Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/91TAPE #917 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES #0005 #0021 MAY 1, 1991 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, May 1, 1991, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present: Wayne Estes, Spencer Horning, Merck Waib~l, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, A1 Colvin, Morrie Dawkins and Johnson. Councilman Lon Overson as absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers ' n McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horton and Invocation given by Jim Hill, Pastor of Bremerton Christian Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes OF Meeting - April 17, 1991, #AB91-109 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Horning) presented. to approve Consent Agenda as 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/Estes) on May, 1 1991, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: check numbers 128536 through 128673 inclusive and check numbers 128384 through 128387 inclusive in the amount of $126,615.59, and Retirees Payroll for period ending April 30, 1991 in amount of $65,069.51. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Johnson discussed "Desert Shield" and "Desert Storm" and yellow ribbons tied on each microphone. He stated he had a friend who piloted a helicopter during this conflict; she returned to Bremerton this week and he removed the yellow ribbon from his microphone. Mr. Colvin thanked Chief McNeal and Ron Hough for responding to neighborhood concerns. Mr Colvin stated that he received a copy of the proposed change to the City's form of TAPE #917 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 2 of 29 government. Mr. Dawkins briefly discussed the "Christmas in April" program and concluded it is a great program. Mr. Collins discussed the third meeting of the Farmers Market held Tuesday evening. He stated the first market will be this Sunday from 11 am - 4 pm. He concluded that it can only get bigger and better. Mr. Estes discussed his concerns with junk vehicles being left on City streets. Mr. Estes discussed YMCA's Youth in Government program. Students are in Olympia on Thursday and Friday and have been working all year to get their bills before the Legislature. He stated students also take over the Supreme Court, and felt everyone could learn from these youth. PUBLIO RECOGNITION Mayor Mentor discussed various community activities that took place last weekend and activities for the coming weekend. Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation proclaiming May 6 - 13 as "Kitsap Day Care" week. Barbara Mitchell, president of Kitsap Day Care accepted the proclamation. Mayor Mentor read a Proclamation proclaiming May 5 - 10 as "Crime Stoppers" week in Bremerton. Pat O'Neil, president, accepted the proclamation. Howard Hurpps, Bremerton Central Lions Club, discussed Lions White Cane Days, and their efforts to promote sight awareness. Mr. Hurpps presented each Council member with a white cane. Del Knauss and Rusty Rhodes displayed a poster and stated donations to "Friends of Bremerton Parks" for legal services can be sent to 280 4th Street. Don Atkinson briefly discussed the three public meetings leading up to the Sunday Market which begins this Sunday. Roy McKinnis discussed backing problems on Mountainview at Wheaton Way and his concern that emergency vehicles not being able to get through. President Hotton asked City Attorney Ian Sievers, if Council should rearrange the agenda and place Item 7A dealing with ALS Transport before Item 6B which sets fees for ALS Transport. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he felt it would be appropriate to discuss the services before discussing fees. #1210 TAPE #917 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 3 of 29 Ms. Horton stated that they will hear Item 7A prior to Item 6B. 6A - SERVICE CONTRACT FOR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF FLEET MAINTENANCE -RYDER MANAGED LOGISTICS SYSTEMS (MLS) #AB91-107 In 1986, the City entered into a three year contract with Ryder Managed Logistics Systems (MLS) to manage the City's fleet maintenance program. The contract was subsequently extended. In September 1990, the City advertised for and received Statements Of Qualifications from three firms to provide services. Following evaluations, proposals were requested from two firms. Proposals were evaluated by the City Treasurer, Street Superintendent, Deputy Fire Chief and representatives from the Utilities, Parks and Police Departments. The team's consensus was the MLS was best qualified to provide required services. The contract presented includes provisions for enhanced operation features and services for the City and Quality incentives for the contractor. The contract includes termination provisions for cause or convenience and provides annual re-opening for fee negotiations. Gil Johnson, Purchasing Supervisor, stated that following last week's Council meeting, the City Attorney reformatted the contract. There is no change in terms, condition or content of the contract. In response to questions from Council last week, fire fighting equipment is part of the overall contract. There was a question on reports, which is discussed in paragraph 2 of Section 8, and schedules on reports is in Section 6. Question on Auditor review for performance is specified in Section 12.02. Public comment - none M/S/C/U(Johnson/Dawkins) to award the fleet maintenance contract to Managed Logistics Systems and require the contractor to provide the six months reports as discussed last week. 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING AMBULANCE SERVICE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW ALS TRANSPORT, #AB91-111 R.C.W. 35.21.766 provides that when the legislative authority of a City determines that the City is not adequately served by existing private ambulance service, it may provide for the establishment of a system of ambulance service to be operated as a City service. The proposed ordinance amends BMC 5.50 to TAPE #917 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 4 of 29 provide that patients in need of advanced life support ambulance transport shall be transported in a public aid car as a standard procedure rather than limited instances where special circumstances are found. The ordinance sets the initial transport fee at $125, or $175 where service is authorized outside the City limits. The ordinance also makes the private ambulance representative a non-voting member of the Advisory Committee. Chet Meiqs, Fire Chief, stated he was directed to bring an ordinance to Council. He checked with other districts on fees and believes the proposed fees are fair. Frank Burk, Director of Operations for Olympic Ambulance, stated in his opinion the proposal cannot work with the Fire Department's current staffing. Harold Pickard commended Chief Meigs for proposing the ALS transport and requested clarification on the $125 charges for in City; is this city residents, city voters; physically in the city. How do you determine whether it is $125 or $1757 David Wingo commended City Council and the Fire Department for setting up the ALS transport system,. and stated the rates seem reasonable. President Hotton asked Mr. Sievers if there was a problem with Mr. Horning sitting on this hearing since he excused himself from the last hearing? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the choice for him to step down was not an Appearance of Fairness problem and he felt there would be no problem with Mr. Horning remaining for the hearing. Richard Sears presented Council members with a copy of pertinent RCWs and read the entire statute and discussed his interpretation of state statutes and objections to the ordinance. His main concern was that state law addresses lack of adequate ALS transport service by private carrier as a reason for a city to go into the transport business, and in his opinion there is no lack of adequate service in Bremerton by the private carriers. The legislature felt they were passing a bill that would assist those areas that felt they had a inadequate service due to lack of service. State statute requires the city to set up a public utility. According to statute, the city can charge an excise tax or B&O tax, but there is no authority to charge user fees. The City can provide free of charge ambulance service for city residents, but the authority is not there to charge a user fee. He suggested having Mr. Sievers or perhaps the Attorney TAPE #917 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 5 of 29 General look into it and give an opinion if a user fee is appropriate. Mr. Sears stated the city is considering operating a commercial business. If the city does that they lose the protection provided by the sovereign immunity law of the state, which means they will be liable for acts the same as a private carrier. Mr. Sears addressed staffing if they should have to staff up to provide this service. Mr. Sievers asked Mr. Horning if he watched the previous hearing on TV after he stepped down. Mr. Horning responded no. Mr. Sievers stated since he had not participated in the previous hearing and did not watch it on TV he could not participate at this time. Mr. Horning stepped down. Chief Meiqs responded to Mr. Pickard's inquiry regarding residents and stated anyone who lives inside the city limits is a resident of the city. Mr. Pickard stated his concern is with people living in motels in the city, i.e. military. Mr. Johnson asked if there will be special provisions for military personnel? Chief Meigs stated if they are living within the city limits they are residents. Mr. Sievers discussed Mr. Sears' assertion that private carriers service is adequate and stated that during the second hearing it was determined there are delays in transporting, Bremerton Fire was required to transport as private carrier when private ambulance not available. He stated that adequacy is not an issue as private carrier cannot transport ALS patients without assistance of Bremerton Fire personnel. In response to utility and user fees issues, Mr. Sievers stated a utility is a stand alone enterprise supported by rates. The City's utilities are supported independently of other revenues by a system of user fees. These fees can be generated by a special property levy and user fee such as countyPUD. He concluded there is no conflict in a utility and user fee as found in state statute. Mr. Collins asked Chief Meigs if ALS transport is someone whose life is in jeopardy and will City transport only when it is ALS? Chief Meigs responded yes, patients are advised of alternate methods of getting to the hospital or doctor's office when it is a BLS call. Mr. Collins discussed normal practice to have a engine respond to 911 calls. Chief Meigs stated depending on the nature of the call, an engine is dispatched. If it is a BLS call and when the ambulance arrives, the engine is placed back in service and paramedics and ambulance personnel attend to the injured person. Mr. Collins inquired if Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) is TAPE #917 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 6 of 29 something the City had developed? Chief Meigs responded yes. Mr. Collins asked if there is a governing board that has established training and procedures? Chief Meigs stated the Emergency Medical Services Council is the basis governing board that City paramedics and private carrier EMTs must meet. Chief Meigs further stated the Director Assistance for the program is a Quality Assurance Nurse. Mr. Collins stated his concerns with Bremerton residents getting the best service for the best price. Mr. Dawkins agreed it is unnecessary to have both city and private carrier personnel responding, but expressed concern with the need to buy an ambulance and the need for more fire fighters. He asked how much more money will the city bring in by doing the transporting? Chief Meigs estimated it would be $148,000. Chief Meigs discussed mutual aid contracts the City has with Fire Districts throughout the county. Mr. Colvin asked if calls that are not ALS will be referred to a private carrier? Chief Meigs stated if calls are for interfacility transport they would be by private carrier. Mr. Colvin stated his only problem with the ordinance is cost to military personnel. Mr. Johnson stated he would like the ordinance to state this addresses 911 calls for ALS transport. If responding to residents or businesses in Bremerton he would expect in city rates. He asked about Jackson Park and Chief Meigs responded they now respond to Jackson Park as it is in the city limits and they respond to PSNS for ALS. Mr. Sievers stated he didn't use residency as a criteria, but simply inside or outside the city limits. He stated guests and people doing business in Bremerton would be charged the in-city rates. Mr. Johnson asked since they have different rates for inside and outside the city, why don't they double the rates for those outside? Chief Meigs stated they could, however, they wanted their rates to be consistent with the rest of the county. Chief Meigs stated $175 is the basic rate charged by Olympic Ambulance. Glenn Jarstad, former Mayor, stated Bremerton was the first Fire Department in the county to have paramedics and in his opinion this can only mean better medical services for the community. President Horton stated other communities have gone to ALS transport, Bremerton is not setting precedence. This seems a viable things to do and encourages economic efficiency. Ms. TAPE #917 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 7 of 29 Horton discussed a previous hearing when discussion centered on the 25 cent surcharge, and if Olympic Ambulance could get that 25 cent surcharge they could do ALS transport, which indicates that without that 25 cent surcharge they cannot do ALS transport. Ms. Horton concluded during the 14 months Council had studied ALS transport by the City, Olympic Ambulance has not come up with a viable alternative suggestion, which indicates they cannot handle the ALS program. #3636 M/S/C(Collins/Colvin) approved the ordinance on first reading. affirmative: opposed: Estes, Horton, Collins, Colvin, Johnson Dawkins 6B - SETTING FEES FOR ALS TRANSPORT: AUTHORIZE JULY 1, 1991, START UP DATE: REOUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR SET-UP COSTS, AND AUTHORIZE CALL FOR BIDS FOR NEW RESCUE UNIT, #AB91-110 Pursuant to previous Council action, the Fire Department is requesting finalization of the ALS transport issue. Under this Agenda Bill the Fire Department is requesting Council action to authorize the following: Set fees for transport. Authorize a July 1, 1991, start-up-date Authorize budget adjustment for set-up-costs and revenue realization from transport fees. TAPE #918 Authorize the Call for Bid for a new rescue type vehicle. Chief Meigs discussed the budget adjustment request totaling $122,797 and requested authorization to call for bids for a new rescue unit. They recommend purchasing a new vehicle as opposed to a used one, change vehicles around where the high mileage one is removed and the low mileage one is kept moving. They feel that will extend the life of the current ones by one or two years and provide them with a viable back up, which currently they don't have. Chief Meigs also stated they need a billing service, and Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, has recommended that they have that service performed by a professional billing service at about $42,000 a year. Capital Improvement program requirements are the rescue ambulance at $110,000, radio equipment at $6,253, air suspension unit, $6,543. Public comment - none. TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 8 of 29 Mr. Johnson felt this budget adjustment request is really for an interfund loan and asked if an interfund loan request could be brought to Council next week. Rich Hanna explained the budget adjustment shows an increase of $74,375 from ALS transport fees as projected and transfer from Cumulative Reserve Fund of $48,422. They are proposing this be spent on Fire Department Capital discussed by Chief Meigs. They propose reducing the ending cash fund by transferring $48,422 for the expenditures just discussed. The funds used out of Capital Reserve would be replaced by an increase appropriation from the General Fund in 1992. Mr. Johnson asked if they are going to increase the size of the budget by $48,422 by considering additional revenues that have come over and above projection? Mr. Hanna responded yes, and only $74,375 will be realized in the current year. That is why it is necessary to involve the Capital Reserve Fund in the near term. Mr. Hanna stated the ending cash they are reducing by $48,422 is in the Capital Reserve Fund. The budgeted ending cash is around $450,000. They are proposing to reduce that ending cash balance by end 1991 by $48,422 as a result of this transfer. Mr. Johnson asked if it will be paid back? Mr. Hanna responded yes. Mr. Johnson stated an interfund loan must be approved. Mr. Collins inquired if an interfund loan document could be presented to Council next week? Mr. Hanna responded yes. Mr. Estes requested clarification of the collection fee. Chief Meigs stated they based the $42,000 on the estimated number of calls. Mr. Estes felt the public should be aware that the billing company fee will be based on percentage of the number of collection and not a flat fee of $42,000. Mr. Dawkins asked if this will be by private billing company or by the City? Chief Meigs stated a private company will do the billing under City guidelines. #0534 M/S/C(Johnson/Colvin) to approve the call for bids and continue discussion of the budget adjustment for one week. affirmative: opposed: Estes, Horton, Collins, Colvin, Johnson Dawkins Councilman Horning returned to the meeting. 7B - ORDINANCE #4322 (EMERGENCY READING) AUTHORIZING SALE OF BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES, #AB91-112 This ordinance authorizes the sale of $1.3 million of Bond Anticipation Notes for the initial phase of the Public Works Complex. The financing was described in detail in Budget TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 9 of 29 Adjustment No. 91-2, which was approved by February. An "emergency reading" is requested require a unanimous vote of the Council. Council in and would Rich Manna, City Treasurer, stated the Note Ordinance and resulting debt instrument proposed will provide the funds to build the first phase construction of the Public Works Complex. This facility will provide a new home for the Street Department, Electronics Department, Vehicle Maintenance and General Facilities Department. By creating these new facilities, the City will be able to dispose of the properties known as: old Water shop at 17th and Warren Avenue and the Street Department facilities on Sheldon Blvd. Both of these facilities are in a very bad state of repair and beyond their economic life cycle. The Bond Anticipate Note will provide temporary construction financing for these projects. Long-term financing is projected to be put in place in 1992, at the conclusion of the construction when there are firm numbers on the demand for financing. The ordinance does provide authorization for 1 3/4 million dollar of Limited Tax General Obligations Bonds to be issued in 1992, which is necessary by virtue of the fact that the immediate transaction at hand is selling and public marketing bond Anticipation Notes. It is not the intention of the Mayor or staff that they would go forward with that transaction without coming back before Council next year, keeping Council fully aware of all the things going on in the marketing process. And, the Mayor and staff will be back before Council many times during the contract bidding, letting and other steps necessary to complete this project. The Purchase Offer, which was handed out just prior to the Council meeting, has been tendered by Seafirst Bank. Their offer is based on a marketing analysis and dated April 30th. The City was very timely in entrance to the market and the Federal Reserve Board chose to make another cut in the discount rate and that lead directly to a reduced rate of interest necessary to repay the notes. The Seafirst offer, as indicated, purchased the notes at a coupon rate of 5.8% payable at maturity. The last cut in the discount rate resulted in a savings to the City of approximately $2,500. Public comment - none. Mr. Johnson briefly reviewed the need to get some high cost Public Works equipment into covered storage during the winter months. Even though the bond issue for this project failed last year, he supported getting adequate storage for City TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 10 of 29 equipment. He questioned why would the City want to delay a year before actual bonding was secured? Mr. Manna stated that direction came from Council as this project was proposed in several Study Sessions. There was a degree of uncertainty expressed by Council and staff then presented a "phased" construction process, which seemed to be favored by Council. Therefore, they did not go forward with the entire project at one point of in time. When the City went to the bond market and committed to long-term financing, the cost of the project would be more defined. Mr. Johnson questioned if there was anything in the ordinance that would preclude the City from actually issuing bonding sooner? Mr. Manna stated no. By passage of this ordinance they will be selling Bond Anticipation Notes that are non-callable and will not mature for 18 months. He was reasonably certain that it would be within their ability to go forward and sell the bonds that would provide the permanent financing prior to the maturity of these Bond Anticipation Notes. President Morton stated it was her understanding during previous discussions that the City would go out for the whole bond but then do the construction in phases. Mr. Manna stated, as outlined, cash flow projections will provide all of the financing necessary for first phase of construction and the majority of financing for the second phase of construction, but a portion of the second phase would come from the sale of the currently owned City property located at 17th and Warren. Mr. Estes requested Mr. Hanna to point out to the public that some of the financing for this will come from current rents being paid. Mr. Manna stated Mr. Estes was correct. During the presentation made to Council they had assumed the annual amortization of the bonds that will provide the permanent financing of the project would have an annual amortization cost of approximately $165,000. By eliminating rent that the City is currently paying on buildings that are not owned by the City and some over costly maintenance of City facilities, it is believed a savings in the annual operating budget of approximately $115,000 can be made. The difference between those two amounts would then have to come from the operating budget or would be the net affect on the operating budget. #0759 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance #4322 (emergency reading), relating to contracting indebtedness; authorizing the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to pay a part of the cost of acquiring land and construction and equipping a public works complex to house City departments, including Street vehicle, Electronics and Facilities Maintenance, and for other capital purposes; authorizing the TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 11 of 29 issuance of bond anticipation notes pending the issuance of those bonds; establishing a note redemption fund and an acquisition and construction fund; and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the notes to Seattle-First National Bank of Seattle, Washington., 7C - RESOLUTION #2342, NAMING THE PROPOSED SPORTS COMPLEX, #AB91-113 In an attempt to assist the Pendergast Memorial Committee with it"s $500,000 fund raising commitment toward Phase I construction of the Athletic Complex, and in response to the County Commissioner's condition contribution of one million dollars toward Phase I construction, the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Commission is submitting for City Council adoption the recommendation of the Andrew Pendergast Regional Park as the name for the proposed 40 acre athletic complex. This recommendation follows the guidelines set forth in the Parks and Recreation Commission's policy and procedure for naming parks. Vicki Vanneman, Parks and Recreation Director, stated she was hired by the City's Parks and Recreation Department in 1984, some seven years after Mr. Pendergast's retirement. During the first month of her employment she questioned "who was Andy?" It was clear that Andy Pendergast, seven years after his retirement, was still very much a part of the Parks Department. About a year after that incident, Andy was killed in a plane crash on his way to a hunting trip in Canada. This lead to the formation of the Pendergast Memorial Committee and their number one goal was to build an athletic complex in his memory. At this point it is apparently going to happen - sooner than anticipated based on strong support for the project by Council members, Mayor Mentor and most recently the Kitsap County Commissioners. One very important step can take place this evening with Council's consideration of the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation for the name of the athletic park. They voted unanimously to recommend to Council the name: "Andrew Pendergast Regional Park" as the name of the athletic complex. This choice is in keeping with the policy and procedure for naming parks, which the Commission developed approximately five years ago. It responds to the County's very generous financial contribution toward Phase I and most importantly it honors Andy for the years of service he gave to the City of Bremerton, Parks and Recreation Department and to the softball community throughout the country. Glenn Jarstad, 2823 Hefner, stated Andy was with the City for a long time and in checking the records John Jarstad, Glenn's TAPE # 918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 12 of 29 brother, was the Parks Superintendent prior to Andy. He supported the name as proposed as Andy's goals were always regional and State-wide. He hoped it would always be known as City of Bremerton Andy Pendergast Regional Park. He did not support the idea of not referring to it as the City of Bremerton's park just because of the funds given by the County. He stressed how much Andy was a "family" person and everyone loved him. Mr. Dawkins stated Andy was the first person who got him interested in City government by nominating' him to the Parks Board. He felt this was one of the best things the City could do. Mr. Johnson stated he concurred with Mr. Jarstad's comment about the "City of Bremerton" being included in the title. What is being proposed is more than just a park, rather a recreational complex. He discussed the idea of using the work "complex" rather than "park" as it would be more descriptive of what was actually going to be built. President Hotton stated it was her understanding that the reason it was being called a "park" is when the City looks for IAC grant funding it must qualify as a park. Mr. Johnson stated that was an excellent reason for calling it a park. He noted Andy was on the leading edge of recreation as a business; and Mr. Johnson would support the proposal as presented. Mr. Colvin stated most everyone knew Andy Pendergast as "Andy" and felt that the name should reflect "Andy" instead of "Andrew". He did not support the idea of tieing in "City of Bremerton" on to the title. Mr. Collins suggested the title be as follows: Pendergast Regional Park At Bremerton, Washington". "Andrew President Morton pointed out this sports complex would be a joint venture by both the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County. Yes, it will be a City park and within City limits, but it will have joint management. She-felt that there would be a point in time in the future when the City could undertake such a project themselves, however, with the assistance from the County the complex can be a realty in the very near future. Also, it will produce closer ties with the County and region and because of our shrinking dollars we need to look more cooperatively to all agencies, including School Districts, Port Districts and all governmental agencies. She emphasized her support of the proposal as presented. Mr. Collins stated it should be recognized that there will be TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 13 of 29 a governing board for this facility that will be made up of a member designated by the City, one designated by the County and a member designated by the Pendergast Committee. Not only has Kitsap County pledged one million dollars towards this project, but also pledged $50,000 per year for the next five years to be used towards operation and maintenance of the complex. #1192 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Estes) to approve Resolution #2342, naming the facility the Andrew Pendergast Regional Park. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AT BRENTWOOD CIRCLE SCHOOL SITE, #AB91-086 The Bremerton School District owns a 10-acre site at the corner of Harlow Drive and Carr Blvd., which it purchased some time ago in anticipation of the need for an elementary school to serve the neighborhood. The City Council has approved a rezone of that site from "Single Family (SF-1) to "Parks And Schools" (PS). In order to plan and develop the site for a future school, the District has requested the vacation of the Brentwood Circle Street right-of-way which was originally designed to serve a residential development but was never improved. Public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council are necessary in the processing of a rezone and a right-of-way vacation. The Commission's recommendation and minutes are enclosed. Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated several weeks ago there was a hearing which rezoned this property, allowing the property to be used as a school site. At that time, the vacation of the right-of-way was tabled because there were concerns during the testimony about unsafe walkways. The site is known as the Brentwood Circle site, located at the intersection of Carr Blvd., and Harlow in the Kitsap Lake neighborhood. Years ago there was a public right-of-way platted in such a manner that it goes through the site. The issue being presented is the vacation of that right-of-way, so the School District will control full title to the site and can show that title to the State and secure their funding. The School District has no plans to improve the street, in fact it would be in the way of any school development. The City also has no plans to improve the street and if approved as currently aligned, Brentwood Circle would result in an undesirable, angular intersection with Carr Blvd., and create a difficult angular intersection at the Carr and Harlow as TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 14 of 29 well. The City Engineer and Planning staff recommended to the Planning Commission that this right-of-way be vacated. On February 19, 1991, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of this right-of-way vacation. In response to some testimony presented to Council during the rezone hearing, the City Engineer and he met with Field Ryan and Walt Draper, representatives of the School District, and a Kitsap Lake resident Marvin Randolph, to discuss concerns that had been raised. Those concerns related to right-of-way walking areas in the neighborhood and they came to the following conclusions: 1. There are no problems associated with the Brentwood Circle site that do not occur at other Bremerton School District sites in similar circumstances, such as West Hills Elementary School and Crownhill Elementary School. The off site walking situation at Brentwood Circle lies within the loose standards established by the Superintendent Of Public Instruction and are not significantly different from those circumstances at the two referenced elementary schools. 2. The standard for off-site road improvement around schools in the City of Bremerton are somewhat below the standard which the City and School District desires and would warrant efforts for discussion of improvement in the future. 3. They did identify some improvements that could be made within the City's existing budget: (1) improve shoulder walking area along Harlow at its intersection with Francis where there is a very narrow walking area off the side of the street; (2) the walking. path entries onto the school property at the northeast corner of the site at Carr Blvd., will be developed on the school site and will alleviate the need for sidewalk development on the shoulder of Carr across the street from the cemetery where they do not expect pedestrian traffic to be generated. 3. There is a pedestrian problem at the intersection of Kitsap and Lyle - southwest corner where a privately developed fence forces pedestrians too close to the lane of travel. They believe this can be addressed through some type of right- of-way improvement undertaken by the City. TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 15 of 29 4. They do believe that proper school signage can be developed along the roadway and they will request increased traffic enforcement in the area. 5. The City can scrape the sides of the road on Harlow, Lyle and Carr in order to remove vegetation which inhibits pedestrian walking on the shoulder. They will apply gravel on the freshly scraped areas to limit vegetation regrowth and to maintain level walking area. 6. There are mailboxes, rockeries and other private improvements which have been made on the right-of-way and which force pedestrians off the shoulder and into the lane of travel. The City will identify them and discuss with the owners the development of their improvements on right-of-ways and probably have those that are problems removed. 7. The City and the School will investigate the installation of yellow warning lights at various areas around the school site. 8. The School Principal is required to identify safe walking routes. The safe walking routes will be coordinated with the yellow warning lights and that will all be coordinated with the City's Traffic Safety personnel to provide a coordinated program for the school. Public comment - none. Mr. Johnson thanked both the School District and the people who participated on the committee addressing the concerns. The reason he pushed for it kind of hard when originally hearing the issue, was because when the Kitsap Lake neighborhood held a meeting the traffic safety/walking problem was the only major problem repeatedly mentioned by the residents. It was not mentioned during the presentation made by the School District or anyone else at the time of the Rezone hearing. He felt that the Kitsap Lake residents deserved some attention to their concern. The Kitsap Lake residents fully support the neighborhood school. Right now children are required to walk along the streets and are transported by bus to their schools. He felt there were some excellent suggestions made, however, there are some that do not make a lot of sense, particularly along the Harlow area where there are drainage ditches on both sides and/or grass/ vegetation absorbing a lot of water. It is not desired that this water source flow directly into the lake. He pointed out there are no street lights along the route and there will be times when it would be dark out when children would be walking TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 16 of 29 to school. He felt without a lot of City investment along with some Puget Power investment there should be some coordination with the neighbors to place street lights along Harlow Drive and Carr Blvd. He suggested coordinating that effort with the neighbors so that the lighting can be placed causing the least amount of negative impact on the residents. He expressed concern about the double bottomed dump trucks full of rocks rolling down Harlow Drive going much faster than 25 miles per hour and they are wider than the average car. He suggested that a load limit be placed on Harlow Drive and force those trucks out on Kitsap Way, where they belong in the first place. He felt the list of recommendations were an excellent start and wanted to see that come back to Operations Committee when considering the whole package. President Morton questioned Mr. Baker if this were a commercial development, such as a housing complex, would he recommend that the developer put in sidewalks? Dave Baker, City Engineer, stated yes, along the property that would be developed. President Morton questioned if the School District was treated like a developer, would we assume they would put in sidewalks? Mr. Baker stated yes, some type of walkway, path or sidewalk along the street. Mr. Johnson stated he assumed the School District would be putting sidewalks around the school. President Hotton questioned would the City require sidewalks on the street side? Mr. Baker stated perhaps, we require some method of pedestrian traffic. It would not necessarily be sidewalk next to the street, it could be back away from the street. President Morton reminded the Council that several weeks ago they approved a rezone at which time they talked about having the developer not only put in sidewalks but also upgrading the street. A short time ago they had a seminar on "impact fees" and one of the issues raised was in order for the cities to start charging impact fees they had to show cause for their level of standards. She felt if the City did not require sidewalks in this vicinity, that would be taking a step backwards as far as impact fees and treating the School District differently than a developer. Right now, if impact fees are to be charged, we need to show a level of standards that we expect a developer to rise to. If the City allows the School District to follow their pattern with West Hills and Crownhill, we'll be stepping backwards from where we need to go. She minded everyone that Crownhill and West Hills schools are located in the County. There has been a lot of property annexed into the City that was developed under County rules and now we are paying for it. She would like to help the School District, but she believed they should be treated as any other developer and if City standards say that they should put in sidewalks adjacent to TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 17 of 29 the street then we need to adhere to that. Mr. Collins stated he agreed with Ms. Horton and was sorry he was not present at the prior meeting regarding this issue. He believed there were two separate issues, the first being the vacation of these streets that were dedicated; and the second is the walking area around the school. What he would like to see happen is to go ahead and vacate the right-of-way and continue the dialogue with the School District, making a notation that there has to be something more done than what is proposed under the conditions listed. The primary point to remember is that we want something "safe". Because the school site property was such an attractive area to locate new homes, he wished the School District would sell the property and locate the school on a more flat area. Mr. Estes questioned if there wasn't some consideration for interior walkways to take the place of sidewalks? Mr. Pratt stated yes, and it is important to think of the improvements that are being made in two stages: (1) on-site improvements, which are within the property the school controls. They are being required to develop according to any other developer standards and have been asked to provide sidewalks and in one area across from the cemetery, where they are not being asked to provide sidewalks, there is another entryway into a play field area. It is his belief that the School District is being held to the standard that would have been required for other type developments. (2) Off-site improvements are called system improvements and are subject to impact fees. They are not directly attributable to that development but do serve the neighborhood. The School District is not being asked to provide those off-site improvements or to pay for them. Mr. Estes questioned would interior pathways be considered as an alternate means of walking or transportation instead of sidewalks? Mr. Pratt stated yes, in some cases they are and in this case there are some instances. Field RVan, Bremerton School District, explained if the code requires sidewalks all the away around the outside of the school property they would comply. However, the reason for looking at different options on some of the internal pathways is that they felt it made more sense. President Morton questioned if it was the School District's intention to place the walkways within the school property lines? Mr. RVan stated that is what they will talk about when they get into the Building Permit process. He felt it was rather independent from the question of the vacation of rights-of-way. #2287 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Collins) to approve the vacation of the Brentwood Circle right-of-way and note in the motion that the TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 18 of 29 City reserves it's options regarding impact fees and establishment of minimum school transportation access and other standards as they relate to growth management and impact fee assessment until such time as the City and the School District can jointly agree on what those will be. Mr. Johnson stated the reason he included the impact fee notation in the motion was that he felt inadequate in his understanding of impact fees, all the implications and all the financing. He felt there might be an option that makes a lot of sense where if we establish reasonable standards that are higher than those of which we have been accepting until now, and even if it meant the School District paid some impact fee at some later date, that may result in a lot of reasonable impact fees coming in from other developers. By not assessing impact fees and accepting the current standards, he did not know what that means as far as what we do to other developers. His position is to do whatever is the most beneficial to the School District and the City, providing good access to the school. Mr. Estes questioned Mr. Johnson how could the City charge a fee in the future that had not been established yet? Mr. Johnson stated he did not say we were going to...all he did was to make it perfectly clear in the motion that all the City is doing is giving up the right-of-way and by doing this it was no statement on the Council's part with regard to standards for getting the school what other developers might have to do or what the impact fees might be. It may be found that the City and School District agree jointly on $100 because it might mean $5,000 revenue down the line with anticipated development in the area. Mr. Morning questioned if Mr. Johnson was saying that if impacts were in the future that this project would be subject to those fees? Mr. Johnson stated it was his understanding that the ability to assess impact fees dies at either occupancy or Building Permit time. But, between now and then he felt the City needed to get real serious with the School District, and they have to get serious with the City, because the Growth Management Act reads that the City has to know what their long-range capital plans are, what they are going to do and the type of facilities they will be putting in. If the City is looking at a large development, the formulas require us to look at those and then distribute those costs based upon the scope of the development. He did not know what it means to make any kind of statement regarding what our standards are for access to schools right now. Mr. ~orning stated anything Council is doing here to tie to impact fees for this school, TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 19 of 29 if they are legal to be charged at some later date and we adopt them and the school is still on line, then that is when they are addressed. To do what he believes the County is attempting to do is to say if we give a permit now and the City initiates impact fees (whatever they are), that they would owe it...that is an unknown mortgage and he felt it was absolutely wrong to require it. President Morton stated for clarification that what Mr. Johnson was saying was that to establish impact fees the City must establish a level of service and by allowing the School District to back peddle from that level of services that we are expecting future developers to come up to, when it comes time to charge impact fees the developer can say "you let the School District build a school with standards less than I have to come up to. Therefore, you haven't established your level of standards". Mr. Morning stated he did not believe that the impact fee as an issue tied to this school is legitimate at this time. He understands setting standards, etc., but to say it is impact fees related through the Growth Management Act is not the right thing to do. It would be fair to say that the City has standards and they are expected to comply with them. Mr. Johnson stated the motion as stated was strictly relating to the vacation of right-of-way, but it also says we reserve jointly our options and this would be something decided between the school and the City. If it is in the School's best interest to have an impact fee charged to them, we still have our options open. He did not necessarily want to levy impact fees against the school and there is nothing tied into the motion as stated. Mr. Morning stated he believed Mr. Johnson's motion did tie in impact fees. When the School District goes to the Building Permit stage and if impact fees are in order at that time, then they will be charged accordingly. He did not agree to reserve the right to charge them even it was not appropriate or legal. President Hotton pointed out if the City had not already gone through the "hoops" at that point to charge impact fees, the City cannot legally do it. Mr. Morning emphasized that it was not right to speak to impact fees as part of the stated motion. Mr. Johnson stated the purpose of putting it into the motion was not to charge them impact fees but to let every developer who might read the minutes know that no way does this motion tell them anything about impact fees. Mr. Colvin requested the City Attorney to clarify the motion. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated what Mr. Johnson stated was that he did not want the public to have the perception that this is our level of services and we won't expect a high level of services in setting impact fees or developing standards in the future. Mr. Horning is absolutely correct in that if we TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 20 of 29 do not have some regulations in place by the time the School District come in for the Building Permit application we cannot hold that up or require some delay. That would virtually be a moratorium on all building until impact fees are established. Mr. Homing added or to charge people an extra mortgage in the future. He noted if the motion reflected what Mr. Sievers just explained he would support the proposal. Mr. Colvin noted that by the silence of the residents to the east of the site they give their consent to this proposal. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson, Horning Horton Estes Mr..Collins stated he wished to recognized Harold Pickard, who was the President of the School Board at the time this piece of property was purchased for this school. Mr. Pickard's foresight was well taken. Mr. Pickard thanked the Council and appreciated their action on this proposal. Field RVan thanked the City staff for their assistance and City Council for their decision; and they will be working with the City to better understand SHB 2929. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, APPELLANT: JAMES MCKENZIE; LOCATION: LOT #7 DOCKSIDE SUBDIVISION, #AB91-115 On January 29, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a Variance to Zoning Ordinance Chapter IV, Section 8: Fence and Wall Height to allow the construction of a six-foot high fence within the front yard setback at the private park within the Dockside Subdivision. The adjacent property owner of Lot #8 is Planning Commission's decision for reasons Letter of Appeal, Exhibit #1. appealing the stated in the 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 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 TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 21 of 29 Interest" question with all members being seated. Jack Allingham, Planning Division, stated Mr. James McKenzie is appealing a fence variance granted by the Planning Commission. The property owner of Lot #7, the Osberg Construction Company being represented by the Dockside Home Owners Association and further represented by the Common Area Control Committee, made application to construct a fence exceeding three feet in height within the front yard setback of lot #7. Lot #7 is now a small, developed private pocket park in the Dockside Subdivision. Chapter 4, Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance permits the construction of a fence within a residentially zoned property. This property is zone Single Family (SF-3), within the front yard setback but does restrict the height of the fence to three feet; although it does allow a 42 inch high fence if the fence is construction of an open mesh cyclone type fence. The park has been experiencing some trespassing problems and it was felt that a substantially higher fence was needed in that area. Mr. Allingham provided some photographs of the site showing how it related to surrounding properties. President ~orton questioned where the fence would be located? Mr. Allingham stated the fence would be constructed just behind the sidewalk and the requested variance to construct a 6 ft. high fence would be within the first 20 feet of the property. The appellant's letter of appeal contains four main features: (1) that the black chain link fence will have an aesthetic impact on his property; (2) the fence will affect his property value; (3) fence will have a view impact; (4) the variance is not necessary due to special circumstances regarding the size, topography, shape, location and surroundings of the subject property. Representing the Planning Commission, the Planning staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision. The Planning Commission did place two conditions on the variance: (1) that the site not be sight obscuring; (2) that the applicant provide a lockbox to allow emergency vehicle access to the park. Karlyn Maberly, Attorney representing James and Carol McKenzie, stated the fencing proposed along the front (sidewalk area) would actually be four feet into City right- of-way and then projected to go down the north side (75 ft.). The variance that was requested by the Home Owners Association stated the purpose of the fence was for security purposes, TAPE #918 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 22 of 29 litter, unauthorized entry, vandalism and nefarious activities. She noted the proposed fence would not go all the way down to the water. TAPE #919 The McKenzie's are against this proposal on three grounds: (1) that the fence would substantially interfere with the use of their property as purchased and as they anticipated using it; (2) the fence, as proposed, does not provide security; (3) the fence does not meet the criteria for the variance. The McKenzies specifically chose this lot because it allowed them direct access to the dock and water without any blockage. The proposed fence would take away their access to move from their lot to the adjoining lot #7. It also will obscure the view of the lake from their property and as they sit in their yard their view would then be a black chain link fence. They find this to be very obtrusive and not aesthetically pleasing. This fence would provide very little security considering the current design. If the whole dock were fenced in then it may provide the security to keep people from coming into the park. What is really happening is that people, who are not Dockside homeowners are using the dock as access to the park. From reviewing the minutes and the information provided to Council, it appears that they would be creating an even greater security problem by fencing this area than leaving it in its natural state. With the fence in place and a lockbox on it the Police will not have easy access to get down on the dock to take care of any problems that may occur. In fact, the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission requests a lockbox, but states it would be for the exclusive use of the Bremerton Fire Department. She believed there had been some overlooking as to the role of Police services considering the kinds of activities that have been cited to justify the need of a fence. Upon reviewing the application and the information provided to the Council does not meet the criteria for a variance. The current City Ordinance allows a 42 inch fence and there are no physical barriers to preclude the building of a 42 inch fence. There has also been no hardship shown or special conditions which would justify a variance. The request is for a six foot fence and the variance seems to be based on their perceived conclusion that they would like more security in the park area, verses meeting the variance criteria showing a hardship or something unique about this property or some other reason that would justify a variance. She believed the Planning Commissions' findings were erroneous. If the Council considers granting this variance, they would TAPE #919 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 23 of 29 ask that you consider requiring that a gate be placed along the McKenzie property line to allow them the access that is currently available. .Or, they would ask the Council to consider setting the fence back 30 feet from the sidewalk. This would reduce the visual impact from the McKenzie's property and would allow them some aesthetic benefits along the sidewalk. Michael St. James, 6037 Blue Herron Place, stated his property was directly across the street from lot #8, and he was representing the Dockside Homeowners Association and the Common Area Control Committee. The reason they wanted to have a six foot fence was because a 42 inch fence is vaulting height for a teenager. Having lived in his residence for a year, he and his neighbors had noted that the preponderance of the problems occurring are with High School age and 20 year old people. There is signage in five different locations on the lot notifying persons that this is a private park for use of Dockside owners only and further states that it is posted against trespassing. The signs are routinely ignored by a particular group of people and they are the same type of people who would vault a 42 inch high fence. They are not having a problem with the normal type of people traveling through the neighborhood. The problem they are experiencing is not accessing from the lake. After 11/2 years, he could only recall one incident where the people actually accessed the park from the lake side. In the proposal for the fence, they proposed signing on three sides of the dock that this is a private dock and no trespassing is allowed on the dock or the park above it. The reason they requested the variance to come up into the City right-of-way was due to a real steep trap zone between the sidewalk and 30-35 feet down into the lot. This area is almost too steep to mow and to walk across it is difficult. They felt such a trap zone would be undesirable for litter and garbage collection. Also, it places an unnatural division on what is really a recreational property intended for the enjoyment of the residents of Dockside. If the fence was built 35 feet into the lot and build the fence on the first flat ground they would cut the property into thirds and would put the fence very close to the gazebo. One hundred sixty one families have paid for the privilege of utilizing this park and would like to be able to exercise their right to that park in a safe way without having to worry about the people who do not belong there. The construction of the fence will be entirely of decorative wrought iron and only in the initial request for bids did they TAPE #919 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 24 of 29 ever mention chain link. And, in doing so, they asked that two separate bids be prepared, one for wrought iron across the front and chain link down the side sections to lower the costs. In discussing it with the members of the committee and the other members of the Homeowners Association, they came to the conclusion that everyone would like decorative wrought iron throughout, regardless of the increased cost. The fence as planned and contracted for never included chain link, but 6 ft. decorative wrought iron, constructed of solid steel spokes 1/2 inch square cross section - slightly tapered at each end, protruding through the top and bottom rails of the fence approximately six inches at each end and they will be welded into the rails. They will be set on 5/8 centers, as much as they can, to accommodate the terrain. This will provide a nearly transparent appearance from across or middle of the street. The view to the water would not be restricted. Before they selected the type of fence they propose, they had the opportunity to view existing fences of the same materials in the local area. He emphasized they have every interest in preserving their property values. He, personally, will have to look across the street at the fence and he has no desire to diminish his property value. It is their belief that the slight aesthetic impact would be off set by the reduction of attractive nuisance, which the park is now experiencing. In the month of April, he was called five times by the Police to investigate people using the park improperly. In the summer, he would expect Police visits to the park to be between 1 and 3 times weekdays and up to as many as one dozen times each day on the weekends. Mr. St. James briefly reviewed the attractiveness of the park and described how it attracts attention of the public as a desirable place to enjoy the lake front. It is their belief that once the fence is up and people experience a barred access, they will stop coming and the whole neighborhood will benefit. If their request for a variance is not approved, it is their intent to construct six feet fencing on both sides of the park area. In response to Mr. McKenzie's comment that on the other side of his property the fence would not be built completely to the water. There are two reasons for this, one being it is tied to a habitat exclusion zone (100 ft. circle from an old Osprey nest into which no items can be moved). When the new school is built, it is anticipated a large number of children will be using the Dockside Subdivision as a walkway to that school. It is acknowledged that as the children walk by the park it would attract them as a pleasant place to be before or after school. Unfortunately, the Homeowners' Association has a joint liability for what happens TAPE #919 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 25 of 29 in that park. Therefore, it is their desire to have a fence that would discourage people from gaining access to the park. Donald Barnes, 7015 Osprey Circle, briefly reviewed the need for use of City right-of-way, noting that the topography of the park area would make it difficult to anchor the foundation posts if it was set back from the right-of-way. The upgrade will improve the appearance, the controlled access will control littering and the limited access will protect the Osprey habitat. Chuck Melvin, member of the Common Area Control Committee, related several dangerous incidents that happened to him personally when he monitored users of the park area when he first moved in to the Dockside Subdivision. In addition to physical danger to residents, vandalism had occurred to the dock. Because of the concerns of the subdivision residents, the Common Area Control Committee was formed to help resolve problems in the development area. Moving into the right-of- way had one great advantage...there is a large concrete pad at the top, which makes an ideal, safe entrance into the park and the only real place to place a "gate". He emphasized a 42 inch fence would not provide the security desired. The subdivision residents have agreed to a special assessment to met the costs of installing the proposed fencing. He explained Mr. McKenzie did not respond to the proxy vote that was taken throughout the subdivision. So, the final vote to provide a security fence around the park area was 113 in favor. As a follow up to this they checked into their insurance coverage and determined they needed some additional liability insurance under the Homeowners Association. During research into costs of insurance, the question "how much would liability insurance cost with or with a fence" was raised. The quote received was approximately $1,000 per year for a million dollar coverage without a fence (actual cost $1,200 per year); and with a fence it would be significantly less. Since they first requested bids for the fencing, costs have risen and he was concerned that further delays would bring about greater increased costs. In response to Mr. McKenzie's comments to several members of this committee, that he was being discriminated against personally and violating his individual rights, he was informed that he had the same rights as any of the owners in the subdivision. Mr. McKenzie then indicated he wanted direct access to the dock from his lot.'He was informed that he had the right to use the same gate as all the other homeowners would use. Mr. Melvin pointed out that the Articles Of Incorporation and Homeowners Association By- Laws and CCNR's contain statements that all homeowners should be treated equally and assessed equally for any special or TAPE #919 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 26 of 29 general assessments for improvements. Mr. St. James stated none of the residents who policed the park last year are willing to go through that again this year. They decided they would call the Police each and every time they were aware that someone was trespassing because of the threats, near fights and abuse they received. The fence design would allow an electronic key access with a key box specified by the Planning Department for use by the Fire Department. It was his assumption that the key box would be used by all emergency services. Ms. Haberly requested that if the Council does consider the variance that they provide a gate at the lower side of the McKenzies. Also, this is a variance request based on a land use ordinance and the factors of liability and security are not factors in the ordinance itself. She asked that the Council review the five criteria for granting a variance under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Estes stated realizing that a gate costs more than a fence section, he questioned if Mr. McKenzie would be allowed to purchase a gate for his use? Mr. St. James stated initially he was not opposed to Mr. McKenzie having a gate, but when it was discussed with the Committee and general membership it was felt strongly that would create a special class of privilege in accessing that property. Not withstanding Mr. McKenzie's right-next-door access to the park, he owns an equal share of that property along with everyone else. It was noted that Mr. McKenzie already had his own private waterfront access and the general membership questioned his need to have a special access to the park. In talking with Mr. McKenzie, it was learned that he had always viewed that park as a contiguous part of his lot. Therefore, the Homeowners Association decided they did not want to create this special class of privilege and did not want to open a liability door in the event Mr. McKenzie left a gate open and someone became injured. Mr. Johnson stated back when Council considered front yards and back yards one of the areas discussed was waterfront property and single lot depth and which was the front and back yards. As he recalled, at that discussion it came out that your back yard could be your front yard which was facing the street. He questioned if this was true or false? Mr. Allingham stated the Zoning Ordinance defines front yard as that property that abuts the public right-of-way or a street and that is why the variance is being requested. Mr. Johnson questioned if all the people living along Shorewood Drive are in trouble if their fence falls down. His point was that he TAPE #919 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 27 of 29 was under the impression they could always build a taller fence than 42 inches. Considering the proposal includes use of City right-of-way, he questioned if there had been any negotiations with the residents as to how much the City would charge for rent, keep an easement, etc of that right-of-way? Mr. Allinqham stated the variance request was to a fence site requirement in the front yard setback and it was decided by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission does not normally see the leases of right-of-way. This application is an appeal of that decision. Mr. Johnson stated to him the right-of-way issue had nothing to do with the variance, but, he thought the fence height issue had been taken care of. He pointed out Exhibit #10, used during the original Dockside Subdivision hearing, contained the homeowners covenants which are much more strict than the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, as long as the proposed fence would not interfere with the Osprey and goes along with all of the documentation that was part of the platting rezone of the subdivision and as long as the City collects all the appropriate fees for use of City right-of- way, he supported the proposal as presented. Mr. Homing stated the if the fence is located on City right-of-way he would expect City staff to deal with it appropriately and questioned if that was a correct understanding? Mr. Allingham stated the issue at this time is the variance question - strictly the height issue. Mr. Morning stated he personally would not want to live across the street from a six foot high fence even if it was out of decorative wrought iron. But, if 113 residents in favor - 6 against want to do it then he could support the request. Mr. Johnson stated he could understand the Homeowners Association's desire to do something prior to summer. And, he raised the question who would deal with the right-of-way issue? Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated a right-of-way permit would be issued by the Engineering Department to construct the fence. Mr. Johnson questioned who gave the Engineering Department the right to give away City property? President Morton stated that was an issue that needed to be brought up separately. #1260 M/S/C(Johnson/Collins) to allow the six foot high fence as long as it does not interfere with any of the Osprey provisions of those properties and is subject to all of the rules of the local Homeowners Association, which are a part of the approved rezone and that we will address use of the City right-of-way at a separate time. Mr. Morning questioned by virtue of the motion stated by Mr. Johnson could the fence be built? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he did not know why Council couldn't deal with the right-of-way through the variance as it is related. The TAPE # 919 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 28 of 29 proposal talks about a certain height fence within a certain distance within this front yard. You could put this height of fence this close or more distant from the yard placing it off the right-of-way. If Council has a concern with the right-of- way, he suggested they just move it back now. Mr. Johnson suggested the Mayor either establishes easements for right-of- way with appropriate rents to the Homeowner Association or we vacate the right-of-way or no building is allowed on the right-of-way. Mr. Sievers stated then the variance would only apply to placing the fence off the right-of-way. Mr. Johnson stated the only issue to be addressed is fence height and if that was the case why did the School District just go through the vacation process on Brentwood Circle. President Morton questioned who had the permit? Mr. Sievers stated he believed there had to be some consideration, which he did not see in the permit. It is revokable and may have to do with some permanent commitment of the right-of-way, which would need Council approval. Mr. Johnson stated he believed the staff could negotiate an easement and get it registered on the deed without ever coming back to Council. Mr. Morninq restated his question to Mr. Sievers..." will the motion as given allow the variance but will not allow the construction on City property at this point"? President Morton questioned if this could be handled administratively (the right-of-way issue), without scheduling a public hearing. Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated if Council chooses to vacate the right-of-way and sell 'it, it needs to come back to Council and go through the vacation process. If the City chooses to grant a right-of-way permit - what has been happening is as long as it can be revoked at any time and structures removed, the Engineering Department had issued Right-of-Way Permits and they do assess fees. If a more permanent action is wanted, such as an easement, then it would come back to Council in the form of "granting an easement of City property". Therefore, it depends on what course is taken. If it is a Right-Of-Way Permit for simply use of the right-of-way, they have been granting that administratively. Typically, there is a fee for right-of-way leases or permits. Mr. ~crning stated he had the feeling that staff had already granted the permit. Ms. McCluskey stated yes, it appears they had. Mr. ~orning questioned as the motion stands will it allow the fence to be built in conjunction with the right-of-way permit? Mr. Sievers stated yes, and the motion was to check up to make sure nothing else was done improper. Mr. Johnson stated if the rent for the right-of-way was "$0", that was not acceptable. President ~orton stated that would be a policy issue and needed to get down to the staff and Administration. Vote on motion: In Favor: Estes, Horning, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson, Horton TAPE #919 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes May 1, 1991 Page 29 of 29 Mr. Johnson requested that the Right-Of-Way Permit process be discussed during the next City Council Study Session. With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City RTONt council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault Clerk