Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/91TAPE #971 UNAPPROVED F '~FT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 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, November 20, 1991, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Lynn Horton presiding. Council members present: Lon Overson, Wayne Estes, Spencer Horning, Hank Waibel, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, Al'Colvin and Russ Johnson. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathleen McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by President Lynn Horton and the Invocation given by Reverend Jim Berentson of Our Saviour's Lutheran Church. President Hotton announced Council would hold two Executive Sessions immediately following the Council meeting. Topics to be discussed are "labor negotiations" and "contract negotiations". CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes Of Meeting - October 30, 1991, #AB91-287 B. Minutes Of Meeting - November 6, 1991, #AB91-288 #0026 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Estes) 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 has been made available to the council. #0047 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Estes) on November 20, 1991, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 139388, 139389, 139390, 139756 through 140075 in the total amount of $590,564.23; and Regular Payroll for the period ending November 15, 1991, in the total amount of $419,355.02. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Overson stated on Thursday, November 14, he will be meeting with the City's downtown planner and he requested input from Council relative to things he should be looking at and discussing through this process. President Hotton congratulated Mr. Overson and Mr. Dawkins on their election win for their Council Districts. Mr. Estes reminded everyone of the Youth In Government event, December 2, 1991, at the Bremer Student Center at Olympic college. He pointed out that academic students do not always get the same kind of publicity as sports athletic events. He stressed that TAPE #971 City Council R~'. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 2 of 14 these academic students will be the leaders of the future. He encouraged Jack Swanson, reporter for The Sun, to attend that event. Mr. Horning congratulated Councilmen Overson and Dawkins and Eileen Fitz on their winning the electoral vote for their Council Districts. He pointed out next year he would be viewing Council from a different "perch". Mr. Waibel extended congratulations to the newly elected candidates and noted Council and staff had worked hard during the past several weeks on the 1992 Budget. Mr. Johnson reported this is the second week that Olympic T.V. Cable access channel has not been functioning due to equipment problems. He congratulated all those who won in the elections and noted Cecil McConnell and Chuck Laubach received a lot of respect for the ideas and initiatives brought up in their campaigns. He hoped all candidates, who ran but were not successful, would continue to work with the City. Today, he participated in a fun- run-walk at Keyport in support of their scholarship fund. He received a "red ribbon" as a result of his participation in that event. Mr. Colvin reported today he received a notice from the Literacy Council indicating they're seeking volunteers to serve on their Board of Directors. He emphasized the importance of this group, particularly for those who experience English as a second language. He extended a hearty "thank you" to all City employees and staff for a "job well done" this past year. Mr. Dawkins stated he was sorry the vote count for his Council District position took so long. He noted Cecil McConnell is a good man who is concerned about the City and was a worthy opponent. Mr. Collins recommended that everyone owning a wood burning stove or fireplace~ read the news article written by Travis Baker, in The Sun, on the "smoke cops" as they relate to enforcement of the burn ban and how to maintain their equipment. Mrs. Horton announced due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, Council will hold their meeting on November 26 instead of November 27. And, the Council meeting scheduled for December 25 will be held on December 23; and the meeting scheduled for January 1, will be held on December 30. The swearing-in of the Municipal Court Judge and Council District 8 representative will be held after the December 30 Council meeting. Also, Council will hold its monthly Study Session on December 9 rather than December 2, so that Council members may participate in the "Youth In Government" program scheduled for December 2. TAPE #971 City Council Re~. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 3 of 14 PUBLIC RECOGNITION MaYor Louis Mentor congratulated the winners of the election and thanked the ones that ran - with the big winner being the City. He will attend "Aids Task Force" meeting on Thursday, November 21, 9:00AM, at the Silverdale Methodist Church. On Saturday, November 16, he attended the Japanese Women's annual installation of officers/dinner meeting, which was well attended by approximately 150 participants. He also attended, on November 16, the Filipino Ilocandia Organization's installation of officers/dinner, which was well attended by approximately 200 participants. Gordy Byrd, 402 Chester #3, reported on December 1 he would celebrate his second year of fund raising for his "Byrd's Nest" shelter for the homeless. He shared how lonely it was to work on such a large project by himself, but that he was determined to continue because it was such a worthwhile project. He shared his recent experience giving a speech at Olympic College on "addiction" and an inspirational talk at the Methodist Church. He recently lost a ring and asked if anyone found a "blue ring" in the vicinity of the Methodist Church in Bremerton, to please return it to him. 6A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REZONE OF ,,NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS" PROPERTY TO INCLUDE LAND USES OF PREVIOUS ,,B-2,, ZONE WITH CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT - HEETER REZONE, #AB91-247 Following a public hearing on the "Heeter Rezone" on August 22, 1990, the Bremerton City Council agreed to restore the land uses that were previously allowed by the former "B-2" zoning, under the banner of "Neighborhood Business". This ordinance and concomitant agreement will complete this zoning action. President Horton announced Councilmen Wayne Estes (appearance of fairness), Russ Johnson (lives within 250 feet of property, and stepped down under protest) and Mr. Dawkins (absent during prior hearings) must step down on this issue. Mr. Morning stated it was brought to his attention that he has a business relationship with Mr. Heeter, i.e., he is the successful bidder on two of Mr. Horning's projects, and that may be considered by someone as an appearance of fairness, so he would also step down. The remaining Council members were seated. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated according to Judge Hanley's ruling, under the Council's own rules of procedure, Council must complete the process and vote for an ordinance implementing each Council members decision from the first hearing rather than interrupting that process and having a de novo hearing on the merits in the middle of the process. Mr. Waibel pointed out this proposal is not a "hearing" and was the first reading of the implementing ordinance. TAPE #971 City Council R~9- Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 4 of 14 Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated on August 22, 1990, the City Council, following a public hearing, made a decision to "return all uses under the B-2 zoning designation with the banner of "Neighborhood Business" (NB). The proposed ordinance states that the Heeter property shall retain its zoning designation of NB, provided that future uses of said property shall be as previously allowed in the B-2 zone of the City's former Zoning Ordinance, subject to the provisions of the attached Concomitant Agreement. Mr. Hough noted in Section 2 of the ordinance -" ordinance will become effective 10 days from passage provided Mr. Heeter signs the agreement within 9 days, if he does not the property will remain Neighborhood Business". Bill Broughton, Attorney representing applicant, stated he believed the proposed ordinance and Concomitant Agreement accurately set out the intent of the Council through their series of public hearings. The result of those hearings, the proposed ordinance and Concomitant Agreement, retains the present zoning of the property and is consistent with the desire of the Kitsap Lake neighborhood. The Concomitant Agreement allows Mr. Heeter, in the event his property is burned down and he wants to change the use, to develop the property as set out in the agreement, which he has signed and is in agreement with. He believed the ordinance and Concomitant Agreement set out the compromise that the Council and staff worked hard to achieve, adequately protecting the interest of everyone. He urged Council to pass the ordinance recognizing the fact that the interest of all parties had been accommodated. David Heeter, 4011 Country Lane, stated he believed the Concomitant Agreement is fair and provides a win-win situation whereby it retains the NB zoning designation, as the neighbors requested, and allows him to rest assured that if his building burned down or the use should change in the future, he would still have a viable piece of property. Bill Amo, 6625 Lake Drive, requested the City Council to reject the ordinance as presented for the following reasons: (1) it implements the use of a Concomitant Agreement, which was to be done away with through the new Zoning Ordinance; (2) this action would be a spot rezone; (3) current use is not neighborhood business and could set a precedence. Mr. Waibel raised a "point of order" and stressed Council had been directed by Judge Hanley not to have a hearing on the rezone, therefore, Council cannot accept testimony on whether the previous rezone decision was proper or not, but that the proposed document reflects that past action. Mr. Amo stated none of the neighborhood felt they received a fair