Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/91TAPE #962 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOv s 1991 .#0034 #0052 OCTOBER 23, 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, October 23, 1991, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Wayne Estes, Spencer Horning, C. R. "Tiny"Collins, Morrie Dawkins, and Russ Johnson. Councilmen Hank Waibel and A1 Colvin were absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen L. McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horton and Invocation given by Reverend Doug Barker of the Olympic Evangelical Free Church. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes Of Meeting - October 9, 1991, #AB91-269 Be Bid Award Recommendation - Fire Stations #2 and #3 Roof Replacement And Structural Repair, Awarded To Shinstine Construction In The Total Amount Of $36,600 Plus Tax M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Johnson) 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(Johnson/Overson) on October 23, 1991, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 137802, 137803, 138201 through 138471 in the total amount of $440,508.80 and Regular Payroll for the period ending October 15, 1991, in the amount of $426,004.38. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson stated the Study Session held on October 21 was very educational and he appreciated Councilman Johnson and staff for their putting together the proposed garbage collection contract. He reminded Council that the 1992 Budget sessions are scheduled. He noted a couple years ago he worked with a Council group to develop a 2-year budget program and now wonders if that had been approved would this year's budget TAPE #962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 2 of 28 be easier. He raised the possibility of a 2-year budget being proposed again. Mr. Estes encouraged low income residents living in the west Bremerton area to apply for 3% interest home improvement loans that are available. Next year,the push will be made in east Bremerton to offer such low interest loans to low income homeowners who are in need of home repairs. Information on this program is available at the City's Permit Center. Mr. Johnson stated he had the pleasure of having lunch with the joint Chambers of Bremerton and Silverdale. The guest speaker at the luncheon was Constance Rice, wife of Mayor Norm Rice and a very successful business woman. Her speech centered on ways for cities to succeed and focused on the importance of education and joint ventures between municipalities, private business and education institutions. Following the luncheon he heard discussion from business community members that they would be interested in working with the high school and college to promote after school programs, beefing up the science program, etc. He hoped the momentum generated at that meeting would not be allowed to drop. The City's Parks Department does provide educational and recreational opportunities in the education circuit. On the solid waste collection issue, the City's negotiation team confirmed to Council, during the October 21 Study Session, progress being made on major policy issues in order to get to the final part of the contract. The public will have the opportunity to speak on this issue during the October 30th Council meeting. He did not anticipate completing negotiations on that contract by the October 30 meeting, however, a general overview of the proposal and the process used to develop the contract will be given to the public. Mr. Dawkins reported the Senior Fair held October 19 at the Sheridan Recreation Center was a huge success. Mr. Collins stated he had planned to read a recent press release from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA), however, The Sun printed a very good condensed version of that press release, which gives everyone who has a wood stove or fireplace an explanation of what PSAPCA will be looking for as far as smoke emission. He stressed that if there is not a burn ban but someone. has a "smokey" stove, it could cost that person $100.00 or $250.00 in fines. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Mayor Louis Mentor read a Proclamation acknowledging the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has declared TAPE #962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 3 of 28 October as the 21st National Domestic Violence Month and October 1st as the tenth Annual National Day of Unity. Mayor Mentor proclaimed the month of October 1991, as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND PREVENTION MONTH in the City of Bremerton. Mayor Mentor announced on Monday, October 28, 6:00 PM at the First Christian Church there will be a "Unity Awareness" program and everyone is welcome to participate in this event. Mayor Mentor provided the following Police Department program update in response to Councilman Estes' request. He noted the first thing to understand is that crime is on the increase throughout the United States. It is fortunate that Bremerton is a few years behind what is happening in other areas of the United States. He acknowledged that more Police Officers and support staff are needed, along with the best equipment and training the City can afford. During the 1980's the City had a lot of problems that included a change in government, loss in revenue, and several changes in Police Chiefs. During the period of Police Chief changes, the Police Department was very unstable due to lack of direction from the administration as well as experiencing a decrease in funding. In the last two years the Department has settled down and become more stable. In 1985 there were 62 uniformed Police Officers; 1986 - 56; 1987 - 52; 1988 - 51; 1989 - 51; 1990 -52; 1991 - 57. Also, in 1991 five non- uniform staff have been added in order to free up some of the Patrolmen to do other police enforcement duties. In the past year the following have been added: Bike Patrol, Video Arraignment, Home Detention, Crime Stoppers. Two weeks ago a news article reported on a report given by two Police Officers during a Council Study Session which noted there is a "bright side" because of anti-drug programs in the schools and strong Block Watch programs. He did not fully support the Police Officers' comment on "riots happening every night in Bremerton", however, he does understand the Officers' frustrations regarding kinds of crimes being committed. The idea of bringing the jail back into the City was brought up and possibly having the visibility of the police centered more on the downtown area might deter crime activities. Mayor Mentor thought this might be a very good suggestion. He emphasized Bremerton does need to be "cleaned up" and there are several programs implemented to assist with that clean up. Comment was made that the Police should not spend so much time on "barking dogs" and "parking" issues - these are not easy issues to ignore and still provide protection of everyone's quality of living in the City. A balancing act has to be TAPE #962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 4 of 28 undertaken in order to do the best we can with the funds available to provide the needed services. In fourteen comparable cities to Bremerton the crime rate per 1,000 citizens reflected a high of 151.8 in the City of Yakima and the lowest of 42.8 in city of Redmond. The average was 85.5 per 1,000 citizens and Bremerton's rate is 80.3. There are seven cities of similar size to Bremerton that had higher crime rates and six that had lower crime rates. One of the problems that people do not understand or realize is that it takes money to fund Police services. He pointed out Bremerton's largest income is from sales tax revenue and property taxes. Bremerton's per capita sales tax revenue is $94.00. The City of Renton has a sales tax revenue of $226.00 per capita; City of Kent $334; and there is only one other city smaller than Bremerton - Vancouver with $48.00 (due to its close proximity to Portland, Oregon where there is no sales tax). The average is $191.00 per capita. The City's assessed value is $847,000 which comes to a per capita assessed value of $22,845.00. The average for cities of a similar size is $50,482. Cities with higher revenue incomes have higher numbers of private industry, whereas Bremerton has the Naval Shipyard, a Federal installation, that pays no taxes to the City. He believes the City is doing a good job staying in the middle of what other cities are experiencing. He fully supports continuing to improve programs and he looks to adding another D.A.R.E. officer (funded by grant funds). He is also looking to expand the Bike Patrol in the next couple of years as well as Crime Stoppers and Attorney/client video process. Expanding Block Watch programs will improve safety in neighborhoods. Mr. Estes questioned if the Mayor had considered working with the tavern owners to police their own areas? Mayor Mentor stated some of them already have their own "bouncers". Mr. Estes questioned about having a couple of officers going undercover on a "muggers patrol"? Mayor Mentor stated he believed they were already doing that kind of activity. Mr. Estes stated if the taverns do not do something to police themselves, he felt the City should invite the Navy to put them "off limits" for a few months. Mayor Mentor agreed that what was done in the past, such as restricting access to certain establishment for Navy personnel or canceling shore leave for a week or two, worked very well then, however, times had changed and they do not do that any more. Mr. Estes stated back in the 1940's swearing and using dirty language TAPE #962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 5 of 28 was a "court-martial" offense. Mayor Mentor reminded everyone that it was not just "Navy" personnel who were causing the problems. The Navy has been very supportive and given the City assistance by increasing their Shore Patrol. Don Larson, 135 Rainier Avenue, brought to Council's attention a recent news article in UNDERWATER USA, relating to an underwater aquatic park. Sidney Smith, 704 Chester, announced he was sponsoring a veterans' "Thanksgiving D-Day, a dinner to be served on Thanksgiving Day at Solutions Too. This event will include dinner, TV viewing, video games, pool tables and fellowship with others. He thanked local businesses and organizations for their donations and those who volunteered their time to assist in this project. If anyone knows of someone who needs transportation to this event, they may contact him. Mary Lou Long, 2433 E. Phinney Bay drive, expressed her personal support of the Two-Plus-Two Program in Kitsap County. Jeffrey Benjamin, Manager First Street Fish-N-Chips, stated something needs to be done about public parking. He hoped some "free" parking could be opened up in order to encourage people to support downtown businesses. Gordy Byrd, 402 Chester Avenue, reminded everyone that people who are considered "bums" are people who have paid taxes for people on City Council. Don Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, reported the second Downtown Economic Conference is scheduled for October 30. He invited anyone interested to join in to help wrestle with opportunities and challenges. He announced on Tuesday, October 29, 8:30 PM, Access Channel 29 there will be a presentation of the four Council Candidate races. Mrs. Mary Kuhlman, 3060 NE McWilliams Road #100, thanked the Council for all the effort they put in. She is associated with the Alliance Of the Mentally Ill for the State of Washington and four years ago a chapter was s~a~ed in Kitsap County - a support group for the family and friends of the mentally ill. She wanted to remind everyone that October is MENTAL HEALTH MONTH across the Country and in this State there are support groups in 22 areas. She thanked Council for the proposed Housing Code as she is concerned about people who have gone through the process of returning to the community, who have mental illnesses, and it is so important that they are housed safely. TAPE #962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 6 of 28 Roger Oraker, 623 N. Summit, stated he has challenged the teenagers from Bremerton High School to tune in to Channel 29 on October 29 for the Town Meeting. He challenges the parents and teachers of these students to discuss the program with the students and debate the issues that are before the voters. Recently, there was an article in The Sun about kids not voting - who cares. Bremerton High School students do care and after the 29th Town Meeting he will return to the High School and take a vo~e of the students in government classes and compare that with the November 5 vote of the citizens of Bremerton. 8B - PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REPEALING BMC CHAPTER 17.16 AND ADOPTING THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE AS AMENDED, #AB91-273 The City's current Housing Code, BMC 17.16, requires only voluntary compliance. The proposed ordinance adopts the International Conference Of Building Officials 1988 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, which mandates conformance with housing codes and uses the enforcement/abatement process currently utilized by the City for the enforcement of the Uniform Building Code. David Nelson, Building Official, stated the Housing Code has been developing over the past several years. When he took over as the City's Building Official, it was conveyed to him that the Housing Code was something that needed to be looked at in order to assist the City in redevelopment, cleaning up neighborhoods and taking care of buildings and structures that were not to the best advantage of the City or neighborhoods. Several different Codes were reviewed and a determination was made that the Uniform Housing Code was the best suited code and had the language to accomplish what was needed in the City. In the Preface of the Code, it stated the document was meant to be .amended, adopted, adapted to the use for local jurisdictions. Therefore, several business groups were invited to give input on how it would best serve Bremerton. After the public involvement and rewrite of the proposed code it is now being brought to Council for their consideration. Lovette Pheasant, 312 S. Charleston, stated she had lived at this location for 27 years and up to two years ago she had contemplated selling her home as property values lowered in the west Bremerton area. As her neighborhood went "down hill", houses deteriorated, rentals, crime and disinterest came in and she thought she would leave that environment. But, Mayor Mentor established an effort to make Bremerton more beautiful and more liveable. She became more encouraged after TAPE #962 .City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 7 of 28 reading about the City considering adoption of a Housing Code, which would improve the housing.stock in the Bremerton Area. She decided to remain in her home and volunteered as a member of the Mayor's panel. In her neighborhood there is an example of every substandard violation. She reported such a condition one year ago and it has taken a whole year, under the current regulations, to try to resolve one problem in her neighborhood. That one area of concern has been mostly cleaned up, however, there still remains the issue of "junk vehicles". If there is a way to give this committee thellegal authority to remove those vehicles and not have to cause a complainant to be passed from the police Department to Housing Authority and back and forth getting such answers as "we don't have the money", "we don't have the legal authority", "we don't have the time". She requested that the Building Official address that issue during this hearing. She supports adoption of the Housing Code. Andy Parypa, 1122 Hayward Avenue, stated several years ago he provided pictures of areas that needed cleaning up. He commended Mr. Nelson's work on the proposed Code even though he found it rather difficult to understand from a layman's point of view. He did not want to just pass another ordinance that would be on the books but not enforced due to budget constraints. He passed out pictures showing an area where neighbors had told him they had been trying to get it cleaned up for 28 years. The pictures reflected junk vehicles on private property (Manette area), junk vehicles parked on public right-of-way with "for sale" signs on them. The neighbors adjacent to this property believe this individual is repairing vehicles and selling them without a business license and running a junk yard within the City limits. Mr. Parypa was told that the owner of the pictured property is intending to purchase two additional homes in the neighborhood to be used as an adult day care center without any attempt to get a business license, State or City. He provided pictures of another home in Manette, which tended to draw down the value of other surrounding residential properties. He questioned for clarification on page 4 of the Uniform Housing Code, Section 204 - "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation direct, construct, alter,repair, improve, remove, convert, or demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure cause or permit same be done in violation of this Code. He asked if this was telling him that if he owned a home with conditions listed in the Code that he could not improve them? George Coombs, 1310 Park Avenue, stated he favors the concept of the ordinance. Just because a property is run down and TAPE'#962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 8 of 28 poor that does not mean a person has to live like that. He believes these properties should be brought up to at least a standard where a pig would be happy in it. He was told that in Canada they have an ordinance that says if you keep your property up your taxes would be lowered. He thought this was a good idea. He urged Council to stand firm on this proposal and not be pressured by some outside people. Mayor Louis Mentor urged Council to pass the Housing Code as presented. He noted the Building Official had put in a good deal of time and energy into developing the code since he joined the City. He did not anticipate that everything would "change" immediately once the Code was adopted, but it will give more power in getting some of these things done. Mr. Parypa stated one good way to hel~ the Building official was to incorporate part of the RCW 59.18, the Landlord-Tenant Act for the State of Washington. This would inform the tenants how they can cause the landlord to take care of the homes because they are protected by that RCW. He and Councilman Estes toured a rental property where water from an upstairs shower was running through an electrical outlet in the downstairs. Mr. Nelson stated when this issue was discussed in Study Session, the question came up about junk vehicles and since that time a memo was sent to Council, from the City Attorney, referring to junk vehicles in which the City has been vigorously working on a plan and ordinance, BMC 9.08(2) Junk Vehicles. The memo does not mention time periods when this will be presented, however, the discussions he had with Mr. Sievers and Mr. McNamara, indicates that time frame to be 2-3 weeks. The preference for the Police Department to handle such enforcement has been determined due to the empowerment by State statute. In reference to the pictures passed out by Mr. Parypa, many of the conditions cited would be enforceable either by this Code or other Codes. The violation Mr. Parypa referred to on "page 4" of the Code is basically saying it will be unlawful for any person to do anything that creates a violation that would defined in the Housing Code...that means you can't make junk. If someone wants to repair or fix up something, that is fine, but it would be unlawful to do something to a structure making it substandard. President Hotton raised the issue of having Mr. Nelson or someone on his staff deputized to handle some of the additional problems, such as junk vehicles. Mr. Nelson pointed out, as stated in the City Attorney's memo, junk vehicles will be handled by the Police Department and TAPE #962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 9 of 28 Attorney's office. Under RCW he, as the Building Official, is not authorized to undertake that responsibility. President Morton stated Council was seeking the direction to have Mr. Nelson have that authority. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated part of the RCW authorizes local ordinances to deal with junk vehicles on private property and does mention specifically a law enforcement officer, which is different than "enforcement officer". An "enforcement officer" is limited to the particular local ordinance they would be charged to enforce, such as the Building Official is charged to enforce the building 'and fire safety code. A "law enforcement officer" is a full service officer and require State requirements of having gone to the Academy for full Police Officer training. Therefore, it is his determination that for at least the removal of the vehicles that part of the process be handled by the Police Officer. The rest of the task such as identifying the vehicles as junk and follow up paperwork may be more a matter of convenience because their department has access to those records and the Building Department does not. The Police Officers are also trained in the identification process of junk vehicles. President Morton questioned if Council could come up with a process whereby Mr. Nelson was the point person for the City to received notification and he in turn would make sure the Police Department was notified and carried out the mission they were tasked with? There has been the problem of people getting shuffled between departments and that problem has not been resolved. Mr. Sievers stated that was a true characterization and all Departments should know who to notify; and the first person to make inspection on the site should be a Police Officer. Mr. Collins stated it sounded like there needed to be one person in charge because if someone, like the Building Official, is not monitoring the process the emphasis may not be there to keep them accountable. Mr. Sievers stated it was his understanding, when talking with the Police Chief, Sgt. Tom Pratt is the person in the Police Department who would handle that responsibility. He is trained to enforce "application of junk vehicles". There was some discussion about providing some training for Parking officials to assist in that enforcement. The City Attorney's office will do some paper processing for the police Department as part of this process. Mr. Collins acknowledged the importance of the legal chain of responsibility, however, he did not feel there was any one person responsible to monitor getting the job done. President Morton stated one of the other difficulties is that this is not a high priority issue in the Police Department. Therefore, there needs to be some sort of avenue so that it can be a priority in some capacity until the problem is under control. Mr. Estes stated junk vehicles are a heaven for the TAPE #962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 10 of 28 druggers, crooks, etc., and eliminating ~Unk vehicles and broken down houses will help clean up crime. Mr. Johnson stated during the Study Session, on this issue, discussion of "enforcement" went beyond this Code, enforcing other nuisance or ordinances and in many cases they brought up the fact that there are not enough Police Officers to give tickets. It may be we need a Park Ranger to monitor parks, Animal Control Officer to enforce animal control, someone in Planning to enforce Zoning, etc. The Police Department has on numerous occasions stated they "do not have time" to enforce all the codes and ordinances, however, they become very protective over their "turf" if someone mentions taking away any of their authority. He believes there must be a way to provide others the authority of enforcement. Until there is enforcement of this Code by someone outside the Police Department with a badge who can cite people and make it stick, he will not vote for this ordinance. President Morton stated at the Monday Study Session Mr. Finke stated he or someone at the Fire Department was deputized. Mr. Sievers stated a previous Building Official received limited commission to enforce the Building Code. Any official or citizen can file a report with the City Attorney naming a complaint and the City Attorney's office can write the citation and it goes right into the Court. For the majority of these cases, they are referred by complaint and the City Attorney writes the citation. He believes the delay is a matter of enough people in the field to follow up and investigate the complaints. Mr. Johnson stated the City could not afford all the Police Officers that would be needed to carry out this kind of enforcement. President Horton questioned if Mr. Nelson could be the enforcing Officer? Mr. Sievers stated this issue is a little special on the removal of vehicles and is narrowed to a law enforcement officer. Enforcement Officers can receive limited Commissions for enforcement of ordinances they are charged with enforcing. He did not feel there is a delay in getting enforcement into court or writing up the complaint or infraction. Many of the complaints written up by law enforcement officers, such as Animal Control, cannot be written in the field because they take their information from citizens unless the action was observed by the person themselves. The Building Official or his inspectors can investigate junk vehicles and if it appears they want to cite rather than abate they can file that report with his office and they would write up a misdemeanor or infraction, whichever the case may be. Mr. Johnson questioned if the City Council could confer limited commissions? Mr. Sievers stated he believed that was the responsibility of the Chief of Police. TAPE #962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 11 of 28 Mr. Overson questioned the meaning of the following wording from the ordinance: "Chapter 17.16.010 Ordinance adopting this Chapter shall be known as City Housing Code"? Mr. Sievers stated he had a problem with that wording and felt it was ambiguous. He offered the following amendment to Chapter 17.16.020 under Section 1: "The Uniform Code, 1988 Edition, published by the International Conference Of Building Officials, is adopted as amended by the City Housing Code on file with the City Clerk". Mr. Overson questioned if people really understand that, if approved, Council would be adopting the 1988 ICBO Uniform Housing Code? President Morton pointed out as amended. Mr. Overson stated there is no title in the document that states this is the City of Bremerton's 1988 ICBO Code - those identities have not been made. Mr. Slevers stated a change needed to be made referencing to this particular document in the ordinance. Mr. Dawklns noted in some instances homes with junk vehicles in their yards tend to be poorly kept up. Mr. Morning stated progress had been made on this issue and congratulated Mr. Nelson and all who participated in developing the proposal on a "job well done". He pointed out this is an enforceable code for all homes, not just rentals. Every home in the City is at risk if it is not maintained. He was concerned under the enforcement section on tenant responsibilities. He noted there was wording to that affect and he believed it could be affective, but he would like to see, by second reading of the ordinance, addition to the enforcement that spells out that the enforcement will take a "first line"approach against those who cause the problem. For example, the garbage in the yard, unsafe conditions in front of home -these are not building problems but certainly eventually a landlord problem. And, that the first person getting ticketed and taken to Court if appropriate, needs to be the creator of that problem. He believed this was an important standard that needed to be affixed to this document. Mr. Nelson stated in a section of the Code it defines tenant responsibility, i.e., safe and sound sanitary condition free of garbage, etc., and the landlord/owner is responsible to keep the structure in a structurally sound, sanitary, etc. In the enforcement section it states that after making a determination of the parties liable pursuant to Section 201, the Building Official shall issue a notice of an order direct to the liable party. Also, it stipulates that if satisfaction cannot be obtained from the party liable, the City will go to the owner at that point .... this would be after court, lawsuit, citation, etc. Mr. Horninq stated he would like it spelled out more so that as a last resort the City would go back to the TAPE #962 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 12 of 28 landowner. He noted he was sensitive to this issue due to a personal experience he had with a commercial tenant. He wants to be able to say, as a landlord, that such a condition would be cause for eviction. He also agrees that the Building Officials needs authority to deal with the Code. Mr. Overson agreed with Mr. Horning that some clarification of that section would be helpful. Mr. Johnson stated the point of this Housing Code is to protect the building stock of the City. It is not a tenant protection ordinance nor a landlord protection ordinance. Whoever is liable for the substandard conditions will be the person held liable. He acknowledged there are a few bad landlords in the City as well as a few bad tenants. He has talked with realtors, landlords and tenants who support this proposal. President Hotton pointed out if Mr. Nelson inspects a house that is in such condition it would be cause for eviction of the tenant, that violation would move into the dangerous building code. This document gives him the necessary tools to consider that house a "dangerous building". People were concerned if this ordinance was passed people would automatically be evicted right and left and she assured the public this document is a tool to upgrade the housing stock and if the house is in such bad condition it will be dealt with under the Dangerous Building Code. This is a double protection for some people who may be displaced. She thanked Mr. Nelson for his work on this document. Previously, she lobbied her fellow Council members to have Mr. Nelson put together the citizen committee to work on this proposal and from that has come a good document for the City. Also, when Council adopted the Housing Bremerton Plan there was discussion about code enforcement and if codes needed to be upgraded, action would be taken to do so. At that time, Council said Code enforcement needed to be a #1 priority and in order to clean up the housing stock it will need funding for enforcement along with implementation of the ordinance. TAPE #963 Mr. Estes stated for a long time he stood alone on this issue and he had a number of opportunities to share his concerns with groups and individuals through out the process. In response to his promise to wear a "dress suit" to Council meetings when the City adopted the Housing Code, he questioned if he would have to start next week or the week after? President Hotton stated Mr. Estes's promise should be filled at the time of second reading of the ordinance. #0029 #0095 TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 13 of 28 Mr. Morning questioned if something should be included to address the issue of Mr. Nelson, as the Building Official, being deputized for enforcement of this document. Mr. Johnson stated he felt it should be included in the ordinance. Mr. Overson noted there was one loose end, the Appeals Board membership and questioned if it should be included in the approving motion? President Horton stated if it was not included along with the ordinance at second reading it would be delayed until it was submitted. Mr. Johnson suggested that issue be a separate motion requesting it be addressed in the form of a Resolution. M/S/C/U(Estes/Horning) to approve ordinance, on first reading, repealing BMC 17.16 and adopting the Uniform Housing Code, as amended, including the amendment suggested by City Attorney relating to the name of the article and deputizing the Building Official David Nelson for enforcement of this document. M/S/C/U(Collins/Overson) that the Planning staff and City Attorney be directed to bring a Resolution to the Council identifying the make up and responsibilities of the Board of Appeals for the Uniform Housing Code. And, that this Resolution be submitted in two weeks for Council consideration. Councilman Estes left the Council Chambers at 7:40 PM. 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OYSTER BAY ESTATES, APPLICANT: CHAFFEY CORPORATION, LOCATION: SE SHORELINE OF OYSTER BAY WEST OF SUNDOWN DRIVE, #AB91-272 On October 1, 1991, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the Oyster Bay Preliminary Plat. Title 58 RCW Boundaries and plats empowers the City Council to hold a public hearing in order to accept, reject, or modify the Planning Commission's recommendation. President Horton asked the Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict of Interest question. Mr. Homing stated he did not believe he had a conflict, however, he wanted to go on record that he is a neighbor of one mile from the project and the project is part of his Council District. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated this would possibly be an affect on property values of Councilman Horning's property and he believed Mr. Horning would be the best judge of whether or not he had a conflict. Mr. Hornin~ stated he saw no reason for him to step down unless someone from the public asked him to step down. TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 14 of 28 No one asked that Mr. Horning step down, therefore, all council members were seated. Jack A11ingham, Current Planning Division, stated the application was three fold - a preliminary plat, a shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. The project is located at the southwest portion of Oyster Bay and the project is to subdivide approximately 4.88 acres into 16 single family lots, to construct some new road access to the site and a new access road adjacent to the site. The applicant also proposes to construct utilities for water, stormwater, and wastewater by extending a low pressure main from Oyster Bay to the subject site along the shoreline. Because the project does involve the construction of roads within the shoreline area , it is required that a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit be issued. The zoning of the project site is Single Family-2 (SF-2), with a minimum lot size of 9,600 ft. per lot. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is low density residential of 7 dwellings per acre. When complete this subdivision will provide a density of approximately 2.5 dwellings per acre. The shoreline designation of the site, under the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program, is urban residential and the shoreline designation allows for subdivision residential development. During the Planning Commission review of this proposal, a couple of major issues occurred, one being staff's recommendation of requiring a public beach access to the shoreline (Mr. Allingham provided slides showing the subject area). The Planning Commission heard testimony from several surrounding property owners and recommended to Council that the public beach access not be a requirement of the preliminary plat. The second major issue is access to the plat itself. Slides were shown showing how a typical resident of this plat would approach their plat...essentially they would make a left turn heading north from Marine Drive onto Lower Marine Drive. Lower Marine Drive is a relatively narrow, windy and substandard road compared to minimum design standards for work within the right-of-way that the City has adopted. As the person would approach the plat, they would be making a left turn down to an existing right-of-way or an existing road which is not known to be a dedicated public right-of-way, but has been used by some property owners to access their property. It is this right-of-way that the applicant is proposing to develop to a 35 foot dedicated public right-of-way with a sidewalk on the west side and two eleven foot paved widths. This is somewhat less than what is TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 15 of 28 required by the City's right-of-way standards, but after a couple of public hearings before the Planning Commission and neighborhood meeting and some work with the applicant and City Engineer, the City and applicant feel they could design a road that would have the least amount of impact on the adjoining properties. There is an existing dirt road that leads up to Kitsap Way and the applicant has provided plans to provide an alternate exit and entrance onto Kitsap Way from the site, however, some of the surrounding property owners feel that might add as a by-pass from the Kitsap Way/Marine Drive intersection and force more traffic into the subject area. It would also give a dangerous drive that would have a 20 % slope at the Kitsap Way area. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this subdivision subject to seven mitigating conditions, with the exception that the public beach access not be developed. Norm Olson, N. L. Olson & Associates representing Chaffey Corporation, stated when this project was first considered, they looked at the possibilities of return and concluded that the environmental issues and subtileties of the ground lend itself to single family subdivision verses multi-family. They discussed the possibility of serving this project by City of Bremerton sewer with Bill Duffy, Utilities Director, utilizing a pump station to pump up to the sewer on Kitsap Way or to carry a low pressure gravity line along Oyster Bay to an existing lift station. Mr. Duffy indicated he preferred something other than a lift station, so they agreed to install a low gravity pressure main along Oyster Bay to the existing station, which does pump up to Kitsap Way. Through the Planning Commission hearings and neighborhood meetings, they did agree to carry this sewer line not only through their subdivision but to the intersection of the connection road. This would provide sewer service for some surrounding property owners and would allow the expansion of the sewer up Lower Marine Drive to Marine Drive to service the school and other parts towards Rocky Point. This is a major start getting City utilities through one of the tougher areas. They also wanted to serve the project with a combination of public roads and private roads. He provided a view graph showing one of the private road areas would be narrower than current standards and at about 12-13% grade. The road that goes along the east side of the project will be a dedicated road to the City and built to City standards. One of the main issues that occurred during this process was brought by some of the neighbors who live along the connection road. The road as it exists now, is a paved varying 18-20 feet access that TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 16 of 28 has been used for quite some time and was in place prior to its being turned over to the City by Kitsap County. After checking the history through the Title Company, the rules of law indicate that road, by descriptive use, belonged to Kitsap County from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. When it was transferred to the City of Bremerton, that ownership followed. So, in a sense there is a road that belongs to the City just from curb-to-curb. The developer is proposing to widen the road, putting a sidewalk on one side, utilize a 35 foot right- of-way verses a 50 foot right-of-way, based on some agreements they had with some owners and the City Engineer; and came to an agreement with dedication or purchase, by the Chaffey Corporation, of the right-of-way outside of the curb. They would be carrying the sanitary sewer facilities to this point, which could be later extended. One of the other options that became a problem was the traffic that would be generated on Lower Marine Drive. They did get a ruling from the Engineering Department that Lower Marine Drive was capable of 2,000 cars per day and the existing road plus the 16 homes being proposed would have less than that amount. During a neighborhood meeting, some of the residents proposed that a connection be made from where we would like to terminate the road up to Kitsap Way - right turn in and right turn out only so that people who live north of the project could get to Kitsap Way without using Lower Marine Drive and people that lived in the subdivision could make a right turn off of Kitsap Way. The gradient at this point is 23%, which is a deadly grade in the winter. They indicated to the Planning Commission and staff they would build this road if required by the City Council. In his judgement, as an engineer, he did not feel such a road would be a safe access. His conversation with Jan Stemkoski, Assistant City Engineer, was that he would not like to assume responsibility of that road, nor would his client. They would build the road and turn it over to the City under those terms. He understands why residents of the neighborhood think that would be a good access, but he was not sure this would solve any of the problems identified. Such a road may also provide a tool for commuters to by-pass the intersection of Marine Drive and Kitsap Way and make an avenue of transportation between Marine Drive and Kitsap Way without going through that traffic light. They developed a project that the City of Bremerton could have as an asset, with an upgrade to the .utility system and bringing in 16 revenue generating properties into the City. They have been consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Shoreline Ordinances and are willing to accept the TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 17 of 28 conditions set forth by the Planning Commission and will abide by City Council's judgement on the access road off of Kitsap Way. Wanda Mosbarger, 3910 Valley Drive, stated she could not believe the City Engineer says 2,000 vehicles can go up and down Lower Marine Drive daily. They measured the road behind their residence and found it to be very narrow. What is being proposed is to run a 35 foot road into one that is very narrow. There are approximately 16 children who walk up Lower Marine Drive to and from school. She questioned if Council could visualize those children walking up and down that road with 2,000 vehicles traveling along it? She was very concerned that children may be killed in that area. She talked with the City Engineer and was told that area was not on the Six Year Transportation Plan for upgrading. She emphasized she did not believe anyone in the valley objected to the housing project, but it must be safe in order for the children to walk to and from school. And, it must be made safe for the vehicles. to travel back and forth along that road way. If there is to be a 35 foot road down below that intersects Lower Marine Drive with a sidewalk, the she would like to see the City Council do something about moving that area on the Six Year Plan so that they can get Lower Marine Drive improved to 35 ft., including a sidewalk. Frederick H. Salmela, 1309 Lower Marine Drive, stated he feels the subdivision is a proper use, however, he has two concerns. The minutes of the October i Planning Commission meeting approved various items, i.e., "The City Engineer may also approve additional access from the subdivision to Kitsap Way". He is very concerned about the additional traffic this proposed access to and from Kitsap Way would create on Lower Marine Drive. Presently there is already a rough road going up along the west side of the Pancake House. Impatient drivers are already using that very rough road and coming from Marine Drive from the intersection of Lower Marine Drive and Marine Drive at the north end and going down their very narrow road. The volume of traffic will not lessen when the City modifies that intersection. He recommended Council place a prohibition on allowing an access to Kitsap Way from Oyster Bay Estates. He was also concerned over the sewer interception line on the beach of Oyster Bay. The draft plan he viewed showed the line as a 10 inch beach access line. Many years ago there was an L.I.D. engineered by Bremerton City engineers and they showed a 12 inch line. We want to have sewers on the east side of Oyster Bay and Marine Drive, so the interceptor lines should be adequate to expand service TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 18 of 28 so that the beach does not have to be torn up again. He addressed these concerns in his letter of September 14, 1991, to the Bremerton Planning Commission. Jim Lane, Bremerton, stated as the process went through the Planning Commission a couple of things happened: (1) some of the neighborhood residents felt threatened by the fact that the initial presentation talked about condemning property in order to obtain right-of-way; (2) they found they had good support from Mr. Olson on issues that were of great concern to them, but had an adversary relationship with City Engineer's office. In his opinion, the City Engineer's office apparently did not want the public to express any views on this proposal. He felt that was primarily because this matter had been looked at almost in a vacuum, that is, very little reference was made to the major modification proposed for Marine Drive/Kitsap Way intersection. Currently they have access two ways out of the "valley", one on Lower Marine Drive and an access down Sundown Drive and an access in just west of the Pancake House. If all goes as currently planned, they would be down to two accesses from the valley to Marine drive on lower Marine Drive. During a wind storm last winter Lower Marine Drive was shut down both ways and if it hadn't been for the access of Sundown Drive, it would have been difficult to get out of the valley at that time. The Assistant City Engineer, at the last Planning Commission hearing, indicated Lower Marine Drive from the junction of Sundown Drive/Valley Drive and Lower Marine Drive was approximately 22 feet. He personally took some pictures and scaled the width and found it to be 20 feet. Not only is it 20 feet wide but it has an obscured view when driving on it. If one meets a large truck or school bus it necessitates having to pull off the roadway and stop. He supports the notion of the development of the site into single family units however, to involve yourself in a vacuum that looks at only a small portion and not at th~ City's infrastructure beyond the boundaries and planning to do something about them is dead wrong. Therefore, he supports the proposed project only if Lower Marine Drive, from the junction of Valley Drive and Sundown Drive, be improved with decent sized lanes and sidewalk for pedestrians. Greq Finke, 3803 Valley Drive, stated he also was affected by this proposed development. He did not view the proposal as being bad, however, he was concerned over the existing roads that are currently used - Valley Drive comes into Lower Marine Drive at a very obtuse angle (300 degree hairpin turn). At this same juncture the other portion of Lower Marine Drive that comes down and around the corner is intersection with Valley Drive and Sundown Drive. There are four streets that TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 19 of 28 intersect at the bottom of this hill. He felt that the increased traffic from the proposed project would create additional problems. He believed some revamping of that intersection would be necessary. He viewed this as a danger to both vehicles and pedestrians in that area. He also wanted to go on record as being opposed to the Kitsap Way access for anything other than a pedestrian access for the same reasons previously mentioned. He preferred seeing the access coming through Lower Marine Drive and not continuing on to Kitsap Way. Mr. Olson stated some of the access and visibility problems that have been expressed are well founded. They have agreed, with the meetings of the owners, to try to be as undamaging as possible in fixing the intersection of Lower Marine Drive and Valley Drive. It would be very difficult to make it really good without getting onto private property and a large stand of trees, however, with a little bit of work and paving they believe they can improve that intersection. When this issue was before the Planning Commission, the developer agreed to join in and support an L.I.D. upgrading of Lower Marine Drive and would make that part of the recorded documents. They would make access to Kitsap Way for pedestrian traffic in lieu of vehicle traffic so that people can get from Lower Marine Drive up to Kitsap Way. The sewer line size was established by Mr. Duffy, Utilities Director. A 10-inch main is certainly large enough for 16 homes and they have set their budget based on a 10-inch diameter ductile iron sewer line. Should Mr. Duffy determined that a 12 inch or 14 inch pipe was a more adequate size to serve the area, they would be more than happy to work with the City if they would compensate the difference in cost. He did do a budget analysis to upgrade Lower Marine Drive from where the project access comes on to it and that amounts to $85,000. They did a residential count and there are 54 homes that use Lower Marine Drive at this point. They would be willing to pay their fair share in upgrading the roadway. President Morton questioned if Mr. Olson concurred in what the neighbors were asking for in upgrading Lower Marine Drive? Mr. Olson stated no he was not. The developers will pay their fair share of an upgrade of Lower Marine Drive if a L.I.D. was put together. President Morton stated if the developer did not have to put in the road going up to Kitsap Way, would it be economically feasible for the developer to upgrade Lower Marine Drive? Mr. Olson stated not even close. The connection from the cul-de-sac to Kitsap Way was one that they TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 20 of 28 put together because the neighbors and Mr. Stemkoski of the Engineering Department wanted to see if it was feasible. Both Mr. Stemkoski and he came to the same conclusion that it was too steep and dangerous if there was any ice or snow. He felt if it was built and used on an "emergency only" basis with a breakable barricade, it could be of some benefit to the residents of that area. Mr. Homing stated he was assuming that the City is agreeing that the Kitsap Way access is not a good idea. Jan Stemkoski, Assistant City Engineer, stated yes, they did not like the access to Kitsap Way and recommended against including that as one of the conditions. Mr. Homing questioned if Mr. Allingham was in agreement with the exclusion of the public beach access requirement. Mr. Allingham stated the public beach access was recommended to the Planning Commission to bring the plan closer to conformance with Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the Bremerton Waterfront Access Plan, complying with goals, policy and regulation of the Shoreline Master Program. Planning staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was that the developer provide public access to the water. Mr. Johnson stated he agreed that public access for those 16 homes was probably not very bright. He was hoping to mitigate something where public access could be provided to Oyster Bay at a more favorable location. Mr. Hornlng stated he was not aware of any nearby access that the people in the development or immediate neighborhood would benefit. Mr. Johnson stated he felt if the developer provided access somewhere along Oyster Bay, then the rest of the general public would have the opportunity to access Oyster Bay without going through the private yards of the 16 homes. Mr. Allinghamstated the closest nearby access would be NAD Marine Park. Mr. Dawkins stated there is the possibility of access on Pershing Street. Mr. Stemkoski stated Pershing is there presently but the Pershing right-of-way will be one that will be vacated by law in the near future. Mr. Johnson stated the City had the right to demand that water access be provided by the developer. Mr. Homing stated he would not support that approach due to the issue of liability. Mr. Johnson stated that was why he was trying to suggest something as an alternative. President Horton stated she believed Mr. Johnson had a valid point, however, she felt there was not enough information to formulate a specific idea. Mr. Homing stated one part of why he was avoiding requiring the developer for money on something like this was a far bigger issue to this community is the roadway system. Mr. Collins stated Council passed the Shoreline Master Plan, which says any development of four units or more will have to TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 21 of 28 provide access to the water. The first project that came before Council was required to fulfill that requirement. Now, the second one that has come up is being considered for an exemption. He felt Mr. Johnson's idea of an alternate proposal to provide beach access was a plausible approach. Mr. Homing stated the City has an obligation for proper, safe access to all of our community. The reason these streets have not been entered onto the Six Year Transportation Plan was because there has not been an additional need up to now, yet this is something we are all asking for that we have residential development in Bremerton. The project is a prime residential development by a high quality builder/developer and appears to be an ideal opportunity for the City to go ahead with the proposal. There are issues that the City needs to address at "our fair share". What needs to be resolved is who's responsible to upgrade streets and to what extent, and if that means some sort of no- objection clause to an L.I.D. and is agreeable to the developer. He believed that the City should share in a L.I.D., and open up the Six Year Transportation Plan and enter the City's fair share into that as well. Mr. Stemkoski stated when the developer originally came'to the Engineering Department and discussed the proposal for 16 units trip generation, they did not feel that the developer should be required to improve the whole road to City standards because the project would generate only 192 trips per day. The neighbors, during the Planning Commission hearing, stated they felt the City should upgrade the street. He noted the only funds the City has available to do such an upgrade are through the Six Year Transportation Plan and that area was not on the list. At that meeting, they talked about coming to Council and opening up the Six Year Transportation Plan if Council felt it was necessary. The Lower Marine Drive is approximately 20 feet in width (plus or minus in areas) from where the developer is making the connection at Marine Drive. The roadway surface is not considered to be in a "bad" condition, but he believed the neighbors' biggest concern was the need for a sidewalk. If the City places the road' improvements on the Six Year Transportation Plan and paid for a share of the improvement, the City would still expect some of the homeowners to pay for the sidewalk. Essentially, the City could extend the same road section that is going up now (22-ft. with gutters and sidewalk along one side) on up to Marine Drive. Mr. Homing stated he would like to have someone representing the neighbors comment on what is being proposed at this time on road improvements. President Morton stated she would like the neighbors to address if there is an alternate site (within the valley) that might be used as a beach access or a lookout point or something that will TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 22 of 28 accomplish what the City is trying to do with the Shoreline Master Plan and still be compatible with the neighbors, and something that the developer could reasonably afford. Mr. Collins stated right now the neighbors are not unhappy with the road, however, Mr. Olson is proposing a project that will require additional street. He questioned why put the financial responsibility on someone else to pay for the developer's project? Mr. Morning stated if Council places so many conditions on this project and drives the dollar cost up, there will be no development and in the long run it will not serve anyone. When he references a L.I.D., he is referring to a sidewalk improvement. Mr. Collins stated he would go along with the sidewalk. President Hotton stated Don Pratt, Planning Director, and the neighbors have indicated there is a piece of property to the south of the subject site that may be developed. She suggested the City approach the owner of that property and find out if they have plans for development and if they would be interested in joining in a 4-way split between the two developers, neighbors and the City of Bremerton. What may happen in the process is to bring in enough money to share the cost equitably so that the existing owners are not unduly taxed and might give the opportunity to do something constructive with that roadway system. Mr. Morning stated President Horton's idea was excellent, however, he did not want that to stop this development because it is time sensitive. He did not feel it would be appropriate for the City to approach the landowner, as suggested by President Horton, and give the indication that COuncil would support whatever he would want to do on that site in exchange for participating in an L.I.D.. Mr. Johnson questioned if Council was getting into a legal situation where discussion must be limited to only that being proposed by the developer? Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated Council can't get involved in pre-determining how another piece of property be developed, however, that property could be part of a L.I.D., currently based on its benefit from the road improvements. The City could require this developer to forward the entire cost for improvements but agree to a "late-comers agreement" for others that would come on line later. Mr. Morning stated the City does not know the impact he will generate or when or truly if ever. Mr. Sievers stated the benefits assessed for an L.I.D. would reflect current use or zoning and that impact would be a lot larger if there were some land use changes down there. Mr. Overson stated he supported the idea of implementing the L.I.D. for road improvements. He was not in favor of asking the developer to fund the entire improvements and trying to collect later. Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 23 of 28 stated the impact on the current road system, by this developer, warrants only the improvements that the Engineer has required. Any potential development in that area would create a different situation and even though a potential development may require redoing the street over and above what is being required for this project, we can't count on it being improved or unimproved on the basis of a new development. He suggested if the potential new development was of such a scope and scale, there is probably adequate impact on the road system to cause significant road improvements. He cautioned Council to go back to what was presented - an estimated trip generation, an appropriate improvement level to take care of the level of service at today's standards and there has been an agreement to do that. He stressed it was not appropriate to engineer road improvement for what might come in the future. Council could ask the subject developer to put what he wants to put into the road system and hold it in abeyance for a period of time. The City is not required to make improvements for 5-6 years. President Hotton questioned if approved, when would the developer break ground and complete the project? Mr. Pratt stated the applicant is not legally required to break ground at any specific time. Mr. Sievers stated the preliminary plat approval only has a limited duration - 3 years and one year extension. Mr. Olson stated upon approval of the project they would commence with further research on sanitary service with Mr. Duffy, do some topography on the beach, complete final drawing for final plat approval and anticipate construction spring of 1992, and majority of work complete by September. There is a verynarrow window to work on the beach as mandated by the Department of Fisheries. He anticipated having the final plat proposal ready by September/October. He offered to come up with U.L.I.D. funds after the plat is recorded. He did not want to see 16 lots have to front the full cost of road improvements on Lower Marine Drive considering the fact that there are 54 established homes in that area. Mr. Homing noted it appeared everyone was in agreement with the seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. It has been suggested that under Condition #1, a notation be made that we do not want access to Kitsap Way improved; and under Shoreline Access (Condition #2) that we include an amount, yet to be determined, replacing direct shoreline access. And, he would add one other stipulation that the Six Year Transportation Plan be reopened. Mr. Collins questioned if it was good business for the City to allow this much "private road" as proposed by the developer? TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 24 of 28 Mr. Stemkoski stated they have always recommended against private roads because later on people tend to come back and want the City to maintain them. The City has been requiring recorded Maintenance Agreements on any private roads. Mr. Collins stated it appeared the City should be requiring on the three sections of private roads the same development that would be required for any normal City street. Mr. Stemkoskl stated if the City is contemplating taking them into public jurisdiction later, then they should be built to today's standards. Mr. Colllns suggested including that as Condition #8 - Private streets will be would dedicated and built to City specifications. Mr. Olson stated there are a couple places where it would be physically impossible to meet today's standards. That was why he presented them as private roadways and there would be a Homeowners Association Maintenance Agreement recorded indicating it would not become a City street. Mr. Collins stated the first time residents in the 16 lots had to carry their garbage cans up to the public road, they will be all over the City as to why it wasn't a City street. He cautioned to not fall into that "trap"; or the first time it snows they'll question why it wasn't being sanded or plowed. Mr. Olson stated one of the plans had been modified and there is a turn around provided for access by large trucks and fire protection vehicles. Mr. Johnson questioned if this area would be served by natural gas. Mr. Nelson stated yes. Bob Helm, Chaffey Corporation,. stated Cascade Natural Gas had indicated to them that they will serve this property down an easement from Kitsap Way to the site. This would also open the opportunity for natural gas to go down Sundown Drive or any extension beyond there. They would allow easements across the development site in order to accomplish that expansion. Other utility services will be provided by underground installation. Mr. Johnson stated he agrees with Mr~ Collins on the issue of having adequate access for larger size trucks that would service those residents. Mr. Helm stated they did not mind building streets to City standards, however, the width and slope of such roads are real issues. Mr. Homing raised the point who will own and maintain the roads. Mr. Olson stated some of the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance are very particular on size, etc. A lot can be severed with an easement but it cannot be severed with a right-of-way. He believed this plat would be in trouble if Council required that it be a public road. They can build the road to City standards to allow fire trucks and garbage truck traffic, however, to turn it into a public road it would butcher this subdivision and that would not be acceptable to him. Mr. Johnson stated he did not see why it would be illegal to have a lot located on both sides of TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 25 of 28 the street. Mr. Sievers stated the plat must comply with the minimum lot size in the Zoning Code and if the City defines a lot dimension bi-sected by a right-of-way that could be a problem and violate the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated the largest portion of the lot meets the minimum lot size and not someone trying to piece two smaller pieces together to make the minimum lot size. Mr. Sievers stated that was fine and Council may want to add some covenants on those lots so that people do not mistake that as a buildable portion on the other side of the road. Mr. Olson stated if they could make it work. The way they could make it work would be if the roadway was designed and constructed to City standards with drainage, drive width, etc., with easement that is wide enough to take it, after the plats approved then it could be converted to City right-of-way. President Morton stated a lot of comments had been made by Council as to what they would like to see happen on this proposal. Although it would be a delay to the applicant and require the residents to come to a another hearing, perhaps it would be wise to take a little time to research the issues identified and come back in a form that fulfills all legal requirements, including good dialogue with the neighbors as well as the developer. Mr. Pratt stated Council can take such action if desired. The issue of public beach access has not been finished, however the public access to beach statement is found in a policy document not an ordinance document and Council has the ability to choose whatever is desired. The road issue is not an ordinance requirement and whether or it is a public or private road is up to Council. There is a reason why this plat was presented in the shape and with a private road because it works. He suspected the only thing Council could do would be to require that road to be built up to City standards but remain a private road and if at some point in the future the plat does get developed they might have to find a way to deal with the lots. They had looked at the option of creating two parcels where the public road would bisect them but we would be creating substandard lots, which violates a policy. If Council approves the proposal as recommended, he believed the other details could be worked out. His only suggestion was to require the street construction, except for size, meet City standards so that a dedication could be made in the future. President Hotton stated perhaps the street does not have to totally meet City standards as long it is within an acceptable range. Mr. Pratt stated staff was concerned that the bed of the road be build with materials to withstand adequate traffic impact. The sizing is a variable and the City Engineer has the authority to vary sizing according to deeds. Mr. Morninq requested some wording that could be added to "Infrastructure Ai" that would accommodate his suggestion. #3208 TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 26 of 28 Mr. Johnson suggested continuing this hearing in order to develop the right language to address the issues raised by Council. President Morton questioned if this would be addressing the concern of the road for the residents as far as participation of this entity in an L.I.D.? Mr Morning stated if an L.I.D. is done, as he proposed, their only inclusion would be regarding a sidewalk; and the additional step of reopening the Six Year Transportation Plan under the City's share of such an action. Mr. Pratt stated there was nothing in the proposal that addresses the concerns he heard for pedestrian right-of- way up to Marine Drive. M/S/C/U(Collins/Johnson) to continue this hearing for one week. Mr. Pratt stated he would bring back next week wording for the internal roadway standards and the footpath up to Kitsap Way. He questioned if Council wished to address pedestrian improvements along Lower Marine Drive? President Morton stated yes. Mr. Collins questioned what about the issue of public beach access? Mr. Sievers questioned if Council was supportive of "payment" in lieu of dedication? President Morton stated yes. 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) DECRIMINALIZING VIOLATIONS OF BUILDING AND FIRE CODES AND PROVIDING THAT SUCH VIOLATIONS SHALL HENCEFORTH BE CONSIDERED CIVIL INFRACTIONS, #AB91-271 Violations of the Building and Fire Codes are currently classed as criminal misdemeanors. The establishment of a system of civil infractions is a less expensive method of disposing of minor offenses and will decrease the costs and workload of the Court. This system will allow the City to use the enforcement Officer's sworn statements as evidence in Court, eliminating the need for Building Department officials to spend their time in Court. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated since he joined the City deliberate effort had been made to make violations of City ordinances civil infractions where public safety would allow. In 1987-88 he read to Council a section of the State statute, (RCW 7.80), which articulates the policy behind this type of action; and again read that section into the record. He noted this would save the resources of the Court, and the staff would not have to personally appear to give testimony but may submit statements under oath. President Horton questioned if an incident resulted in a death, would that portion revert #3579 TAPE #964 TAPE #963 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 23, 1991 Page 27 of 28 back to the RCW for a criminal negligence charge? Mr. Sievers stated it would have to be connected to a level of culpability of mental intent but there are those offenses that are felonies within the State Code and would be prosecuted at the county. Greg Finke, Fire Marshal, stated this proposal was originally brought to them by Jim McNamara, Assistant City Attorney, and has been reviewed by Dave Nelson, Building Official, Chet Meigs,Fire Chief and himself, who are all in agreement that this would be a good program and would allow them to expedite and streamline their process of handling infractions as infractions rather than as a criminal proceeding. It would provide a tool to enforce the Code as a monetary infraction rather than creating a nature of a criminal activity out of things that would be code violations. As the City Attorney stated, it would not affect their ability to prosecute under criminal proceedings in those cases where warranted. M/S/C/U(Johnson/Horning) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, decriminalizing violations of Building and Fire Safety Codes and providing that such violations shall henceforth be considered civil infractions. 7B - ORDINANCE #4346 (SECOND READING) AMENDING BMC CHAPTER 5.02 BUSINESS TAX/LICENSING AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.92 WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY TAX AND FEES, #AB91-265 Kathleen McCluskev, City Clerk, stated since first reading of the ordinance, the Water tax will remain at 6%, however, the tax itself will be moved from a prior section into Chapter 5.02 of the Code. Also another change that was not made was 5.02,160 - deleting "Treasurer" and inserting "City Clerk". Public comment - none. M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Johnson) to pass Ordinance #4346, on second reading, amending Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 5.02 and repealing Chapter 3.92 7C - ORDINANCE #4347 (SECOND READING) ADOPTING NEW SECTION TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION IN BMC 17.24.145 AND REPEALING CHAPTERS 5.62 ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND 5.64 TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH, #AB91-266 Public comment - none. #0029 M/S/C/U(Collins/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance #4347, on second reading, adopting a new Section Telephone And Telegraph Maintenance And Operation in the Bremerton Municipal Code 17.24.145 and repealing Chapters 5.62 and 5.64. TAPE #964 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes October 28, 1991 Page 28 of 28 With no further business meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ~ Mc~CLUS~y~j~,C KATHLEEN L. ty Clerk City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault