Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/29/92TAPE #1018 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES #0026 #0044 APRIL 29, 1992 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, April 29, 1992, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Richard Neville, Eileen Fitz, Hank Waibel, Morris Dawkins, Russ Johnson, A1 Colvin and C.R. "Tiny" Collins. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Kathleen L. McCluskey, City Clerk. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horton and Invocation given by Reverend Gordon Hanstad of the Sylvan Way Baptist Church. President Hotton announced Item 6C had been pulled off the Agenda for one week and Item 7A was pulled indefinitely. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes Of Meeting - April 8, 1992 #AB92-114 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/WARRANT 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/Dawkins) on April 29, 1992, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 148398, 148399, 148401, 148589 through 148733 in the total amount of $713,250.80; and Retirees Payroll for the period endingApril 30, 1992, in the amount of $89,690.14 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Neville reported he had been meeting with staff members and appreciated their helpfulness. Mrs. Fitz thanked the Street Department personnel for their assistance to the citizens of Bremerton during the Spring Clean Up week. She and her daughter took advantage of the opportunity to dispose of yard waste and the City employee's assistance was greatly appreciated. TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 2 of 20 Mr. Colvin reported this past weekend he participated in Christmas In April program at the home of Mrs. Millie Williams. He invited Mrs. Williams to speak to Council about what happened at her home. Millie Williams stated she is one of six participants in the Christmas In April USA Program for 1992. She expressed her thanks to Mayor Mentor, Vance Lobe, Joe Gates, and local civic and social organizations in Bremerton and Kitsap County for their contributions of time, materials and talents to rehabilitate her home. Clean up efforts at her home included landscaping as well. She stated she is the proudest senior citizen on her block. Richard Martin stated he was a volunteer from Bremerton Central Lions Club and worked on rehabilitating Millie's yard, including repairing the back fence. He believes Christmas In April is one of the finest things that has occurred in this City. He participated in the program in 1991, and hoped the City, collectively, gets behind this kind of program and keeps it on going. Mr. Johnson stated Fiscal and Budget Committee is looking at ways to work with staff and the Mayor to help come up with "what are we going to do with the budget". He believed the administration would be coming up with a proposal soon. The Committee is looking at what kind of process Council can use to examine the Administration's budgetary proposal. Today he learned some things concerning low income housing that troubled him and he felt Council needed to make sure that Housing Authority and some other folks really understand what the Bremerton Housing Code means and how we can provide good quality, affordable housing for everyone without causing more project like facilities. Mr. Dawkins reported this past weekend he participated in a bowling tournament in Snohomish County and at that time he had the opportunity to learn of some their growth problems. Currently, they are shipping their garbage out of the local area and recently concluded a four month battle with a small city on the outskirts to put in a larger trash compactor. Residents of that small city were concerned about increased truck traffic, etc. Mrs. Hotton reported over the weekend she attended the Kitsap Community Action Program's annual Volunteer Banquet, which was well attended. She extended congratulations to all the award recipients. On Monday evening she and Mayor Mentor attended the Kitsap Regional Planning Council's study session on growth policies. This has been the second meeting on that issue and it is hoped some good working policies on "growth" TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 3 of 20 can be developed. She noted the four Puget Sound counties are also dealing with Growth Management issues. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Louis Mentor read the following Proclamation: 1. Public Service Recognition Week - May 4 - 10, 1992. Mayor Mentor reported on the following events: KCAP Awards Banquet Christmas In April - April 25 Loyalty Day Parade - Port Orchard April 25 E1 Conidia Fiesta -April 25 East Bremerton Rotary Charity Dance - April 25 Success of Clean Up Week efforts by Street Department Personnel and Brem-Air Disposal Inc. Funeral for Paul Powers, former Mayor of Port Orchard On May 2, Mayor will attend the Miss Maria Clara Coronation Mr. Johnson, Chairman Of Bremerton Solid Waste Advisory Committee, explained the City had worked closely with Kitsap County Solid Waste Advisory Committee and Kitsap County Public Works Department in their programs for recycling and waste reduction, etc. They have come up with new promotional materials, which were passed out at the Earth Day Fair on April 25-26 at the Sheridan Park facility. He presented each City Council member a cloth tote bag and a beverage cup. Printed on each tote bag are 10 rules for waste reduction. Harry Dunlap, Lower Marine Drive, stated he had follow the progress so far on the Marine Drive/Kitsap Way intersection improvement and at this point felt Mr. Arnold "took the City to the cleaners" with his giving the City 10 feet of property and his receiving 100 ft. He felt the businesses near the intersection were being adversely impacted with what is being proposed as improvements to that intersection. He did not want to lose the "free" right turn off of Kitsap Way to Marine Drive. He felt a 4-way left turn way signal was a colossal waste of money. He questioned who was in charge of this project and was the City Council aware of what is being proposed for that intersection? Mayor Mentor assured everyone that there will be a "free" right turn going down Marine Drive. And, there will be more safe parking made available for the businesses located on the west corner of that intersection. 6A - LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON AND WESTERN TELEPAGE, INC., #AB92-115 The existing lease agreement between the City of Bremerton #0905 TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 4 of 20 Department of Municipal Utilities and Western Telepage, Inc. for the operation of a telecommunications system expired on January 31, 1990. Attached for City Council's consideration is a proposed agreement between the City of Bremerton and Western Telepage, Inc. to allow Western Telepage, Inc. to continue to operate telecommunications equipment at Site #2 located at 3027 Olympus Drive, Bremerton, for ten (10) years and to establish a monthly site rental fee of $325.00 during the first year of the lease. Bill Dully, Utilities Director, explained this lease is for a small paging antenna that will reside on the tower located at Olympus Drive. Mr. Waibel noted the City Attorney did not approve the contract "as to form" and the agreement was lacking a non- discrimination clause. Mr. Sievers stated the non- discrimination clause would be added by addendum. Mr. Johnson questioned how many antennas were on that particular tower? Mr. Duffy stated five antennas, two are privately owned and three are part of the City's communication network. Mr. Overson questioned if a value analysis had been done to determined if the charge is adequate for service provided? Mr. Duffy stated yes, he is using the same rate schedule as the Department Of Natural Resources, who operate similar towers. And, future increases of the rental fee will be based on the current C.P.I. Mr. Colllns questioned since the antenna is on City property, is the General Fund receiving the rental fees? Mr. Duffy stated the Utility receives the rental fees. Mr. Sievers stated the tower is located on property purchased by Utility invested dollars, therefore it is appropriate that they receive any return for use of that property. Mr. Duffy stated for clarification the Utility purchased and erected the tower. The General Fund does receive B&O Taxes and Leasehold Taxes from this service. Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve the attached lease agreement between the City of Bremerton and Western Telepage, Inc. and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures, including a non-discrimination amendment. TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 5 of 20 6B - AMENDMENT NO. 4, CONTRACT #2921/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON AND CH2M HILL, #AB9~-116 The Utility, in response to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (W.A.C. 197-11) and the requirements of the City of Bremerton Department of Community Development, has a requirement for continuing professional services for the development of a programmatic environmental impact statement in support of its wastewater comprehensive plan. Attached for City Council's consideration is Amendment No. 4 to Contract #2921, professional services agreement between the City of Bremerton and CH2m HILL Northwest, Inc. for the development of the Utility Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. Services included are the development of alternatives; preparation, publication and circulation of Scoping Notice; preparation of draft and final environmental impact statements and participation in public hearings. The cost for services not including additional studies on data gathering is estimated not to exceed $64,000. Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, stated the Utility, in response to numerous regulations and requirements between the State, Federal Government and Growth Management Act, has over the last year been developing a Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. That plan has been completed to the point of a "final draft" and the next part of the process is to go through the SEPA requirements. In discussions with the Department Of Community Development, they determined the Utility needs to do a programatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the plan, which will allow public comment and review all considerations with regard to that plan. Mr. Neville questioned how many public meetings will be held on this issue and when? Mr. DuffV explained the public hearings will be determined by the review agency, the City of Bremerton, who will handle the environmental process. He believed there would be at least two such public hearings. Mr. Waibel stated he is assuming the Fiscal and Budget Committee reviewed the sum total of this project considering the fact that the agreement had been amended by previous actions. Mr. Johnson stated that was the first question the City asked staff when they presented the proposal. Public comment - none. Mr. Johnson stated a question that did come up at Fiscal and #1068 TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 6 of 20 Budget Committee meeting was why it is the City is spending all this money to do an EIS on a plan. The point is when a Comprehensive Plan is developed and a good job is done, at that point separate portions of the study can be used on the project. This has proven to be a cost effective way of doing business. M/S/C/U(Johnson/Dawkins) to approve Amendment No. 4 to Contract #2921, professional services agreement between the City of Bremerton and CH2M HILL Northwest, Inc. for the development of the Utility Wastewater Comprehensive Plan and authorize the Mayor to execute saidAmendment, subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CLASS I (SMALL); APPELLANT: KARL KEIL REPRESENTING ALBERT KEIL; LOCATION: 2820 HALVERSON AVENUE, #AB92-119 On February 18, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a Special Use Permit to allow a Group Facility-Class I (small) within the home of Joanne C. Richmire which would provide adult family home care for adults. The special Use Permit is being appealed on the grounds that the facility does not meet the Uniform Building Code requirements if more than five residents are housed. Also, the permitted allowable number of residents should be established. The City Council, when hearing an appeal, shall either: 1) Affirm the decision under review; 2) Reverse the decision under review; 3) Modify in whole or part the decision under review; or 4) Remand the matter back to the approving authority for further consideration. Such action shall be decided by a majority vote of the members present. That vote may be taken at the same or any subsequent meeting. President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Jack A11ingham, Current Planning, provide a view graph showing the location of the site: on Halverson Avenue, one lot to the south of the intersection at East 30th Street. The 0.24 acre parcel slopes steeply upward from its frontage on Halverson, to the single family (five bedroom) home. The backyard slopes gradually upward to the adjacent alley on the rear of the property. The facility is in a primarily single family TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 7 of 20 residential neighborhood surrounded by single family residences. To the east it abuts an alley and that alley services the site with Paratransit services. The zoning of the site is SF-3 and surrounded by single family zoning. The Richmire's house is essentially a 5-bedroom dwelling. The group residential facility is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a facility that provides care for people, who for various reasons, cannot reside in their natural home and for persons who have severe chronic disability and physical handicaps that cause substantial functional limitations. This Special Use Permit Class I - Small is defined as "6 or fewer people". Therefore, by definition there is a limit on the number of people who can reside in this group residential facility. The Planning- Commission reviewed the Special Use Permit criteria and essentially found it met all the criteria for granting a Special Use Permit, that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation (Residential), that there is a public need for this type of facility, there are adequate services available to service the facility and that the use bears a substantial relationship to the public welfare. The Planning Commission did place three conditions on the application itself: (1) That any improvements required by the Uniform Building Code be made, subject to the approval of the City's Building Official. (2) That the owner shall pay any facility fees associated with the conversion of domestic utility services to commercial utility services, as required by the City Utilities Department. (Note: The City's Utility Department is not requiring any conversion from domestic to commercial facilities .) (3) Parking shall be provided on site for three vehicles so that they will not infringe on alley traffic and be approved by the Planning Manager. Mr. Allingham noted essentially the appellant is appealing the decision on non-compliance with the Uniform Building Code requirements and that a maximum of occupants should be set on the facility. He reminded Council that by definition the facility is limited to six people and the Planning Commission placed a condition that it comply with the Uniform Building Code. President Hotton questioned since one of the reasons for TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 8 of 20 appealing this has to do with not meeting the UniformBuilding Code, what kind of quasi- judicial review does Council have over that portion of the appeal. Ian 8ievers, City Attorney, stated when those Building Code requirements are imposed, which is quite independent of the land use decision by Council, there is a separate administrative appeal processes - BuildingAppeals Board. President Horton stated then Council was not the appropriate body for reviewing whether or not the proposal conformed to the Building Code. Mr. Sievers stated that was correct. He did not know what those Building Code requirements would be and he was sure the Planning Commission was also not aware of what they were, but they wanted to put the owner on notice that they had to comply with that other regulation. Mrs. Carmen Keil, 2820 Halverson (appellant), requested that her testimony be entered into the record as follows: "One thing we all probably agree on in this room is the desirability of care of the elderly in a home-like setting whenever possible and practical, as compared to institutional care. I am speaking of the observations, concerns and convictions of both my husband Albert Keil and myself, after studying the minutes of the Planning Commission of February 18. I will attempt to stick to my script - verbatim - as I'd like my remarks to go into the minutes and be of record. At the regular Planning Commission meeting, February 18, it was approved that the Richmires of 2830 Halverson be granted a Special Use Permit to continue using their residence as an adult care home. This home has actually been used for this purpose for 5 1/2 years, without benefit of City license approval, payment of Business and Occ. Taxes, or even knowledge and approval of the City. At this meeting there were 7 letters read from neighbors opposed to this action and 5 neighbors spoke against. Vice Chairman Norton called for speakers in favor of this application. There were none except Mrs. Richmire, who was given a second chance to make a statement. To start, this Special Use Permit is being appealed on the grounds that the facility does not meet the U.B.C. requirements and also to establish the number of residents to be housed. This is all well and good, but who will inspect, police and enforce these requirements? The Richmires are licensed by the State and at the time of applying for a State TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 9 of 20 license, I am told, an applicant must answer in the affirmative to questions regarding compliance with local, or City laws. These issues will be further addressed. Let me stress again, we have nothing against adult care centers, but what we are looking at here next door to us, is a poorly designed, potentially dangerous situation. There are pictures in the Richmire file in the Planning Office, which were taken by my son, and you should have at your disposal, showing a car parked in a carport blocking the rear exist from home, (which incidently is reached by going through one of the bedrooms) other debris and a woodpile make for a treacherous exit for any handicapped person. These pictures also illustrate the slope of the driveway and the uneven, gravelly surface of alley. The 3rd parking place described by Richmires in their "not to scale" sketch of their floor plan and lot is pictured here with my son's car in it - and this is where people who help the Richmires or guests have been parking for 5 1/2 years. This picture also shows conditions of existing alley. This "parking place" has been eliminated by placing a "no parking" sign in the lawn area. Talking with Shane Jensen of Planning Department, I was told a 3rd parking place could be considered as such by Commission as in back of second car in one single lane driveway. Now, what we have is a reallv dangerous scenario compounded by an additional barrier. In the event of an emergency, a minimum of 2 cars would have to be moved in order for fire or emergency personnel to rescue or remove any patients. The additional time needed to clear a path could result in precious moments lost in an emergency. Presently, Kitsap Transit picks up and returns patients from Richmires by stopping at the top of their driveway in the alley. The condition of the alley has been established as being uneven, broken by pot holes, with loose gravel covering surface. Let me read from Kay wilson's staff report (note: which she did.) We are not stressing the inconvenience of a paratransit bus temporarily blocking the alley. Our concern is being an elderly patient being helped up a steep driveway to board a bus parked on an poorly maintained alley, and then worse, the same elderly lady being returned to the residence, stepping out on loose gravel and being helped down the steep driveway. I inquired of the Paratransit supervisor whether or not the Bus Company was responsible for injuries sustained by a passenger who fell while being helped. I was told they are not! City engineer Jan Stemkoski was asked if the City was TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 10 of 20 liable. After conferring with a City Attorney, he said he could not accurately state who the responsible party would be. Somebody has to be responsible! It will either be the City of Bremerton for allowing bus to use alley, Kitsap Transit for not insuring safety of their passengers or Richmires for subjecting patients to such dangerous conditions. Somebody is responsible. One of the conditions of the Planning Commission's approval of this Special Use Permit was clarification of 3rd space for parking. They have solved this by parking the 3rd car behind the other 2 in the single lane driveway. Some rethinking needs to be done there. Another condition of converting domestic utility services to commercial was judged unnecessary by City Utilities Dept., in a staff letter from Greg Berthoff. Let me read you something interesting from that letter (note: which she did). Five patients is the limit under UBC for a "small" division 3 group care facility and requirements are far less stringent than for homes housing 6 or more. But now we have Mrs. R. quoting "5 to 8". The State licensed her for 6, and the City says 5. Somewhat of a discrepancy. And, who is responsible here for maintaining a periodic check? It seems the City or Planning Department are the last to know and relying on neighbors to question these operations. Surely is not the best way. The last condition for Planning Commission approval was that any improvements required by U.B.C. be made on the "agenda bill" furnished to you by Planning Department. Recommending you affirmthe Planning Commission's decision to grant Special Use Permit, paragraph 8 - in paragraph 7 - next page - their "research sources" list "Planning Department file and Bremerton Zoning Ordinance". I would like to suggest a 3rd source should be a copy of the U.B.C. I did some research in U.B.C. in library - not as much as I would have liked, but the requirements for group 4 group health care facility (ambulatory, non-restrained, having metal or physical impairments, housing ~ or more are far, far more stringent - another reason for establishing number of patients and maintaining periodic checks. Ladies and gentlemen, what is at stake here is the safety and heath of our elderly. I have tried to rely on statements of Planning Department, which have been conflicting, contradictory, confusing, I've asked for help from Engineering TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 11 of 20 department and they can't quote the law. You as officials of Bremerton City Council are the last hope of the elderly for enforcing safety and health regulations. These people deserve this much! Bremerton has been voted one of the most liveable cities and you folks have been contributors of your time, talent to make this happen. Now comes a case where someone has to say "NO". Joanne Richmire, applicant, explained there was a typo on the Utilities' letter and the number of patients referenced should be 5-6. She emphasized they are up to Code, Fire Code, State's code and as far as she knows they have already met the City's building code. Mrs. Fitz noted in Mrs. Richmire's testimony before the Planning Commission she stated they are required by the State to have an annual inspection by the Fire Department and are exempt from acquiring a City business license. She questioned if the part about the business license was correct? Mr. A11in~hamstated Mrs. Richmire did make that statement, but he did not know that they are exempted from the business license requirement. It was his understanding of the W.A.C. that they needed to abide by all local regulations. Mr. Colvin questioned if this could be construed as a business? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated yes, he had reviewed the City's business license regulations and this falls into the category of a business, which is subject to tax, not of rental of residential property which is exempt from business tax. It falls under the City's rules definition of "nursing home" even though the State has a less stringent sub-permit than nursing homes for adult day care. Mr. Colvin questioned if it was an allowable business in a residential neighborhood? Mr. Sievers yes, it is a type of residential facility that is allowed in this neighborhood under a Special Use Permit. Mr. Colvlnquestioned would the Health Department determine how many bathroom facilities are required for 5 senior citizens? Mr. Rilingham explained the Building Code would determine the amount of necessary sanitary facilities for this facility. Mr. Colvlnquestioned how many were there? Mr. A11inghamstated the UniformBuilding Code designates this as an R-3, because there are five or fewer bedrooms and would consider it a single family residence requiring facilities for eating, sleeping and one bathroom. President Hotton pointed out this is a zoning issue - Council is not the appropriate body to talk about Building Code issues. Mr. Colvin stated he wanted to know how many bathrooms were in the facility for his personal knowledge. TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 12 of 20 Mr. Johnson stated he did not think he wanted to give someone a Special Use Permit who had already gone 5 1/2 years without one. He questioned why some penalizing action had not been taken? Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated one of the characteristics of this facility is the outward appearance of what is happening there is no different than any other residents on that street. There is a Code enforcement program, which is actively involved in obvious larger issues, and this is not something they go looking for even if they find it. They rely on neighbors keeping an eye on neighbors and filing complaints - that is how this was picked up. He felt it was relatively easy to escape being noticed, if it is a benign activity. Now that the City is aware of the activity, the applicant is before Council due to an enforcement action. Furthermore, he is not through with enforcement. He does not cite people the first day a violation is found, rather they are requested to go through the compliance process, which they did. As yet, he had not completed the Building Code review process due to the fact he is not sure it is a legal land use; and the applicant had not completed the business license application process yet because they do not know whether they'll be allowed to stay there. An inspection will be done to review their sanitary facilities, access, etc., and that was why he was insistent on focusing on whether or not the land use will be permitted. If approval is given, he will go to the next stage to determine if it is an adequate facility and on to the next stage of licensing it as a business. Mr. ~ohnson questioned if the Fire Department requests to see a City's business license at the time they are doing the fire inspection? Mr. Pratt stated no. Mr. Dawkins questioned what happens when the State looks at this do they have any criteria to evaluate the situation? Mr. Pratt explained the State has a relatively severe criteria that must be met, which the Richmires have met over the past years. When Mrs. Richmire met the State criteria, she assumed she had met the City's criteria. It has only been in the last few years that there has been active discussion between the State Health Department and the Planning community trying to combine and making it easier to permit one facility under both entities. Mr. Dawkinsquestioned how many such facilities are licensed in the City? Mr. Pratt stated he has an idea how many have been permitted. This type of facility for elder care is being promoted strongly as a reasonable and economical alternative to institutionalization, and the City's Zoning Code promotes it. Mr. Overson questioned if operation of the facility had been discontinued until it is legal, under City terms? Mr. Pratt TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 13 of 20 stated no, unless there is an extreme circumstance he does not require activities be discontinued while resolution is worked through. In this case, he did not know that it was a conscious decision but in retrospect the disruption of the program and the people involved would consider it to be extreme given the impacts in the community. The neighbors had not asked that people be removed from the home until this issue is resolved. President Hotton questioned if there was anything from a land use point of view that needs to address a penalty? Mr. Sievers stated within the Zoning Code it is a discretionary call of the Planning Director and if there is some legal problem in enforcement then they would enter into it. President Horton stated for clarification, then Council should be addressing this only as a land use issue and not take into consideration any penalties. Mr. Slevers stated that was correct. President Hotton questioned if the "parking" issue would be addressed by the Fire Department? Mr. Sievers stated that is mixed, fire lanes are needed under the Fire Code but on-site parking would be a land use issue. Most of the items the appellant brought up seemed to focus on the Building Code or directed toward safety of the occupants or visitors to the structure rather than impacts on surrounding properties and the incompatibility with surrounding uses. The appellant needs to address what certificate of occupancy was issued and whether it was accurately issued. Parking is a mixed problem. Mr. Waibel stated he felt the only relevant issue was setting the class of licensing. Mr. Colvin questioned since parking is an issue, is parking adequate for that use? Mr. A11ingham stated the Planning Commission conditioned the Special Use Permit to provide three parking spaces. There is room on the property to supply those three spaces. Mr. Johnson questioned if there was any way to get the alley improved so that buses could use it more safely? Mr. Alllngham stated the alley is in poor shape, a mix of asphalt and gravel. Mr. Johnson stated if we are accepting it as part of their "site" plan we're suppose to be looking at transit accessibility in semi-multi family situations. He questioned if Council could place a condition addressing that concern? Mr. A11ingham stated yes, if Council finds this facility is impacting the street system and places a condition that the applicant put forward its fair share of improving the condition of the alley. Mr. Waibel questioned if he was correct in understanding the alley had been vacated and one of TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 14 of 20 the conditions of the vacation was that property owners maintain it? President Hotton stated it appears that was an issue for the Administration to address. Mr. Waibel questioned how do we enforce those agreements where the City vacated a street with the condition that it be maintained by the property owners? Mr. Slevers stated the City can insist that the property owners improve it, similar to putting in sidewalks in a subdivision, which the City is now suing a developer for failing to comply. President Hotton pointed out it would involve the whole block of property owners. Mr. Waibel questioned are we talking about enforcing an L.I.D., and force collection/liens against a property? Mr. Sievers stated it would be handled similar to a situation where a plat is approved and homeowners association is responsible for maintenance, but if they failed to do so then the City could go in and enforce that condition. Mr. Johnson pointed out when the property owners took on that responsibility they probably were not anticipating they would have buses using the alley on a regular basis. Mr. Sievers stated he did not understand why the bus was using the alley, a private right- of-way. President Hotton and Mr. Waibel pointed out for the type of residence Halverson Street is not used as access due to the steep steps. President Hotton noted in many instances the small size buses are used. If this was just a single family residence the paratrasit bus would use the same alley. Mr. Rilingham explained as far as the impact to the alley of this residence or facility, it is probably unlikely that this facility is putting any more use on the alley than any other residential properties. Mr. Oversonquestioned why the owners were not required to put in the standard handicapped access? Mr. Waibel stated the requirement is "reasonable" access and the alley is reasonable access. Mr. Overson stated he did not agree that it was reasonable access according to the elevation definition of the drop from the alley. Mr. Pratt stated the Building Code would probably not require handicapped accessibility because it is still a single family resident. This is a single dwelling unit that happens to use all five bedrooms to give care to elderly people and not classified as a public facility as multi-family structure or commercial. Mr. Waibel expressed concern that the State did not require handicapped access for this facility. Mr. Pratt stated he could not say how the State requires their facilities to be developed to qualify for State funding and licensing. The City can permit a facility that does not meet State licensing requirements. Mr. Waibel pointed out in terms of the hearing this appeal, there are only two of the three reasons given as grounds for this appeal that are appropriate to the rezone: (1) amount of TAPE #1018 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 15 of 20 proper parking. This was addressed by a condition being placed on the permit by the Planning Commission. (2) Whether or not the permit for this type of facility is limited to the proper number of occupants. That being the case, both of those conditions have been placed on the Special Use Permit by the Planning Commission. President Morton pointed out that the Building Code has a break between 5 and greater numbers occupancy. #3042 M/S/C(Waibel/Collins) to uphold the Planning Commissions's approval of the special use permit with the conditions applied by the Planning Commission, which in fact will address the need for the Building Code requirement. Mr. Overson questioned the City's liability now that it has been brought out that this facility is not handicapped accessible and reasonably assuming the occupants would be in need of such access? Mr. Sievers stated he was not absolutely conversant on the new ADA requirements and how it affected the City's enforcement obligations for new commercial uses as far as handicapped accessibility. In the past, if it is not a City facility like the Parks' Office or City Hall, the requirements are in the Building Code and if those are complied with and no-known errors are made, the City would not have any liability. President Morton noted she felt the State would stringently adhere to any ADA rules placed on care facilities. Mr. Overson stated if Council denies the Special Use Permit, the Richmire's facility will go away and if they comply with all guidelines then they would be allowed to continue their business. Council does have the opportunity and possibly the responsibility to require handicap access based on knowledge of the facility involved and the ADA. President Morton questioned if Mr. Pratt was familiar with anything the City has to comply with as far as zoning to meet ADA requirements? Mr. Pratt stated the Zoning Ordinance is not the implementing ordinance for ADA. There is a question of handicap accessibility before Council - the Building Official is the one that makes that call and he has not finished with his review of this facility. There are ADA implications involved in this, none of which have been presented at this time because they are not germane to the appeal that is being presented. TAPE #1019 Mr. Co111ns expressed concern that there were several things still unanswered, such as the Building Officials's ruling, TAPE #1019 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 16 of 19 whether or not a business license would be granted, etc., however, he felt Council needed to have something that will tell staff to go do it. Mr. Pratt stated there will not be a business license issued for this facility, which he believes requires a business license, until it conforms with the Zoning Code, which Council is apart of at this time, and until it completely complies with the Building Code, the next step after the Zoning Code. There is an adequate clearance process in the City which says "do not issue this building license until appropriate City departments have all signed off". If Council desires, this process can be added as a condition, however, it happens automatically. President Horton pointed out following action taken by Council, the Administration will be responsible for following through and she encouraged Council to let them carry out that responsibility. Mr. Colllnsquestioned if Council could get a report back on the Administration's progress in one month? Mr. Pratt stated he would provide a written report in one month. Vote: In Favor: Overson, Collins, Neville, Fitz, Waibel, Horton Opposed: Dawkins, Johnson Abstain: Colvin Motion carried. Mr. Dawkins stated the issue of home nursing care is becoming a very important business all over the United States due to the cost of keeping someone in a Nursing Home. He felt the City should be giving thought as to possible amendments to City codes in preparation. President Hotton requested, as a part of Mr. Pratt's report, that he address the condition of the alley, who is responsible for maintenance as well as looking into if the City has any further responsibility for providing requirements under the ADA. 8B - RESOLUTION NO. 2390 AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE INTERIM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), #AB92-120 The Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 authorized collection of Real Estate Excise Taxes to pay for "capital facilities" needed to accommodate growth. The City has been collecting these taxes. The Park & Recreation Department proposes to spend Excise Tax monies on development of Pendergast Regional Park. Excise tax receipts can only be spent as programmed in an adopted "capital facilities plan" element of a comprehensive plan. The proposed Interim Capital Improvement TAPE #1019 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 17 of 19 Proqram (CIP) is an "interim version" of the final capital facilities plan required by the GMAby July 1993. The Interim CIP consists of material from the City's adopted Five Year Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and its 1991-1992 Capital Improvement Program, adapted and combined only as necessary to authorize expenditure of excise tax monies for park purposes. The Bremerton Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Interim CIP at it's March 31, 1992 meeting. Kay Wilson, Department Of Community Development, stated part of the Growth Management Act (GMA) gave cities and counties tools for managing growth and one of those was to allow the City to collect an additional .025% Real Estate Excise Tax with the restriction that those funds be used solely as a contribution to the development of capital facilities identified in a Capital Facilities Plan. Later on in the law it explains that Capital Facilities Plan has to be an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. By July 1993, the GMAwill require the City to have a up-to-date Comprehensive Plan along with a Capital Facilities Plan element and several other elements. The City has been collecting this special tax and has identified a need to spend some of those funds on some Park projects. In order to do that, the City must adopt a Capital Facilities Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. In response to that requirement, an Interim Capital Facilities Plan is proposed for Parks and Recreation facilities as a proposed amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Under the GMA, the facilities plan must contain certain components: Inventory, Forecast Of Future Needs, Proposed Facilities, Six-Year Financial Plan and Reassessment Of Land Use Element. The last item is impossible to do yet because the City's Comprehensive Plan has not been updated to meet growth management requirements. The City is not in the position yet to adopt a full fledged Capital Facilities Plan, but is working toward that end by mid 1993. The City does have an "inventory", a Forecast Of future Needs, and a listof proposed facilitiesin the Park and Recreation Plan. The City has already adopted a financial program, 1991-1992 Capital Improvement Program, that provides for a five year program (GMA will cover six years). Therefore, the City is in the position to substantially comply with the intentof the GMA. The Interim Capital Improvement Plan is organized to actually pull information out of the existing plans - inventory, forecast, proposed facilities, financial. In addition, the plan does discuss where the City is in terms of making required reassessment of the land use element, and does TAPE #1019 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 18 of 19 provide for amendments of the plan, as required. GMA requires the City to identify an existing level of service, which in the case of parks is probably going to be measured in terms of how many acres of parks are provided per 1,000 residents in the City. This requirement then breaks down that information into categories: Regional, City-Wide, Neighborhood, Open Space (current total parks - 477.39 acres, plus 96.77 proposed acres). The next section of the Interim Plan takes the City's Capital Improvement Plan and transfers into this plan just those projects that are for parks. Currently, the Administration is going through a process to update the 1991-1992 Capital Improvement Program and when it is ready Council will hold public meetings and then adopt it. At that point in time, two Resolutions will be presented, one adopting the 1992-1993 program and the second adopting the Park sheets into this document so that it gets automatically updated when those new numbers are adopted. This is not a budget document but rather a program document, and under GMA cities are required to go through this step before budgeting any of these funds. The Real Estate Excise Tax monies have to be consistent with this document, however, other funds are not affected because this is an interim document. At this point in time, all that is needed is to update it to the extent needed so that Real Estate Excise tax funds can be spent on parks projects. This document has been reviewed by an Advisory Committee made up of Parks and Recreation Commission members and Planning Commission members and has gone through public hearing at the Planning Commission level, with their recommending approval with changes that have been incorporated in the document being presented. A Resolution has been prepared adopting this Interim Capital Improvement Program as an element of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Public comment - none. President Hotton stated she believed District #6 was the only Council District that had no park facility, excluding the Ivy Green Cemetery, and she saw nothing in this document that proposed one. She noted with the loss of Roosevelt Field that area will be totally devoid of any park area and she would like to see a recommendation come out of the Park Commission as to how that area might be better served; especially in light of a proposed "Park Bond" that may be on the ballot in November. Vicki Vanneman, Parks and Recreation Director, stated there had been discussion about incorporating #0623 TAPE #1019 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 29, 1992 Page 19 of 19 additional plans/potential purchases and felt at this time, because of the schedule regarding the Pendergast project and the need to free up the Real Estate Excise Tax fund, they wanted to leave intact the adopted Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and use that material without change. She emphasized the proposal is an "interim" plan and there will be opportunities to make amendments prior to July 1993. It is her intent to make inclusions at that time. Mr. Johnson questioned if this applied to just the .025% or entire Real Estate Excise Tax? Ms. Wilson stated to her understanding it applied to both, however, it was not clear to her if the original Real Estate Excise Tax starts in July 1993. Mr. Johnson stated he felt it should only constrain the City on that additional tax. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the City is restricted on the new .025% excise tax that they allowed the City to pass and must be spent solely on projects listed as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. GMA also went back and restricted use of the old .025% and that now has to be spent primarily on projects listed in the Comprehensive Plan. He assumes that to mean 51% has to be spent on projects listed in the Comprehensive Plan. The State has allowed projects that were already budgeted out of the excise tax fund to continue. Mr. Johnson stated it was that rule that kisses parks goodby...projects cannot be listed in the plan unless the City can afford to build them - you have to maintain the level of service that already exists. He felt this was something that needed to be discussed with representatives of the State Legislature next year because it makes "zero" sense. He also felt the City should include those thousands of acres of regional open space in the watershed for level of service. Ms. Wilson stated by July 1993 the level of service will be important but is not critical at this time. M/S/C/U(Collins/Johnson ) attached in Exhibit B. to approve Resolution No. 2390 as With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. ~ ,.-~,,,,~ ~,,,C o,. KATH~E~N L. MoCLUSKEY, City C~erk NN HORTON, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution Fi le/Vault