hearing. He requested someone voting in the affirmative of the rezone remand it back to the Planning Commission and have the issue go back through the hearing process. TAPE #971 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 5 of 14 Jim Strait, 6530 Harlow Drive, President Kitsap Neighborhood Association, stated he lives within 300 feet of the subject site and he was tired of continually fighting to keep his home and his neighbor's home a decent residential neighborhood. He requested that the following uses be excluded from the Concomitant Agreement: theater, pool hall, bowling alley, dance hall, skating rink, tavern, restaurants & cafe, drive-in restaurant, hotels, motels, private clubs-fraternities and lodges. He also felt the following should be added to that agreement: ~1) 25 ft. evergreen screening belt; (2) Planning Commission and City Council site plan approval. William Seidel, 6504 Lake Drive, urged Council to have this whole matter be reconsidered. It was his belief the applicant had not satisfied any City requirements for granting a rezone. If the ordinance was approved, he was concerned over the height allowance and felt there should be greater limitations included. Del Knauss, Olympic Avenue, urged Council to vote "no" on this ordinance with the condition to send it back to the neighborhood and let the residents give input on the uses they would object to. Daisy Whitney, 6519 Lake Drive, questioned why should the scope of Mr. Heeter's activities be enlarged when he was allowed to build his warehouse under NB? She opposed any change to zoning or adding any new uses that were not in the original NB zone. She was concerned that the homes within the neighborhood area would suffer devaluation under any changes in zoning. They do not want any disruptive activity that would disturb the peace and tranquility of their neighborhood. Ralph Whitney, 6519 Lake Drive, stated his opposition to any rezone of the subject site based on the devaluation impact such a change may bring about. Wi11iam Carlsen, 6604 Lake Drive, requested Council deny this rezone and keep the property as it was. Mr. Walbel cautioned Council to make sure that any comments about the appropriateness of the rezone does not enter into their deliberation on this issue. If in fact Council decides to deny this ordinance, based on improperly admitted testimony, it will be thrown back in their face. He noted comments about inclusion of the 25 ft. screening and site plan approval are appropriate and were part of the original zone (B-2); and are included in the Concomitant Agreement. #1401 M/S/F(Waibel/Colvin) to approve ordinance, on first reading, amending the official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton for property located at 6525 Kitsap Way, Bremerton, Washington. TAPE #971 = City Council R~g. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 6 of 14 Mr. Collins stated he had some concerns with the ordinance...by our own definition it is a "through lot" and references front yard setback, side yard setback, which is "0". It also references maximum building height which is the height given for "General Business". He did not feel it was appropriate to have a 60 ft. building height at that location. He was not sure if Harlow Drive would fit into the setback requirements. President Hortonquestioned if the height and setback requirements were per NB? Mr. Hough stated no, they relate to the B-2 zoning. President Horton stated it was her understanding of the issue at the time the zoning was approved, that the site would have the NB banner, height and setback requirements of NB, inclusion of the old screening provision and site approval requirement; and that someof the uses were unacceptable, such as taverns, dance halls, etc. What she recalls is having voted on the height and setback requirements of NB and only allowing those GB uses that were not intrusive into the neighborhood. Mr. Hough stated he did not recall Council being that specific at that time. He did recall working on a list of uses with the City Attorney, about a year ago, and getting input from the neighborhood, which did not work out. What is presented is a full list of uses as recommended by Council's motion of August 22. President Hotton emphasized she stated previously, on the record, the conditions listed above, which is not what is being presented at this time. Mr. Walbel pointed out Council voted on a motion to allow the uses under the B-2 zone, however, they did specifically not talk about reallowing the setback requirements of B-2. Therefore, if the proposed setbacks are not in line with NB designation other than the uses, then the ordinance may not reflect the previous motion. Mr. Colvin raised a question of clarification regarding what type of testimony could be allowed at this time. Mr. Sievers stated most of the testimony given at this time had to do with "I don't want the rezone", "don't want what Council voted on last time". The difficulty experienced at this time may be the ambiguous term of a use and would you define a use by calling it an activity and when would that activity get into development standards, i.e., signage, parking, setbacks, heights, etc. Effort has been made to negotiate a middle- ground through this ordinance, which was apparently not successful in the minds of some Council members. He did not believe the motion was absolutely clear in trying to incorporate some old uses that had a different set of performance standards into a current zone that had different performance standards. Mr. Hough stated there are height restrictions in the old B-2 zone, but requirements were a little different in a NB zone: NB height limit is 30 feet; B-2 zone allowed 30 feet if adjacent to a residential property and 60 feet otherwise. He pointed out in this case the property is adjacent to a residential zone. Mr. Colvin questioned on what basis did the City have to TAPE #971 City Council Re~. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 7 of 14 disallow use of the property? Mr. Sievers stated the clearest base is if you don't think the subject ordinance and agreement implement the prior final de~ision on the rezone made by Council. On a second basis, everyone has to vote throughout the process, first and second reading, which needs to be finished. He felt Council would want to vote consistent with its formal view. Mr. Oversen stated Mr. Sievers' statement was clear when he said that this should be consistent with the intent of the hearing results. His recall of that intent was that things be a lot more agreeable between the residents and applicant, which he felt had not been met. Vote on motion: Opposed: Waibel, Collins, Colvin, Overson, Horton Motion failed. Mr. Waibel questioned since Council had an unconcluded action did this issue need to be remanded back to the Planning Commission or staff for further revisions? Mr. Sievers stated if Council finds a possibility of developing a compromise then it could go back to staff for rework. However, if Council did not support that idea, then the issue could be remanded back through the rezone process. Mr. Colvin questioned how long could the property ownerbe kept from using his property under the right zone? President Hotton stated she was not sure if that was an appropriate question. The question is does Council feel, by having this issue go back to staff and reworking the ordinance and Concomitant Agreement, it upheld the intent of the motion to approve the rezone? If that is not the case, then it can be totally remanded back to the Planning Commission or let the whole matter drop. Mr. Waibel supported the idea of letting the staff work on the issue and asked them to bring it back to Council for possible remand. President Hotton stated Council's direction is to have staff readdress the Concomitant Agreement as per the public hearing and rezone stating Neighborhood Business height and setback requirements, old screening and site approval as listed in the old Concomitant Agreement, to allow the old uses under the B-2 zone that were not intrusive to the neighborhood. If staff cannot come up with a Concomitant Agreement that suits that direction, then it is requested staff comes back to Council so that it could be remanded back to the Planning Commission, if that is their wish. 7A - PUBLIC HEARING - 1992 PROPOSED BUDGET, #AB91-289 The purpose of this hearing is to take public testimony on the 1992 proposed budget. Mayor Louis Mentor emphasized the 1992 budget was tougher than last year due to the recession and inflation. He noted the 1992 General Fund is $18,250,000 and the total budget is $54,000,000, which TAPE #971 City Council R~9. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 8 of 14 includes Water and Sewer Department, Arterial Streets, special projects, such as the waterfront boardwalk park, public works complex, etc. That is an increase of revenues over 1991 of about $985,000, i.e. property taxes, retail sales taxes, B&O taxes, garbage, etc. Along with the $985,000 increase, the City looks at a loss of $250,000 in grant funding. The City will experience a $60,000 increase in CenCom's budget for 1992 and approximately $200,000 increase in the City's garage expenses that comes to about 1/2 million coupled with 1/2 million dollars in wage increases that were budgeted for this year. This does not take into consideration the 5-7% increase in "cost of living". Therefore, to meet the anticipated shortage, effort is underway to cut back on supplies and not undertaking any new programs. Another problem the City faces for 1992 is the loss of Federal funding for the City's street program. Mayor Mentor stressed the City would "hold its own" for 1992, and may loose 1-3 employees. Public comment - none. 7B - PUBLIC HEARING - STREET VACATION - APPLICANT: LARRY DAVID LOCATION: NORTH 15 FEET OF FIRST STREET BETWEEN BRUEN AVENUE AND AUTO CENTER WAY, #AB91-290 On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to vacate a portion of the north side of First Street (15' X 700') located between Bruen Avenue and Auto Center Way. On October 20, 1991, the City Council set the date for this hearing by adopting Resolution No. 2365. The City Council may uphold, amend, or reject the recommendations of the Planning Commission. President Horton asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of Interest" question with all Council members being seated. Jack A11ingham Current Planning Division, provided a view graph showing the location of the subject site in the Auto Center Way area, between Auto Center Way and Bruen Avenue. First Street has a varying right-of-way width between 45 feet and 60 feet. The applicant proposes to vacate the north side of First Street (north 15 feet). First Street has a functional right-of-way classification as a major arterial in the City and the City's adopted standards for an arterial right-of-way is 60 feet. By vacating the north 15 feet it would bring the right-of-way width down to 45 feet, below the City's adopted minimum standard for an arterial street. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recognized there may be a future need to maintain the 60 foot width and possible future upgrade of First Street, therefore recommending denial of the vacation request.. The Planning TAPE #971 ~ City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 9 of 14 Commission further recognized the applicant might have a need to use the 15 feet of right-of-way and the right-of-way should be offered to the applicant via lease until it becomes needed by the City. Public comment - none. Mr. Overson questioned if the subject 15 feet would be used by the applicant as a parking lot? Mr. A11inghamstated the applicant is currently developing a commercial building on the site and the 15 feet could be used for meeting landscape requirements and excessive parking that would not be required by zoning. In the event the right-of-way was widened, the Planning Commission recognizes that such an agreement should stipulate that they comply with zoning...landscaping could be relocated and any parking placed there would be in excess of any zoning requirements and provided for elsewhere on the property. Mr. Collins stated this was one of the first times he has gone along with such a proposal and had always fought against selling of right-of-way along Kitsap Way. He felt the Planning Commission's recommendation on this proposal was excellent in that though there is not an immediate need there could be one in the future and would not inhibit the developer in using the ground. #2492 M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of the requested street vacation. Further, the right-of-way should be offered for use to the applicant in the form of a lease until the right-of-way is needed for future development; including the list of conditions set forth by the Planning Commission. 7C - PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF USES TO THE "PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO)" ZONE AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITION OF "RECREATIONAL VEHICLES",#AB91-291 The Planning Division has completed a review of land uses allowed in the "Professional Office" zoning district and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment was initiated to consider the addition of several specific uses. The City Attorney's Office also requested an amendment to the definition of "Recreational Vehicle" along with the related appeal of Municipal Code Title 19. The Bremerton Planning Commission conducted public hearings on both of these proposals on October 15, 1991, and has forwarded its recommendations to the City Council. All amendments to the Zoning Ordinance require public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. If these amendments are approved, an ordinance will be prepared to complete the changes. TAPE #971 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 10 of 14 Ron Hough, Planning Manager, stated review of the "PO" zone originated several months ago from a rezone attempt in a "PO" zone where a property owner applied for a rezone after attempting to obtain a Building Permit to develop a business planned for that site but found out the zoning had changed and he could no longer do that. During the rezone discussion, it was felt by some that a small dry cleaning business might be appropriate to include with offices, professionals and other personal services. Staff then reviewed the list of uses allowed in the "PO" zone as identified in the Zoning Ordinance and came up with a list of ten, which they thought had merit, and could blend into the "PO" zone. This list was presented to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and were reviewed according to compatibility factors, such as: (a) generally quiet indoor uses; (b) non-retail business - or small scale retail that is closely related to the other uses in the zone; (c) personal/professional services; (d) low-traffic generators; (e) relatively small space users (5,000 sq. ft. maximum building size in this zone); (f) uses that don't require outdoor storage areas or fleets of business vehicles or equipment. Of the ten suggested uses, two were considered incompatible with the "PO" zone, i.e. (1) laundry and dry cleaning self-service, and (2) banking drive up service. That left eight remaining uses that the Planning Commission did feel were compatible with the zoning district and forwarded to Council with a recommendation of including them in the "PO" zone uses. As outright uses the Planning Commission recommends the following: Library, photographic services, personal apparel repair service; tobacconist; and by Special Use Permit - mini day care program (fewer than 13), laundry and dry cleaning other than self-service, parking structures and communication exchanges and broadcasting studios. Location of "PO" zones within the city are few and center around Harrison Hospital area and the lower portion of Wheaton Way. There are a few other individually zoned lots that were zoned that way because there are existing office buildings scattered through West Bremerton. Recreational Vehicle - the City Attorney's office has suggested a change in the definition due to a conflict with Title 19, which deals with mobile homes, and regulates them but does not define what they are. Since adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, there are new definitions for manufactured homes, new requirements for siting manufactured homes, location, etc. The Planning Commission reviewed this item and their recommendation is to refine the definition of Recreation Vehicle, which is often confused with manufactured or mobile homes, and recommended the following wording: "a wheeled vehicle designed for temporary recreational occupancy and not requiring a special permit (other than licensing) TAPE #971 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 11 of 14 for highway travel. A recreational vehicle is not a manufactured home and not intended for year-round occupancy." And, with the addition of the following statement: "it is unlawful for any person to use a recreational vehicle for habitation on any street, alley or highway or other public place provided, however, that a person may use a recreational vehicle as a dwelling on private property for accumulative total of 90 days per year". Public comment - none. Mr. Johnson stated in reference to the "PO" zone uses, he agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation, however, he desired to go one step further to add or subtract from the list. He questioned if a fast-food type restaurant could be constructed under the suggested uses under "special permit" (restaurant of 2,500 sq. ft.)? Mr. Hough stated there is a category of "restaurant/cafe under 2,500 sq. ft.", and also a category of"fast- food restaurant without car service". He emphasized that "fast- food" type restaurants are not allowed in the "PO" zone. Mr. Johnson questioned if boats should be included under "repair services other than auto and engines"? Mr. Hough stated that use would probably be excluded from the "PO" zone and is already classified under "Marine Services". Mr. Johnson questioned under Radio Antenna if that would outlaw or require a special use permit for the small radio antenna for companies who use that type of equipment rather than cellar phones? Mr. Hough explained Radio Antenna Non-Commercial would be like a ham radio antenna, which does require a special use permit. The type of use Mr. Johnson questioned would probably be considered an accessory to the building. Mr. Johnson questioned the value of having "Mineral Resource Extraction" in a "PO" zone? Mr. Hough stated that use is allowed in every zone by special use permit. Mr. Waibel pointed out that the "PO" zone is new and at the time it was adopted there was discussion that future adjustments could be made and he felt the recommendations were appropriate adjustments. #3099 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve the Planning Commissions recommendation of additional uses to the "PO" Zoning District. President Horton stated she took exception to having a recreation vehicle parked/living on anyone's property for 90 days and felt that was far too long a period of time. She also questioned the wording "It is unlawful for any person .... "and if it stipulated that the person using the recreational vehicle also was the owner of the property on which it was parked? Mr. Hough stated no, not necessarily. President Hotton pointed out in theory someone could have several recreational vehicles rotate in on their property every 90 days into perpetuity. Mr. Hough pointed out that the proposed statement indicated a recreational vehicle could be parked TAPE #971 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 12 of 14 TAPE #972 on someone's private property for a cumulative total of ninety days per year. President morton emphasized that 90 days was far too long a time and preferred that it be linked to the property rather than a person. Mr. Waibel suggested tieing it to the use rather than the person or property. Mr. Bough stated during the Planning Commission hearing, the discussion revolved around people who had more than one friend who visited during the summer time; or, in other cases where someone is building a home and wanted to live on site to protect the materials. Currently, that type of use is not allowed but is fairly common in most areas. Mr. Dawkins questioned could a recreational vehicle be used as on site living quarters if someone's home burned down and they were in the process of rebuilding? Mr. ~ough stated currently there is no requirements as to how long someone could live in a travel trailer. The way that is dealt with is they deal with travel trailers as a recreational vehicle, which is not intended for year-round living. Currently, the City does not allow someone to live in a travel trailer on a property even when their home is damaged and they are repairing it, although it may be a good idea. The proposal as presented would allow such a use for 90 days while a structure was being repaired. Mr. Overson stated new recreational vehicles can cost as much or more than a house and he did not agree that they were not meant to live in year-around. Mr. Mo~gh stated by code that was the case and they are not designed for year-around living. The City does not recognize those as year-around dwellings and do not allow them on private lots and subdivisions unless they are built to manufactured home and HUD codes or the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Collins stated he had problems with the "cumulative 90 days", and questioned how would it be enforced? He also questioned if there was some way the City could let it be known that a person could get a "temporary occupancy" permit for something like this if friends or relatives are planning a visit? Mr. Mo~gh stated it would be difficult. considering the number of travel trailers/ recreational vehicles used during the summer. Currently, the City does not have a lot of problems in this area, however, when there is a problem it is usually someone using such a vehicle as a full- time residence and creating a disturbance over accumulation of trash, etc. Mr. Collins stated he felt some type of occupancy permit should be offered in the event someone's home burned down and they had the use of a recreation vehicle during the time their home was being repaired. Mr. Johnson stated he felt the tie should be with both the owner and property. He felt requirements should be aimed at the slum- tenant, who is trying to get by with living in a recreational vehicle that is moved from lot to lot and not the "visitor from TAPE #972 ~ City Council R~'. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 13 of 14 out-of-state". If a permit process was used, maybe after 30 days consecutive use of an RV on a property a special "permit" could be obtained. He brought up the point that people live in "campers", which do not have wheels, and the definition addresses only those with "wheels". He questioned if the termwheeled vehicle or camper would cover the necessary categories? Mr. Hough stated that might be covered under the "recreational vehicle" definition. Mr. Johnson questioned allowing people to live in boats on trailers and felt that should be restricted as well? Mr. Dawkins questioned if this item should be sent back to staff to work out the appropriate wording? President Hotton stated that would probably be appropriate. Jack Swanson, Reporter - The Sun, stated having lived 1/4 of his life in a travel trailer, he found it funny that people would think of that as not being appropriate for year-round living. He was concerned about the intent of this proposal as it applies to potential annexations before Council and the possibility of outlawing such parks. There are several RV parks within close proximity to the borders of Bremerton, specifically one at the edge of the area the City is proposing to annex on Rocky Point Road that houses construction workers for 1-2 years. President Hotton stated it was not the intent of Council to outlaw such parks. Mr. Waibel stated it is intended to allow RV parks to exist. He noted there is a big problem, not only in Bremerton but other areas and that has to do with the homeless. He brought up the possible need of outlawing cardboard houses as well, but he did not think the City could outlaw being "homeless and trying to survive". He felt this must be considered when reviewing this issue. Mr. Johnson stated there are a couple examples in his neighborhood of the types of problems this proposal is trying to address and what results are some bad sanitation problems. Mr. Collins questioned if a permitting process could be tied to single family and multi-family residents? Mr. Hough stated possibly limiting it to a total of 30 days with an extension permit for an extended stay, etc. President Hotton alerted staff that in her district "houseboats" will become an issue and it needs to be addressed. Mr. Hough stated that would fall under the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Homing stated he liked the 30-day free stay and handled administratively, however, he wants to see the criteria developed by the administration prior to giving approval. He strongly supported allowing on-site mobile housing for large construction projects. Therefore, he did not support concluding this item at this time. #0558 M/S/C/U(Horning/Waibel) to continue the discussion on recreation vehicles to January, 1992. TAPE #972 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 1991 Page 14 of 14 With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK APPROVED LY~~HORTON, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/LH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault