at this point by the Planning Department is to uphold the Planning Commission's decision, which TAPE #1173 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 13 of 17 was denying the Conditional Use Pe£mit. The issue is not that Mr. Maris is going to reduce the height of the roof line, the issue has to do with view corridors. He found this to be one of the most simple issues whether the City should allow further encroachment to that one view corridor. The Planning Commission said "no" by a unanimous vote. Mr. Marls is a fairly new resident of Shore Drive and his residence is a duplex. On a Conditional Use Permit Mr. Maris is requesting to be allowed to enclose the breezeway that is part of the existing structure. This 4.5 ft. breezeway is approximately adding 10% additional width to his property. He states in his application for Substantial Development Conditional Use Permit, attachment #2, that the extension is required to design a house with adequate floor space. Mr. Soriano noted the current structure is a duplex and it is a matter of opinion whether there is adequate floor space. A design that would not require that 4.5 feet could be developed. He questioned why didn't Mr. Maris design the project so that it did not have to go into the view corridor? The reasons given by Mr. Maris for encroaching on the view corridor are: his lot is small, he owns shoreline property and because of intrusions that exist because of the shoreline property. Mr. Maris had to be aware of all those conditions at the time he purchased his property...this is not new information. Mr. Soriano questioned if there are any exceptions that warrant a Conditional Use Permit? He was not aware of any exceptions. Mrs. Burrell does not want the breezeway closed off due to shutting off sunlight. Mr. Soriano urged Council to find this proposal not in the public's best interest and beneficial solely to the applicant. Mr. Hethquestioned if the view corridor area could be moved to the opposite side of the lot? Mr. Jensen explained how view corridors are identified and how they are regulated under the current Zoning' Code. Rebuttal Statement by Mr. Maris~ Planning Commission and Planning Department personnel agree that cumulative impact could be affected, but each case would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Viability of the neighborhood - some of the houses in the Shore Drive area look like they were built 100 years ago. His residence has been described as ugly and houses do degrade in time and may be viable now, however, the City Council did identify the need for homes in the Manette area to be rehabilitated to provide a stable residential neighborhood. He refuted Mrs. Didio's comment that the 5-6 view corridor permits that were approved came prior to the Shoreline Management Act... they were approved after adoption of that document in 1992. Since these rules have been in effect, the Planning Department has approved, on a case-by-case basis, 5-6 permits. Mrs. Didio also stated he had not communicated with the neighbors, which is not a true statement considering the fact he TAPE #1173 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 14 of 17 wrote letters to the four immediate neighbors: Holts, Burrells, Wades and Halls when he originally proposed his project; as well as discussion in public hearings before the Planning Commission and a statement he made at District #3's neighborhood meeting. He re- emphasized the Planning Department recommended approval of his proposal to the Planning Commission, which is the Department's last recommendation. The Finding Of Fact was issued by the Planning Commission. In reference to his being new to the area, he wanted everyone to know that he has been a Washington resident all of his life. He was born in Anacortes, Washington and his family moved around lot due to his father being in the military. He also is in the military and has been stationed in Bremerton four times, starting in 1972 and currently since 1991. He has been a property owner in Kitsap County since 1978, in the City of Bremerton since 1980. His wife's has been a Bremerton resident all of her life. Mr. Soriano was correct in that another house could be designed and he has in his possession a design that has a 30-ft. high roof, however, people don't seem to understand that he is proposing to give back "view" through the lowering of the current roof line. Obtaining permits through the Planning Department is not a simple process and can take a number of months. Reading and interpreting the City's Zoning Ordinance and Shoreline Management Plan takes diligent study and not generally something that people are knowledge of until they work their way through a permit process. The property line dispute is not a matter of record. He does plan to have a property line survey conducted, at his expense. He believes the Planning staff are the experts and had given this proposal many hours of study and review. The Planning Commission, during their deliberations, dealt with his proposal for approximately 1/2 hours. Mr. L&w raised the question if Mr. Maris brought any infoxmation to the City Council that was not presented to the Planning Commission? Mr. Maris stated he provided the same ar~,ment before the Planning Commission. Mr. Law noted Mr. Maris was of the mind to reduce the height of the roof line, however, what if someone else owned the home and wanted to alter the design to include a 30 ft. high roof? Mr. Maris stated he believed it would have to do with what it would cost to build such a facility. Mr. Winters questioned if Mr. Marls was concerned over the number of people from his neighborhood who were opposing him building such a structure? Mr. M&ris stated he is at peace over this proposal and would not be vindictive by going out and seeing how much view he could block. He hoped other people within his neighborhood felt the same as he does. During the process, he questioned if he was missing something because the neighbors objected and the Planning Commission denied the recommendation of the Planning Department. TAPE #1173 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 15 of 17 Most people he talked with about the project, after showing them pictures of what is being proposed, evoked a response "what's the big deal". Gil Johnson, Acting City Clerk, read into the records the following letters of opposition: a petition with 21 signatures; David and Linda Wade, 602 Shore Drive; Allan D. and Melinda 1. Ellis, 214 Shore Drive; the Molitos, Shore Drive; Don M. Atkinson, Anna Jo Atkinson; Eleanor E. Harrington, 1710 Jacobson Blvd.; Roger Paquette, N. Bernice Root; Erin and Donna Jensen; Deloris Bosley, 806 Hayward Avenue; Ruth Seese; Olive Mueller; John Hall; Mr. and Mrs. John Didio, 616 Shore Drive; Bernice McGinty, 816 Ironsides; Marvin and Teri Jones, 404 Shore Drive; Ruth Kean Yates, 2130 Warner St. NE; Mary H. Wagner,3125 Rickey Road; Charles Reanier, 1134 Shore Drive; David Sayer, 1120 Vandalia Street. Mr. Dawdles questioned if the subject site had a single family residents on it would that have any bearing on whether or not it is a single family or duplex? Mr. Jense~ stated yes it would have some bearing in the intrusion in the view corridor only. A duplex as a non-confo£ming use, but it is allowed to continue saying there. ~ questioned if the building was converted back to a single family residents could Mr. Maris build another story on top? Mr. Jenson stated yes, the view corridors required for buildings under 20 feet is 25%. If the structure goes over 20 feet then a 35% view corridor is required. To go up to the zoning height limit there would need to be an additional 10% view corridor provided. Mr. Maris would not be allowed to build a second story across the full size of the structure and would have to meet the 35% corridor if it was extended to the full 30 foot height. President Firm gave further study using the slides and questioned if there was any requirement that the vegetation within the view corridor be cut down? Mr. Jensen stated there is no such requirement. Presi4ent FSt$ questioned what good is a view corridor if you can't see down it? Mr. Jsnsen stated if a condition was made in the Conditional Use Permit that the vegetation be cut to improve the view then it could be enforced. The current Zoning Ordinance does not include anything to address keeping the vegetation within view corridors trimmed or cut. Don pNatt, Director of Community development, stated he has made an internal determination/interpretation that the City is not requiring that trees be cut as they intrude into the view corridor. They are not allowing trees to be put into view corridors as development, but as they grow into the view corridor they have not required their being cut. It appears that interpretation could be changed, but it has not been challenged and currently stands. President F~tz stated it seems to her that it is only a view TAPE #1173 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 16 of 17 corridor as long as the property is kept free of vegetation. Mr. Neville stated he feels that Mr. Marls has not shown him that a need for a variance in shoreline management. He sees Mr. Marls has a personal need and the Shoreline Management Plan was enacted for the common good of the entire populous. Mr. Law stated seven Planning Commissioners unanimously voted against the Planning Department's recommendation on this proposal. Such action tells him that when looking at the length of time of that meeting and questions being asked, they put in a great deal of thought and a decision was not made lightly. Secondly, the Commissioners did go against the Planning Departments recommendation, which makes him feel they were representing the good of the community and the Planning Department was going by their perception of the look and wishes of the Planning Commission. It surprised him that the property line issue was not already resolved during the 7-8 months of planning effort. He could not support going against the Planning Commissions decision. President Fitz noted several times it was mentioned that the Planning Department is still in favor of this proposal...she questioned if that was correct? Mr. Pratt stated it is a matter of interpretation. The Planning Staff report was submitted to the Planning Commission and they are acting as agents and representatives of the Planning Commission's decision and they will not speak against that decision. It is a matter of record that the original recommendation was made to support the proposal, however, it is clear that they represented a fairly technical review of this application. The decision by the Planning Commission represented consideration of a broader range of issues that they have no' expertise in and that is whether or not this particular site in that particular neighborhood at this particular time is an appropriate use. TAPE #1174 #0016 M/S/C/(Neville/Winters) motion to UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision. Vote on motion: In favor: Winters, Neville, Law, Fitz Opposed: Dawkins ?Fes~dent Fits stated she felt if the City establishes view corridor they should be view corridors and she is recommending to the Planning Department that they also include some kind of regulations addressing keeping the view corridors free of vegetation and thereby blocking the view. TAPE #1174 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes February 2, 1994 Page 17 of 17 With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. KATHTmEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk EILEEN FITZ, ~~esident City of Bremerton FJ.~/EF/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault