HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/90 ' TA~E #764 UNAPPROVED DRAF~ ~ ~
ci?Y couNcn, M TE_S -$£P Z $'1990
SEPTEMBER 5, 1990
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, September 5, 1990 at 5:30 p.m.,
with Council President Lynn Horton. Council members present were
Lon Overson, Wayne Estes, Spencer Horning, Hank Waibel, C. R.
"Tiny" Collins, Morrie Dawkins, A1 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 was given by Reverend Doug Barker of
the Olympic Evangelical Free Church.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Change Order No. 4, SCHED B/Contract #3088
(Sheldrup Construction Inc.), Central Bremerton
Wastewater Improvs. (C17), #AB90-228
M/S/C/U(Waibel/Co!vin) 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 which
has been made available to the council.
#0049 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Dawkins) on September 5 1990, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 115895, 115897 through 115998 in the total amount of
$232,734.46.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Overson stated he was glad to be back and that he had taken a
tour of the downtown waterfront and noted the new observation tower
was complete and made a good cornerstone for the rest of the
waterfront development.
~_~.~te~ announced on September 15, 1990, 11:00 AM at the Ivy
Green Cemetery there will be a ceremony unveiling the headstone for
the grave of John Nibbe, a M~al Of Honor recipient. As he
doorbells throughout the 35th District, he promoted Bremerton as
the #1 City and a lot of people were not aware of this fact. Not
everyone in the 35th District lives in Bremerton so he is including
the promotion to include the "Olympic Peninsula" because everyone
knows it is also the #1 area.
M_r.~__~r__n~D~ reported kids are back in school today - please drive
TAPE ~764
City Council Reg. Mtg. Mindtes
September 5, 1990
Page 2 of 38
safely. He attended a 'Block Watch meeting on North Montgomery,
where Officer Steve Emm gave an excellent presentation on crime
watch in neighborhoods. He encouraged anyone interested in getting
this program in their neighborhood to call Officer Emm. Caring for
one another is what-makes Bremerton and all other parts of this
world a safe and successful place to live. On Monday the Labor
Unions sponsored a picnic and 10K Race. The weather was great and
it was a fabulous turnout and Lions Field was super. He attended
the Council Of Governments meeting this date and the results of
that meeting will be forthcoming. Growth management is on the
table and it is not a simple matter.
Mr. Waibel congratulated to Bremerton Main Street and the
Blackberry Festival'Committee for their very successful event this
past weekend. He noted it was probably the best attended event in
the City since the Armed Forces festival. The food and craft
booths were excellent and at times they had difficul~ keeping up
with the crowd. He enjoyed the kiddies parade, partly because he
and several other Council members were a part of that parade.
Mayor Mentor also participated in the kiddies parade - he stood a
little taller than anyone else as he was on his stilts. At the
festival he talked with two ladies from Florida, who were very
complimentary about the City and about the activities going on at
that time. They had heard that Bremerton was the %1 city and
decided to take the ferry'to Bremerton and see for themselves; -and
walked into the activities of the Blackberry Festival. He noted
recent literature put out on the Admiral theater Ballot issue
contained some misleading information indicating the City would
actually change the law that limits leases in the City to 10 years
- we, the City, are not going to change the la, but want to make an
exception for the Admiral Theater so that they can have a 50 year
lease. He hoped that the literature that has gone out to promote
this ballot issue will be corrected.
Mr. Johnson stated he received information that the Department Of
Fisheries was going to pull the plug on Kitsap Lake. What they
plan to do is to do some repair ~ork on a spillway located at the
north end of the lake. He noted that since a property along Kitsap
Way received a rezone from Neighborhood Business to General
Business, the lack of dumps~ers was apparent ~ons~deri~g th~ amount of trash
lying on the grou~d~ He requested that someone from
the City or Health Department check into this situation.
Concerning the College Board Of Trustees and their action to
proceed with condemnation of Roosevelt Field - personally he thought
it was terrible when they try to steal 47~ of the Parks property in
the downtown districts of Bremerton. The College does have other
options and he had offered some Proposa~ to the College last June,
which were never responded to, either by a phone call, letter, etc.
~F_=_~o%~ reported he also participated in the kiddies parade on
Sunday, he was dressed up as a pirate and had a great time. He
acknowledged the Blackberry Festival was good for Bremerton and
TAPE #764
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 3 of 38
there were lots of visitors from out-of-town. Citizens had asked
him about the public hearing on the College's -request for
condemnation of Roosevelt Field and he hoped that someone on
Council had specific information as to where and when the public
hearing would be held. He attended the Parking Advisory Committee
meeting and was pleased with all the members of the board, but was
still not pleased with the ordinance. He announced if he leaves
the Council chambers at 7:00 PM, it will be to move his vehicle
that is parked in a 2-hour zone and needed to be moved to a
different zone for the remainder of the meeting. Regarding the
Admiral Theater Ballot proposal, he does support this issue and
hoped the citizens would also support this measure with enthusiasm.
He introduced Dr. Dick Lindstrom, who would make an announcement.
Dick Lindstrom, Bremerton Central Lions Club, announced the Lions
club will hold a Seafood Dinner and Auction on Saturday, September
15. Dr. Lindstrom read the menu and noted that entry would be by
ticket only and anyone wishing to attend could obtain a ticket by
contacting any member of their club.
Mr. Johnson announced the State Board Of Community College
Education will hold a public hearing on September 12, at Evergreen
Hospital in Kirkland (Auditorium) 3:45 p.m., Olympic College will
presents its request for condemnation of Roosevelt Field. On
September 13, at the Bellevue Community College, Room B201, the
State Board will take some action on the request to proceed with
condemnation of Roosevelt Field. Mr. Waibel pointed out the public
hearing is scheduled on the same date as Council holds its meetings
and if Council members plan to attend that hearing something would
have to be done about moving or changing Council's meeting
time/date and questioned if action should be taken at this time?
President Horton suggested discussing this matter during a break
for the Public Hearing portion of the Council meeting.
Mr. Collins reported he saw a lot of blackberry tee shirts at the
Blackberry Festival.
Mr. Waibel stated he saw a lot of blackberries at the Blackberry
Festival due to his being a judge for the baked goods and he stated
for the record that none of the judges knew who any of the entrants
were and the fact that Hazel Colvin was First Place Winner in
jellies was totally circumstantial.
Mrs. Horton reported today at the Puget Sound Subregional Council
meeting they had a meeting of the Kitsap Health Department, which
has been renamed Bremerton/Kitsap Health District, and they
announced a Household Hazardous Waste Cleanup - free of charge - to
be held in a four County region, Clallam, Mason, Jefferson and
Kitsap, September 20-21, 1:00 - 6:00 PM; September 22 10:00 AM to
4:00 PM at Kitsap Mall in Silverdale, north parking lot; and
September 25-26, 1:00 - 6:00 PM at the Port Orchard Armory.
Further information can be obtained by calling 895-3931.
TAPE %764
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minute's
September 5, 1990
Page 4 of 35
A~enda Bill No. 90-240 -JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BREMERTON AND THE PORT OF BREMERTON
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) Regional Staff has
recommended that the current EDA grant application become a joint
grant application by- the Port of Bremerton and the City of
Bremerton. This will allow the Port's money, $82,000 to be
utilized as local cash match. The Economic Development
Administration requires that both organizations sign the attached
Joint Powers Agreement in order to be joint grant applicants.
Connie Devane¥, Grants Procurement Officer, stated this is a
required document recommended by the Regional Office of the EDA.
One of the latest glitches in the City's grant application to the
EDA is that {he City cannot utilize as match any money that will
not purchase a project that will be owned by the grant applicant,
in this case the City. That means the $82,000 put up by the Port of
Bremerton to moor the USS Turner Joy cannot be utilized as cash
match because the City will not own that moorage. Another $88,000
of cash match would have to be taken out that the Historic Ships
Association will utilize to build the gift shop, because they will
own the gift shop, not the City. The Regional Office of EPA
recommended that the City leave in the $82,000 of the Port's money
and simply make the grant application~a joint application between
the City of Bremerton and the Port of Bremerton. Apparently cities
and Ports do joint grant application to EPA frequently. EDA
indicated that by joining with the Port it made the grant
application stronger for the following reasons: (1) it increases
cash match from a 494-51% split to a 474-534 split - 534 would be
the local cash match and 474 would be requested funds from EDA; i(2)
it addresses the issue of the Port really managing the lease of the
land on which the project is being built. This agreement does not
commit the City to anything that acceptance of the EDA grant funds
would not have already committed the City to. Mrs. Devaney did
read this agreement over the phone to the Port Man,er and he
indicated he did not have any immediate problems with the
agreement, however, it had to go before the Port attorney and Port
Commissioners for their approval.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Waibel stated the cooperation between the various agencies that
are developing the City's waterfront has been phenomenal to this
point and questioned if the City did not accept the grant that this
agreement would be not in effect? Mrs. Devaney stated yes, almost
all of the items in this proposal relate back to the components of
the project.
~_._~p~nsg~ noted there are no provisions in this agreement for
either modification of the agreement or severance of the agreement
and questioned if some procedure should be in place to cause this
to be modified, lan Sieve~, City Attorney, stated the agreement
TAPE #764
City Council ~eg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 5 of 38
can be modified if both parties agree. And, the Joint Power
Agreement is intended fo~ a limited period of time relatin~ to
acceptance of the grant. Mrs. Devane¥ stated she did not believe
there would be a problem in putting some kind of standard
termination clause in the agreement. Mr. Johnson pointed out the
descriptions of the properties are very general in the agreement
due to their not having been built, but at such point in time when
they are described in detail it should be defined whose
responsibility it is for such things as sewer collection system of
boats moored at the Marina, the City's water system, fixing broken
windows at the Harbor Master's Office, etc. Since these things do
not exist at this time, he did not feel that either the Port or the
City would have any problem defining that later - there is no
procedure other than cancel and start over again. Mrs. Devane¥
stated that is the intention and she did not think anyone would
have a problem to include a standard termination clause in the
agreement, which might say: "This agreement can be terminated under
....... type conditions and amended".
~0764 M/S/C/U(Waibei/Collins) to authorize the Mayor to sign the Joint
Powers Agreement with the Port of Bremerton, including a
severance/amendment clause.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Mayor Louis Mentor thanked everyone who helped on the Blackberry
Festival and reported it was very successful.
~a~or Mentor read a Proclamation recognizing the Kitsap County
Chapter Of Blacks In Government for their contribution to the
spiritual, cultural and educational progress-of the nation, state,
county and City of Bremerton. This Chapter will through the "Youth
In Action" program on September 8, 1990, honor youth for their
accomplishments, service and contributions to the community. Mayor
Mentor did proclaim the month of September as "BLACKS IN GOVERNMENT
MONTH". Edwards Atkins accepted the Proclamation and thanked the
Mayor and City Council for this recognition and he presented an
invitation to them for the September 8 program.
Terry Hartson, Volunteer Project Coordinator for the City, reported
on a project called "Christmas In April" The goal of this project
is to make significant improvements in quality of low income
housing for elderly, handicapped or low income residents. The
project is now a nation-wide project in about 40 communities in the
United states. A problem has arisen, which they did not
anticipate, and they~ooking to the City Council and the public for
a solution. So far, they have not received any applications for
this program and Ms. Hartson encouraged anyone who is eligible to
fill out an application, which can be picked up at the Disabled
American Veterans Post #5/Burwell, Foodline in Bremerton, Kitsap
County Community Action Program, Senior Citizens Recreation Center,
City of Bremerton, as well as twelve churches, which Ms. Hartson
read off. She thanked the City Council for their support of this
TAPE #764
City Council Reg.~ Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 6 of 38--
program.
Mary Lou Lon~, 2433 E. Phinney Bay Drive, expressed concern over
the quality of audio qf recent televised Cit-y Council meetings.
She hoped that someone could look into enhancing the audio part of
the cable transmission.
6A - QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORTS FROM BREMERTON MAIN STREET
ASSOCIATION AND FLAGSHIP, %AB90-229
There is no requirement for Council action. Representatives from
both organizations are here to present quarterly activity updates
and to answer any questions that Council members may have
concerning the_ expenditure of City funds allocated for program
operations.
Don Atkinson, Media Coordinator for Bremerton Main Street
Association, stated they were very excited about the community's
response to the Blackberry Festival and it was estimated that about
5,000 people congregated on 4th Street and parade route. He
reported one of the ethnic food booths-had sold 800 meals in a four
hour period.- Even a larger turn out is anticipated when the
festival moves onto the waterfront boardwalk area next summer.
This past quarter has been an enjoyable one and an exciting time
for Main street. They have increased their newsletter from
quarterly to monthly, . thereby improving the coordination and
communication. They view Main Street as a conduit between the
business community, property owners, retailers, City government and
the community at large. Approximately 200 newsletters are
circulated throughout the community.
Parking - Main Street became active in parking measures,
particularly as they related to the central business district. Two
Main Street members serve on the Parking Advisory Committee and
they have shared concerns with their fellow members and taken into
account their concerns about opportunities that are present
downtown and concerns as to what alternative means might be to
stimulate growth downtown.
USS Turner Joy Project - Main Street has been active in this
project and are excited over the continued movement forward in its
development. They have contributed to the project with manpower
and finances and are looking -forward to it being one of the
cornerstones in the downtown revitalization some time in early
1991.
County Administrative Offices in Bremerton - Main Street supported
this concept, which does not appear to be a possibility, however
they supported that proposal financially and by organizing forums
to study the possibility. There are additional major cities in the
Puget Sound area that are now looking at the inner City for their
TAPE #764
City CoUncil Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 7 of 38
County offices and he still felt it was a good idea for thi~
County.
Bremerton Blossom Program - a success early in the second quarter
in generating 44 new banners for the downtown area. They are
working on ideas on how to capitalize on the #1 City in the nation
recognition with subsequent banners to then slide into redecoration
of the downtown for the holidays with new holiday banners.
Flagship City '90 - Main Streethas joined in development of some
documents, documentation and survey documents to determine what
greater Bremerton area would like to see in downtown in terms of
facilities, programs, etc.
Blackberry Festival - a committee of about 20 members worked on
this event for about six months and their fruits of their labor was
very evident with the large community turn out.
Currently the Association is researching the prospect of
establishing _a Farmer's Market starting next spring or summer in
the downtown area, hopefully on the waterfront. They are working
with Councilman Estes and others on the possibility of the Lady
Washington returning to Bremerton on a brief stay next spring or
summer. They are working with three existing businesses in the
downtown area who had been considering moving to other locations.
Up to this point they have been successful in keeping them in the
business core but they are in the process of lo~ing one
governmental office, State's Corrections Office on Pacific, part
moving to Auto Center Way and the other portion-to Port Orchard.
Main Street's Veterans Affairs Committee - continues to be active
and .they are pursuing the all Veterans Memorial for Bremerton,
assisting with Ivy Green Cemetery clean up and appropriate
memorials to various veterans and veterans groups.
Main Street is continuing to support Amie Burnette, Laura Whitman,
Dennis South and others and their efforts to build a strong arts
community in the central business district. And, the Association
is maintaining its membership level and about to launch a new
membership program in the month of September.
Mr. Waibel stated he was much appreciative of the Blackberry
Festival_and he requested that Main Street keep Council informed on
the formation of a Farmer's Market. He volunteered his assistance
in helping make it happen. ~K~_~.t_k__~g.~ stated the Mayor informed
him a couple weeks ago that he had that idea in the back of his
mind and Mike Schrader was pursuing investigating that idea as
well. They have pooled their information and are all heading in
the same direction and would provide Council with an update as
things develop. He noted there are farmers in Kitsap County who
are presently taking their products into Seattle and who are
TAPE #764
City COuncil Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, !990
Page 8 of 38
looking for alternatives.
Mr. Colvin complimented Main Street for their efforts and he wished
to dispel the idea that Main Street is only concerned about
downtown. Mr. Atkinson stated they try to maintain a reasonable
focus on downtown but they also like to reach out and embrace the
balance of t'he community where it doesn't water down their efforts
too much. What is happening now is the culmination of lots of
efforts that have gone into making infrastructure improvements,
which will benefit all of Bremerton.
~d Sheldon, President of the Board Of Directors of Flagship City
'90, stated he was pleased to be reporting to Council at a time
when Bremerton is enjoying the distinction of being the #1 most
liveable City in the nation. His personal feelings about thi~
recognition is that he believes it is appropriate recognition of
a beautiful piece of the world and a lot of people who have done a
lot of things right. He acknowledged the role played by the
current Council and their predecessors. He believed the single
biggest question "where do we go from-here?", ms a simple answer -
where we are going right now. He commented on the many
organizations who volunteer and contribute back into the community,
the Bremerton Central Lions Club being one of those organizations.
Central Business District Task Force - soon Council will see a
proposed ingress and egress pattern for the City that comes out of
this Task Force. They have been working in cooperation with
Cushman & Wakefield and Bradley Scott, Inc., the two listing agents
for the Bremer Trust properties, on gathering information about the
central business district, market demographics and developed and/or
participated in developing a working relationship between them and
several other entities to keep that project moving. It is very
difficult for anyone to promote the central business district when'-'
its future is not known. A subcommittee of this Task Force is
designing, with professional assistance, a survey and how it will
be distributed on what the community would like in the downtown
core. This survey will be by random sampling and a fair
representation of people and what they would like in the downtown
area.
Housing Task Force - it is his personal conviction that housing is
the single most important issue that will be addressed by this
community in the next l0 years. -If the central business district
could be surrounded with medium- upper middle income housing, the
downtown would take care of itself. He listed the people who sit
on this Task Force: Chaired by Clink Shinkle, immediate past
managing manager of Moss Adams, Merrell Wallace, Elective Director
of Bremerton Housing Authority, Norm McLaughlin, Kitsap County
Housing Authority, Jerry Reid, President and owner of the largest
real estate firm in Kitsap County, Jim Robinson, President of the
Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce and President of James Robinson
TAPE #764--
City Co~ncii Reg. Mtg. Minutes -
September 5, 1990
Page 9 of 38
Construction Co., John Steffans, Chairman of the Bremerton Housing
Authority and also serves on the Washington state Housing Finance
Commission, Ralph Lentz, President Great Northwest Savings and Loan
Assqciation, Jim Pratt, Vice President and Kitsap manager for Puget
sound National Bank, Carol Atkinson. He reported under Carol
Atkinson's direction the City has put together a very workable plan
for upgrading housing. He cautioned to not be impatient as this may
take some time, however, he anticipates some major steps forward in
this area. This particular Task Force also serves as Congressman
Dick's Housing Task Force for Bremerton and there is a meeting
scheduled for September 11 to present information to
representatives of the City Council.
Admiral Theater Foundation - Mr. Sheldon acknowledge this group is
no longer a part of the Flagship organization. The Foundation has
raised their sights from $1,200,000 to $2,500,000 and he was not
confident where 2 1/2 million dollars could be raised in
Bremerton. He did feel it would be possible to raise $2,500,000
from some source. Reasons for this increase included the hiring of
an architect consultant, who is very experienced in renovating
older, large theaters, i.e., 5th Avenue Theater, Pantages Theater,
etc. The consultant has recommended a long list of things and led
the Foundation to conclude that they need to raise more than
$1,200,000. If they only raised $1,200,000, that amount could
restore the theater to where it was during its best days, which was
only a theater and nothing else. It does not have a stage, or
orchestra pit and is short on a number of items. The Foundation is
looking into purchasing property available through the Bremer Trust
right behind the Admiral building so they could possibly expand the
back so that a stage and orchestra pit could be built as well as
maintain the line of sight from the seating area.
Marketing Task Force - this group disbanded itself and replaced it
with a Strike Force to pursue opportunities and ways to capitalize
on Bremerton being named the most liveable community in the nation.
Members of this group include: Jim Robinson, Ray White, Earl Smith,
Ruth Waibel, Don Atkinson, Ken Atteberry, Commissioner Fred
Schoneman, Mayor Louis Mentor, Council President Lynn Horton,
County Commissioner Chairman John Horsley, John Johnstone and Tim
Arnold.
Revenue Study Task Force - Mr. Sheldon noted this was an excellent
group of individuals and they are doing some very good work. They
had hoped to submit their findings to Council by early September,
however, they found there was more work that needed to be done than
originally tasked.
Finally, Mr. Sheldon commented that in all of our eagerness to do
all of these things, he cautioned against being too eager. The
major responsibility now is to do it right - growth will come.
TAPE #764
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 10 of 38_
mr. Colvin stated organizations like Main Street and Flagship have
done a lot for the City and he thanked them for their
contributions, as well as all the other organizations who are
helping the City of Bremerton.
Mr. Johnson questioned if the Visitor and Convention bureau was
part of the Strike Force? Mr. Sheldon stated Mim Heuss was out-of-
town on the day this group met and will be included if they choose
to join in.
6B - EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT - DAVID NELSON, BUILDING CODE OFFICI%L~
#AB90-230
Employment agreements ha~e standard language in the computer with
only a few changes having to be made to each one. In error, Mr.
Nelson's agreement was printed out with a 30 day severance clause
instead-of the 60 days severance pay clause, which was the
understanding that had been reached with Mr. Nelson during the
hiring process. It is requested that this agreement be approved
with a 60 day ~everance pay clause, which will bring it into
conformance with agreements for other Managers, and also with the
terms agreed to with Mr. Nelson. The employment agreement is
submitted to Council for confirmation of the appointment and
approval of the contract.
Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated the Building
Official in the CitY of Bremerton is responsible for three main
areas: (1) assuring that new construction in the City meets the
current Building Codes, which are adopted by the City; (2)
responsible for assuring existing buildings in the City meet the
codes they were constructed under; and that buildings constructed
under previous codes are not a threat to public health, welfare and
safety; (3) to manage a code enforcement process not only for the
Uniform Building Code, including the Fire Code,-but also enforce
and keep track of complaints and enforcement actions on the
Nuisance Code for garbage, etc., also_ do/nE the final enforcement
actions on Zoning Code and some right-of-way enforcement. He noted
the contract had been changed when first approved and now reflects
a two-month severance pay if the Building Official is terminated
without cause. Without cause means if the Mayor or he chooses to
fire the Building Official for no reason, that Building Official
must be paid for two months pay, if however, there is reason and
that cause is stated and given to the Building Official there is no
severance. This gives the Building Official, who is in a very
visible position making some very difficult decisions and signing
abatements, demolitions, etc., an opportunity to feel confident his
pay check cannot be arbitrarily stopped immediately and without
cause.
C__a~9~_e..._~.~l!, Director of Personnel, stated she supports the
change to the agreement.
TAPE #764
City Counci~ Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 11 of 38
Public comment - none.
Mr. Estes questioned if Mr. Nelson planned to work out in the
field? Mr. Pratt stated yes, he will be working out in the field
and it was his observation that the Building Official in Bremerton
spends 50% of his time out in the field and 50~ in the office.
%2387 M/S/C(Overson/Johnson) to approve the Employment Contract as
presented and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement,
subject to Administrative Policy.
Vote: In Favor: Overson, Estes, 'Horning, Horton, Collins,
Colvin, Johnson
Abstain: Dawkins, Waibel
6C - INTERFUND TRANSFERS FROM GENERAL FUND TO BREMERTON POLICE
DEPARTMENT, #AB90-231
Recently the State of Washington earmarked money into local
governments (City & County) to fight local crime. This request
merely transfers thi~ funding allocated for 1990 from the City's
General fund into the Police Department budget for program
expansion.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson questioned if the City had received the money? Rich
Hanna, City Treasurer, stated not at this time. Mr.' Johnson
questioned how could money be reallocated if it had not been
received? Mr. Hanna stated they had been told and are taking it on
good authority that this money is coming and is being budgeted as
new revenue into the General fund and this adjustment would
allocate those resources to be spent on the stated purpose. Mr.
Jonson questioned Chief McNeal when would he be hiring the
personnel approved? Police Chief Del McNeal stated he would be
hiring them as soon as possible, however, he would wait to make
sure the money had been received. Mr. jOhnson questioned how could
the Chief hire the proposed personnel when it had taken so long to
hire Animal Control personnel? Chief McNeal stated they go through
the process of testing and just recently received an Animal Control
Roster and he is in the process of a Police Offic~ list and upon
its completion then he can choose off that list. It was his
understanding that an Office Assistant Senior Roster is already in
place. He noted-testing for the Police Officer Roster will not be
over until the end of the month, which will probably make it more
the middle of October. Mr. Johnson stated the department did not
need the full amount of fund proposed and he preferred to have the
money go in the General Fund as unallocated and used as carry over
to fund a better program next year. If that money is put into the
budget now, it will be spent by the end of the year. If the new
personnel are not going to be brought on until sometime in
October/early November, the tendency will be to spend the entire
TAPE #764
City Council Reg. Mt~. Minutes-
September 5, 1990
Page 12 of 38
amOunt allocated for 1990, whereas if the money was no% allocated
it would carry over to the next year. President Horton questioned
assuming the City does hire someone, can the Police Department be
assured those funds will be available to transfer in the event of
a hire? Mr. Johnson stated that should not be a problem as they
are looking to having 6 months worth of funds in the Budget
Adjustment and there will be only two months left in the year by
the time someone is hired - leaving months worth of money floating
out there. Mr. Colvin requested Mr. Hanna to respond to Mr.
Johnson's last statement. Mr. Hanna stated Mr. Johnson's point is
well taken and he explained all of the positions presently
authorized in the Police Department are fully funded,' as would be
the proposed position. If there is an extended delay in
accomplishing that hiring, all of those funds would not be
expended. The Police Department's budget is segregated among
personnel, supplies and services, etc. He felt it was reasonable
to assume, and he would argue if Council authorized this amount of
money and the position was not filled until October/November, that
money would remain unspent in the Police Department budget and
would be carried over into the following Year. Mr. Johnson stated
he did not thinks'this panned out with all the personnel turnover in
the City and gaping between positions, that money never comes back
at the end of the year and is spent by the department. Mr. Ranna
disagreed with Mr. Johnson - they do fully fund all authorized
positions - city-wide - and that is one of the things they count on
for actually having ending cash at the end of the year and had been
the case for a number of years.
Mr. Collins stated if $30,000 is placed into the fund and at the
end of the year only $15,000 was used, that leaves $15,000 that
could be spent anywhere desired. Mr. Hanna stated the only way it
will go any where is through the reauthorization process as Council
approves the 1991 budget. Mr. Johnson stated the Mayor has
authorization to move money up to 5-10% of a department's budget
involved and in the Police Department that is a lot of money. Mr.
Hanna stated 5-10% not to exceed $3~5,000, the lesser
numbers. In his collective memory he recalled the Mayor, without
Council approval, doing that one or two times in the five years he
had been with the City.
Mr. Waibel pointed out the proposal was prepared when there was six
months left of the year. Based on the fact that there had been a
delay of three months, he questioned if it would be more realistic
to be requesting half the money for three months for each position
and wouldn't Chief McNeal be satisfied with an adjustment for only
three months? Chief McNeal stated that was correct, they put the
proposal together when they learned the money would be coming to
the City. He agreed to the proposal, if Council desired, to take
the total funds down to what is needed for the three month period.
The one thing he would like to see was the Office Assistant Senior
position filled soon. ~~_t_~9~t_o~ stated for clarification
TAPE#764
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 13 of 387
what is being asked is to authorize funds to hire an Office
Assistant Senior and one Police Officer with the relevant funds.
~2871 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to approve the Budget Adjustment request for
the first fund amount to be $6,900 and the second fund amount to be
$9,OOO.
Mr. Overson stated an alternative approach would be to put the
funds into an account to pay for these two positions as necessary
for this year and in future years and keep it separate.
Mr. Waibel stated it was his assumption that those funds were given
to the City by the State for the very special purpose of law
enforcement/law and justice and in fact any funds received this
year and not expended, according to this budget adjustment, would
have to be retained for that purpose for next year. And, he
questioned if a separate fund account was to be maintained in the
General Fund in order to do that? Mr. Hanna stated it was not his
intention to maintain a discrete accounting of these funds - the
criteria needed to satisfy is to be able to demonstrate that they
~'did increase the City's expenditures in the law and justice area.
Mr. Hornin~ stated he was supportive of the motion as made and
questioned if the City Treasurer anticipated any other law and
justice money coming in for 19907 Mr. Hanna stated as he discussed
in the Study Session, this was One portion of the law and justice
money - there were some one-time funds that were discussed and
Council wished to hear further discussion before making a
decision. Chief McNeal stated there are two different allocations:
(1) allocation that should go on for three years and that could be
somewhat adjusted by the crime rate. If the City falls into the
top crime categories that the State has, that could change upward
what the City would receive. Mr. Hornin~ questioned for
clarification the funds discussed at this time are they related to
those on going funds for three years? Chief McNeal stated yes and
this is just the 1990 portion, 1991 funding will be available to
carry this on for a 3-year period. The other portion will come as
a one-time money allotment and it is their intent to do something
one-time that will benefit the criminal justice area of the City of
Bremerton. ~__~Hp_r._Ri~ pointed out there are other law and justice
needs, such as CenCom emergency management, etc., which are
definitely an issue~ He did support this proposal but he cautioned
not to forget those other issues.
~__.gv__e.~ questioned if something in the motion identifies the
funds carry over into the future for use in this application? Mr.
Waibel stated his motion is to approve a budget adjustment for an
amount for the remainder of the year.
Vote was unanimous.
TAPE %765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 14 of 38
!APE #765_
6D - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REOUEST - MUNICIPAL SERVICES COORDINATOR
~OSITION, ~AB90-239
Early in 1990, both the Administration and City Council felt that
the City's strategies and programs for annexation needed review.
An annexation 1989 report was prepared and distributed to City
Council in March. Subsequently, the Annexation Committee and Mayor
reviewed the annexation process and decided that a full time
position reporting directly to the Mayor with additional special
Mayor project assignment responsibilities would best serve the
interests of the City. This adds a full time position to the
Executive Department budget, which will staff the City's annexation
effort and will provide the Mayor with assistance on special
projects requiring communications liaison between City service
providers (departments) and impacted portions of the community.
~ayor ~ouis Mentor stated in the next 10 years there will be growth
in Bremerton that hasn't been seen since WWII and there has not
been anyone to look at how Municipal services are going to be
impacted. He believes the proposal is a step forward to address
growth strategy, urban renewal and growth management. This
position is being placed under the Executive branch in order to
make sure this person works strictly on this and-not get mixed in
with other duties.
Public comment - none.
Councilman Colvin left the Council Chambers at 7:05 PM.
Hr. Johns~R stated he supports the position and a service that has
been needed in the City for a long time. Twice before this had
been tried and failed because people who had been given the
responsibility had been diverted to other duties. He stated as
long as this person is working on annexation and growth management
issues and those things are getting done, he will continue to
support funding to maintain that position. If those issues are not
being taken care of and this person is still on board, he will
bring up removal of funding for the position.
#0058 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins) the City Council approves a budget
adjustment to transfer $12,750 to the Executive Department budget,
01-12-513.10 to fund a full time Municipal Services Coordinator
position effective September, 1990, and approve transfer of funds
of $10,000 from 558.70 - General Miscellaneous - Annexation, and
$2,750 from 556.60 - Planning Department.
Councilman Colvin rejoined the Council meeting at 7:15 PM.
~__A. L3~S FOR R~_AT OFFENDERS OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE AND TO DELET~
TAPE #765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, ~990
Page 15 of 38
For most violators, the civil infraction f~r a nuisance noise has
been effective and presented no enforcement problems. However,
when officers respond to complaints involving loud parties where
hosts refuse -to turn down the volume despite issuance of a
citation, officers need the authority conferred by criminal
sanctions to arrest on the spot if necessary. This amending
ordinance creates a misdemeanor for a second offense for nuisance
noise violations within a 24 hour period, punishable by up to 90
days in jail and up to $1,000.00 fine.
The Ordinance also deletes outdated reference to various functions
of the environmental noise administrator. Variances are. now
decided by the Planning Commission. Appeal procedures detailed in
this ordinance are now adequately covered by the Hearing Examiner
Ordinance.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Waibel stated the proposed ordinance was intended to add a
second violation as a misdemeanor, however, he believes there is a
conflict on page 2 of the ordinance, Section 3(a) and suggested
correcting it to read: "Unless otherwise provided herein, every
offense defined by this chapter or conduct ..... ". Kan Sievers,
City Attorney, suggested making the second sentence of Section
3(a) as a second part of the first sentence to read as: ";
provided, however, a second violation within ..... ".
Mr. Johnson questioned who was the Administrator as referenced in
the ordinance? Mr. Sievers stated it was the Mayor or his
designee. ~r. Johnson stated assuming he was a citizen and had a
noise complaint, who would he call? Mr. Sievers stated that
depends on what kind of noise complaint. There are two major
portions of the Noise Ordinance: (1) environmental noise, which has
to do with industrial noise or continuous environmental noise from
industries or other sources and these would be enforced by the
Building Official; (2) nuisance noise, which are sporadic
violations, such as parties, et., are enforced by the Police
Department and they use their common sense and sensitivities and do
not need to take decimal readings. Mr. Johnson questioned which
jurisdiction within the City would enforce water craft noises being
generated on Kitsap Lake? Mr. Sievers stated boat noises are
covered by a special, section under the environmental noise,
therefore that would be decimal reading. Mr. Johnson pointed out
that the Building Official does not usually work Saturdays,
Sundays or holidays and that there needs to be a way to get a
decimal reading taken at the time the problem is occurring. He did
not feel Police Officers should feel it was beneath them to take
those kinds of readings when it happens on a weekend or holiday.
And, he questioned if this was covered in the ordinance? ~r.
~.~_ stated yes, a Police Officer can enforce any ordinance,
however, he was not sure if they were up on training on operation
TAPE #765
City Council 'Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 16 of ~
of the decimal reading ~quipment. Since this type of noise is-one
of %he exceptions, they would have to comply with the Department Of
Ecology (DOE) requirements on environment, the same as highway
noise, mufflers on trucks, etc. Mr. Johnson questioned if
something should be added to the ordinance that states Police
Officers shall be trained for back up on environmental noise
enforcement on holidays and weekends? Mr. Sievers stated he was
not sure it would be needed as the Mayor can designate them to have
that authority. M__r. Johnson related how a citizen would call 911
with their concern, the dispatcher will contact the Police Officer
and the Officer then says that the Building Official enforces that
type of situation, we'll send someone out on Monday. Mr. Waibel
suggested by making a separate motion Council could direct the
administration to make sure that decimal reading training is
provided the Police Officers.
Mr. Estes questioned if this ordinance includes noise from
taverns/night club type establishments? Mr. Sievers stated yes.
President Horton noted sometimes noise is channeled in different
directions and if someone goes in front of an establishment that
has received a complaint for noise it may not be emanating out in
that direction, but is from a back and or side exposure to adjacent
buildings. She questioned how a complaint would be dealt with in
this kind of situation? Mr. $ieYers stated the Police Officer
makes his judgement from the source of the complaint or where he
thinks the resident or person would complain from.
Mr. Dawkins pointed out noise from a business would be an
opportunity for the Building Official to enforce conditions that
would eliminate a nuisance noise, such as having air conditioning
installed along with storm windows to keep the noise from coming
through open windows, etc. Some businesses have a double door
entry which helps screen the noise before it hits the outside.
And, he questioned what is the City's liability if someone cannot
rent an apartment building due to loud noise from an adjacent
business? Mr. $ievers state no, not on that type of enforcement
unless the City makes a commitment to a resident that the City will
take certain actions. The City's duty to enforce those kinds of
public health and safety ordinances is similar to traffic
enforcement, it is not possible to catch every violator and the
City would not be held liable. However, if the City makes promises
and does not follow through, then the City could incur some
liability. On the point of the Building Official getting involved,
the Building Code does not have that kind of detailed sound
requirements for construction and those kind of construction
standards are not enforced through the business licensing. For the
Officer, he can say he does not care what the problem is - there is
a problem - you, the business owner solve it. The Police Officer
can act quickly and he is not required to take decimal readings and
if the noise becomes a concern a second time within 24 hours, it
would then become a misdemeanor for the operator.
TAPE %765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 17 of 38.
Mr. Collins noted what is being said is t~at the Police Offic~
would Use common sense. Mr. Sievers yes, and he believes they have
been and the first action would be to give out an infraction and if
it was not corrected within 24 hours then it would become a
misdemeanor. Mr. Collins stated some time back they discussed
another jurisdiction that had passed an ordinance which states if
a noise is audible within 75 feet - he questioned why couldn't the
City do something like that? He suggested making it easier to
prove for the Officer so that all he needed to say was "I heard".
Mr. Sievers stated this would be possible, and the ordinance Mr.
Collins referred to is in the City of Seattle, relating to the
"boombox noise.". He pointed out this type of legislation would
take some of the flexibility away, such as noise in the downtown
area might be tolerated, however, that same type of noise would not
be tolerated in a residential area.
Mr. Estes questioned if a separate ordinance would be needed to
address compression brakes, jake brakes, being used in the City or
could %he Mayor just post signs where there seems to be a problem?
Mr. Sievers stated if the brake is strictly related to noise then
it would be covered by the DOE decimal levels for road use. Mr.
Este~ stated many towns and cities have a ruling "no jake brakes in
town" and questioned_ under this ordinance can the Mayor have signs
put up addressing this restriction? Mr. Sievers stated if they
generate a higher level of noise consistently that is not
acceptable then they can be outlawed; and a separate ordinance
could be developed to include that restriction.
~0526 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins) to approve Ordinance, on first reading,
creating a misdemeanor for second offense under BMC 6.32.110,
within a twenty-four hour period; and amending Chapter 6.32 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code, with a correction to Section 6.32.10 (a)
to state that ". .... Bremerton Municipal Code; provided that a
second violation with ...... ".
#0551 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) that the Mayor be directed to direct, the
Chief of Police to train on a on going basis sufficient numbers of
Police Officers to provide for environmental noise measurement
during holidays, weekends and times off for the Building Official
and that the Police Chief report back to Council not later than 15
November, 1990, that this training has been completed.
~__g~l!in_s_ stated what will happen is that he will train these
people and when they leave the City there will be no replacement
and suggested adding something to provide on going training.
Vote: Unanimous
__MUNICIPAL CODE (DANGEROUS ANIMALS), %AB90-233
Concern has been expressed regarding Animal Control's inability to
TAPE %765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990 -'
Page 18 of 38
properly regulate dangerous dogs until .they have bitten an
individual allowing animal control to classify the dog as
"potentially dangerous" and then bitten someone again, allowing
Animal Control to classify the dog as "dangerous" and thereby'
impose needed protection controls (muzzle, secure enclosure,
insurance requirements). By doing away with the "potentially
dangerous" classification, the dog can be classified as "dangerous"
on a first attack. Additional provisions of the proposed ordinance
include:
a) escalating fine structure for repeat violations;
b) rabies vaccination requirement;
c) maximum number of housekold pets set at 4; and
d) provision added to protect pets from cruel treatment.
James McNamara, Assistant City Attorney, publicly acknowledged
assistance from Melissa Anderson, Animal Control Officer,and Shanno~
Hall, -a dog behavior specialist, in developing the proposed
ordinance. The reason for the ordinance modification is that under
the current Bremerton Dangerous Dog Ordinance there is a typical
situation where a dog would bite someone, the Animal Control
Officer can make the determination that the dog is potentially
dangerous, then there must be a second bite inflected by that same
dog before it can be classified as a "dangerous animal".- The idea
behind eliminating "potentially dangerous" classification is to
avoid giving a dog an opportunity to.make a second bite. A dog can
be put into a "dangerous dog" classification on the first bite, but
generally that requires a bite causing severe injury and the City's
statute defines "serious injury" as a dog bite that breaks bone or
causes a wound requiring sutures. Typically dog wounds are not
sutured because of an infection problem and in fact there was a
case reported not long ago where it was a severe injury and the
City's current ordinance required that it must be prosecuted as a
felony and the City had to turn the case over to the County. The
County was not too excited over prosecuting dog bites in Superior
Court and they returned the case to the City and no charges were
brought. The proposed ordinance will allow the City discretion, in
a dog bite case, to prosecute it as a misdemeanor, even if it is a
serious injury. The major changes that are proposed are: (1) to do
away with "potentially dangerous" designation and if a dog bites,
chases or attacks immediately it will become classified as a
"dangerous dog". If in the discretion of the Animal Control
Officer, after the investigation is complete, determines it to be
a dangerous dog at that point there are insurance requirements,
requirement that the owner provide an enclosure or keep the animal
indoors so it won't get out, a lead and muzz el requirement and a
tattoo requirement. Also, there is an additional $100.00 yearly
fee for registering dangerous dogs. There is a requirement for the
owner of the dangerous dog, after it has been declared dangerous,
to notify the City's Animal Control Department if there is a change
in ownership of the dog or change in address of the dog. (2) Do
away with the requirement for "severe injury" before a dog can be
TAPE #765
City Council Reg._Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page-19 of 38
declared dangerous because that is too high a standard; (3) there
is an escalating rate structure for repeat violations, currently
there is a $35.00 fine if a dog bites someone, second offense is
again $35.00; (4) a proposal to require that dogs and cats be
vaccinated - currently that is not required; (5) modifications in
the ~time limit in which owners of dangerous dogs have to comply
with the requirements - shortening to a more reasonable level; (6)
tattooing for dangerous dogs - dogs may not be properly licensed
from year to year but the tatoo would be a permanent identification
mark to make such an identification in the event of another
incident; (7) to put the maximum number of household pets at 4, a
combination of dogs, cats or other small household pets. Pets like
mice, gerbils, etc., have an unlimited number, but it was felt
there was a need to limit the number of dogs or cats. If they
currently have 6 dogs or cats, they do not have to get rid of them,
-however, if they die they cannot be replaced until the number is
reduced to 4; (8) there is an added requirement for regulation that
animals _cannot be kept in vehicles so as to endanger their life -
that if Animal Control observes-animals in public view not within
a residence but in a yard or vehicle being subject to cruel
treatment, Animal Control has the authority to seize that animal;
(9) it would be a misdemeanor to hit and run a domestic animal and
add a requirement that they make an attempt to notify the owner or
if that is not possible, to notify the Police that they have hit an
animal.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated he was speaking as a member of
the public, not staff on this issue. Under Section 7.06.300 there
is a new requirement wherein proof of vaccination for rabies would
be a prerequisite to obtain a City animal license. Presently his
office is charged with the responsibility for licensing animals
within the City and he believes they have an efficient system that
is working fairly well. Most of the animal licenses are renewed by
mail and he was fearful that this new requirement may make that
process more cumbersome and_ inconvenience many-owners who are
currently licensing their animals. He is also fearful this new
requirement may work contrary to the intended purpose and result in
a decrease in the amount of compliance the City now has in terms of
those now licensing their animals with the City. In order to
elevate the City from added liability in licensing mistakes, he did
not want to place himself or his staff in a position where they
could be held responsible for issuing a license where there was no
proper proof of rabies vaccination. If Council decides not to
remove that requirement for licensing, he suggested a compromise
position wherein the City would require the rabies vaccination
proof only for new licenses rather than renewals.
Mr. Overson questioned if the City was under some requirement to
insure that anyone who owns an animal had given it a rabies shot
and if not, why would the City want to add that requirement? M__r_~
McNamara stated no, as he understands it, there is a significant
TAPE #765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 20 6f 38
and growing problem with rabies and at the present there is no way
of controlling or insuring that animals are vaccinated against
rabies. Mr. Overson questioned if the Animal Control Officers
check for this as they carry out their duties? Melissa Anderson,
Animal Control Officer, stated not unless an animal bites someone
and when they investigate that incident they do ask about rabies.
At that time the dog must be quarantined and the victim has a 10-
day period to wait to find out whether the dog has shown any signs
of rabid behavior. It is not part of their normal activity to
check on rabies vaccinations, they do check to see if the animal is
licensed. ThY would like to verify rabies vacation for those new
animals being licensed and when the renewals become due next year
they would like to enclose a packet that is sent out with the
renewal form that asks whether their pet has had rabies
vaccination, this could be done by sending in a photocopy of that
vaccination record. Mr. Overson expressed concern that this
ordinance still needed some work and he was not sure it was
practical, at least from the standpoint of putting it into effect
now.
President Horton questioned if anyone had researched into the
number of incidents of rabies in either Bremerton or Kitsap County?
~S- Anderson stated there is no epidemic at this point, b~t there
are numerous rat problems in Bremerton, rats carry rabies.
~resident Horton stated it would be difficult to make a decision on
this proposal unless there is statistical evidence that there is a
problem of rabies in Bremerton and Kitsap County.
Mr. Waibel questioned if the City's current ordinances require that
animals be vaccinated for rabies? Ms. Anderson stated no - not at
this point. Mr. Waibel suggested including that requirement in the
body of the ordinance and not use the licensing process to enforce
it, but would be enforceable when out in the field.
Mr. Estes requested explanation as to how long a 9accination for
rabies is good for? Ms. Anderson stated it depends on the age of
the animal, i.e. adult dog about three years, vaccinations of
lesser quality are given to animals over one year of age or younger
and would require revaccination yearly. ~r.~_~.~. questioned if
this was only enforceable on the "honor system" or was there some
way to actually enforce it? ~ Anderson stated it is being
proposed under licensing requirements. Mr. McNamara stated the
reason they put it in the licensing provision is that if there is
a vaccination requirement, there is no way of insuring that there
is compliance with that except when the dog has bitten someone. If
proof is required upon licensing, at that point it is known whether
or not they are in compliance with the law. If proof of
vaccination cannot be made, then they would not be entitled to a
license. President Horton stated under current Washington State
law a driver must have insurance to drive a motor vehicle. At the
time of license renewal, one does not have to go up with proof of
TAPE #765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 21 of 38
.insurance in hand - it is only required if one is stopped or
involved in an accident. Mr. McNamara used the analogy of other
counties, not Kitsap, when renewing drivers license it is required
to show proof that certain emissions standards have been met and
using the copy of the rabies vaccination would work the same way.
Mr. Waibel stated that is a federal requirement that had been
applied to those cities.
Mr. Collins stated the whole purpose of proof of rabies vaccination
when an animal is licensed is to know that there is some kind of a
program that will hopefully keep down rabies and reduce the trauma
time for a_person bitten - knowing that the dog was vaccinated. He
reported he was aware of four incidents of bat bites in Kitsap
County and there were significant numbers of people, dogs, cats
that were attacked by bats and there was an outbreak of rabies. He
referenced the section where it states that every dog or cat will
be required to wear a collar with a current license and dogs and
cats without a current license tag may be impounded - he suggested
changing that to say "will be impounded". He noted there is
no~ing that says animals have to be licensed yearly and he felt
that Mr. Hanna's department could become knowledgeable to handle
processing the required form that verifies vaccination treatment.
~.r. Overson questioned if the proposed ordinance says that an
individual has to have their animal vaccinated for rabies? Mr.
McNamara stated no, however, in order to obtain a license it would
be necessary to submit proof of vaccination.
~r. Johnson stated he did not feel everyone with animals in the
City registered them. and he suggested when a new license
application is filled out they would at that time certify that
their pet did have its rabies vaccination and there would be some
stipulation on that application that they would be prosecuted if
false information was given, leaving the responsibility on the pet
owner. Mr. Waibel noted the verbiage Mr. Johnson just identified
could be included in the application itself, it could be signed
when they submit the application. Mr. Collins stated he supported
that idea. Mr. Waibel did support the idea that all dogs and cats
in the City will have a current rabies vaccination, strengthening
that part and use the application procedure as the way to monitor
it.
Mr. Collins noted under Declaration And Notice, he questioned the
usage of "his" referencing the Animal Control Officer, and
suggested that term be changed to wording more appropriate
throughout the ordinance. And referencing Section 7.07.525 (c),
fourth sentence - he suggested substituting the word "appropriate"
for the word "proper". Mr. McNamara stated "proper" is the current
language. ~F- .~%~RS stated if it means 10 days then say "10
days" Under Section 7.07.700, first sentence, he suggested making
TAPE #765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, I990
Page 22 of 38
it 3-4 days rather than 7 days. Mr. McNamara stated this issue was
brought up~and during discussions with the Animal Control Officer
he resisted going down to 3 days because he felt the pet owner
needed a reasonable time in order to provide the notice. Mr.
Collins suggested making it 4. Under Section 7.07.860 Muzzle
Requirement, first sentence, he suggested adding "...under the
control of a physically able person" Mr. Collins felt this
document provides for needed requirements that have been lacking
for a long time.
M_r. Colvin stated he supports having an animal vaccinated for
rabies before they bite someone.
Mr. Overson stated under Section 7.08.600 Cruelty To Animal .....
requiring people to stop and render assistance, this puts the City
in a liable situation, and in some circumstances it may put them in
a dangerous situation. He suggested using wording that would
encourage them to call the Animal Control Officers. Mr. McNamara
questioned if Mr. Overson was suggesting striking only the first
clause- Section (1)? Mr. Overson agreed it was necessary for them
to contact the authorities and making it a misdemeanor would
encourage them to do that. He felt this item may need some
additional review before including it in the ordinance.
Mr. Waibel stated in his opinion cruelty to animals relates more to
confining them in vehicles or retaining an animal in a small c~ge
for 6-7 years, but he would like to see cruelty to animals
addressed through penalties rather than what the penalty is for
hitting or killing an animal by accident...he felt it was more~ of
an accident than cruelty. He suggested modifying that to actually
address what the penalty is for cruelty to animals. ~. McNamara
stated the entire text of the section was not included in ~the
document in Council's packet and cruelty of animals constitutes a
misdemeanor.
Mr. Dawkins questioned how will the Animal Waste Disposal section
be enforced. Mr. McNamara stated it is the current law and the
only change made in that section is intended to prevent
accumulation of animal waste on someone's own property. As to how
it is enforced, it would be up to the Police and/or Animal Control.
M_r~. Johnson stated in reference to the number of pets allowed, he
felt four was too low and due to his rural neighborhood it would
not be unusual for someone to have a horse, goat, dog, two cats,
rabbit, etc. President Morton stated she would like to tie the
number of animals to the zoning requirements for the zoning. The
larger numbers of animals would require a greater amount of lots
size and setbacks from neighbors. Mr. McNamara stated more are
allowed if they have in excess of an acre of land under the current
ordinance. Mr. Johnson questioned how many chickens would be
allowed? ~_~.~ stated one livestock animal and six fowl may
TAPE #765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 23 Of 38
be kept per one acre of land.
President Horton under Impound and Redemption,it talks about if
the animal is licensed...she questioned what happens if the animal
is not licensed is the owner required to obtain a license in order
to redeem the animal? Ms. Anderson stated yes, the animal will not
be released without a license tag. At this point if it needs a
rabies shot, the owner would be given 72 hours to obtain the rabies
vaccination and return to license the animal. Once the dog is
impounded, at this particular time, it is not returned until a
license has been procured. If the new ordinance is approved, then
the requirements will include the proof of vaccination. President
Horton questioned if an animal was released from impound and the
owners did not obtain the vaccination for that animal within 72
hours and never returned to obtain a license...what would happen?
Ms. Anderson stated they would check back with the owners within 3
days and if they did not obtain the required vaccination they would
be cited for that violation.
~1892 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to continue this item for three weeks,
allowing time for th~ items discussed to be incorporated into the
document and sugges~the redraft be brought before Council prior to
its being back on the Agenda.
~.L_.~_~ noted he sees a fund raising opportunity for some
organization selling "pooper scoopers", and he questioned how
efficient was Mr. Hanna's licensing system as he personally had not
received the renewal license notice for his pet. Mr. Hanna stated
he believes his department process for licensing is efficient and
the original applications were mailed out approximately two months
and the follow up notices mailed one month ago and very few of
those were returned by the Postal Service~
7C - ORDINANCE____~4286 (~_~_ERGENCY READING) RELATING TO THE
AUTHORIZATION OF GO BONDS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, #AB90-234
In order to place an excess property tax levy before the voters on
November 6, 1990, requesting authority to issue bonds for Fire
Department capital needs, the attached Ordinance must be approved
and passed by the Council and submitted to the County Auditor for
inclusion on the ballot.
~_h_.~an~_~_, City Treasurer, stated he would address his remarks to
both items (7C) and (7D) as these ordinances are very similar in
nature. In both cases, these ordinances, if passed, authorize
these two issues placed before the voters. That is the extent of
the authority being granted by council under these ordinances. If
the voters approve either or both of these ballot measures on
November 6, what they have done is to set the upper limit on the
authority they have granted the City Council and through the
Council City staff to incur indebtedness. He stressed the fact
that by Council's approval of these two ordinances, they are not
TAPE #765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes __
September 5, ~990
Page 24 of 39
approving everything that is being proposed either in the public
works complex or the Fire Department's capital request. Ahd, he
pointed out they are requesting an Emergency passage for both
ordinances that will require a unanimous vote of the Council in
order to comply with the Charter provisions. The reason they are
making this request is in order to comply with the filing deadline
with the County Auditor, which is September 21.
Fire Chief Chet Meigs introduced Deputy Fire Chief Mick McKinley,
the lead personon Item 7D. Mick Mckinley stated a $1,500,000 Bond
is being proposed with a 20-year amortization at 7.25~ interest,
with an annual payment of $145,000 of assessed valuation of
$850,000.00. This breaks down to $.17 per $1,000 per year, for
example, $50,000 home - $8.50 per year, $100,000 home - $17.00 per
year. The levy rate may decrease due to growth if the City annexes
and they assume the indebtedness of the City. Itemization of
proposed Bond issue expenditures include: 3 fire trucks,
refurbishment of the existing ladde~ truck, modification at Station
~1 to allow the current and existing fire trucks to more adequately
fit into the building, updating MSA (self-contained breathing
apparatus) to Federal regulations and recognized national
standards, OPTI-COM emitters at 5 intersection, sensing devices at
intersections for emergency vehicles, Drill tower at Public Works
Complex, various items required for equipping new trucks,
including: hose, bunker Gear, ladders, equipment, positive pressure
fans, fittings, a rescue boat Referencing the fire boat ~r
McKinley stated he and Chief Meigs had solicited funds from the
Port of Bremerton to assist in funding purchase of this boat,
however, at this time the Port had not responded. ~
Public comment - none.
Mr. Dawkins stated the Council Operation's Committee had reviewed
this proposal and noted it is for a considerable amount, however,
he felt it was needed, but would be difficult to fund through the
General Fund. Regarding the drill tower, it has been an eye sore
at Evergreen Park and a new one needs to be constructed and built
to specifications dictated for fire practice.
M~__Col~n__s_ stated he only had one problem and that was concerning
the drill tower proposal. It was his understanding that when the
new fire station was built on Olympus Avenue that there was a drill
tower incorporated into that structure and he questioned if that
was correct? ~_~_M~K~e_~ stated yes, in its original design it
was basically an add on to that building. The tower as designed and
built is nothing more than a set of stairs going up for ladder
drill practice. The proposed tower would have a maze with movable
doors inside for firemen to train on, using synthetic smoke. When
the facility in the Olympus station was built it was speculated
that the land behind that station would be usable for layout of
hose lines, however, there is a warehouse for the Water Utility on
TAPE ~765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5,--1990
Page 25 of-38
that site. Mr.'Collins questioned how much would it cost to make
the tower at the fire station on Olympus usable? Mr. McKinley
stated he was not prepared to give an accurate estimation, however,
he could outline items that would be required. Mr. Waibel pointed
out Council is not approving the purchase or construction of a
training tower at this time and it may be determined that the
existing tower at Evergreen Park could be more cheaply moved and
refurbished .to this area for maybe $100,000. What is being
accomplished at this time, is to give the voters the opportunity to
determined whether or they will be taxed at an additional rate for
fire equipment, limited to the things that are listed in the
supporting document. 'Now was not the time to debate over a
particular item. ~r. Collins stated he heeded what Mr. Waibel was
saying, however, he did have concerns over some of the proposed
expenditures.
Councilman Overson left the Council Chambers at 8:37 PM.
Mr. Estes expressed how important it will be to communicate clearly
to the public the purpose of these ballot measures.
#2719 M/S/C/U(Eorning/Collins) to pass Ordinance ~4286, on emergency
reading) providing for the submission to the voters of the City at
a special election to be held therein on November 6, 1990, in
conjunction with the State General Election to be held on the same
date, for a proposition authorizing the City to incur indebtedness
by issuing its general obligation bonds in a par amount not~ to
exceed $1,500,000, payable by annual property tax levies to be m~de
in excess of regular property tax levies, for the purpose of paying
all or a part of the cost of acquiring three fire engines, a
fire/rescue boat and fire fighting equipment, constructing a fire-
training facility and for other capital purposes and to levy those
excess property taxes.
7D - ORDINANCE ~4287 (EMERGENCY READING) ~_T~_ TO TH~
AUTHORIZATION OF GO BONDS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS COMPLEX, %AB90-235
In order to place an excess property tax levy before the voters on
November 6, 1990, requesting authority to issue bonds for the
Public Works Complex, the attached ordinance must be approved and
passed by the City Council and submitted to the County Auditor for
inclusion on the ballot.
Mayor Louis Mentor stated the City. does need a new public works
complex and Council has already expressed that opinion when
property for such a facility was PUrchased a few months ago. At
this time the citizens need to be given the opportunity to pass a
bond issue and he believes the citizens are feeling good about
their city. A number of public works departments are scattered
around in various areas of the City and need to be brought
together.
TAPE #765
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 2~of 38
Rich Hanna, City'Treasurer, 'stated they have taken the architect's
estimate and allowed for contingencies and established the dollar
amouht on a worst case scenario. Staff is confident and hopeful
that the project can be brought to conclusion for significantly
less than the amount of estimated money, but it is appropriate to
ask for sufficient bonding authority to build the project if all of
the contingencies would come to pass. It is hoped that the actual
cost of the complex would come in at 1 1/2 million dollars. The
requested $2,150,000 is the upper limit of the authority being
requested from the voters.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Este~ questioned for clarification - which properties would be
eliminated if the proposal is approved. Mayor Mentor briefly
reviewed the locations currently being used by the public works
departments and noted some of those buildings need to done away
with due to their run down conditionl He explained there _may be
some property that would come available to sell and those funds
would then be used to reduce the bonds. Also, vacation of the
Capital Hill Fire Station - could evolve as surplus property and
sold or used to extend Forest Ridge Park.
Mr. Johnson questioned what would be included under the category
"For Other Capital Purposes"? Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated
that language was inserted at the request of Bond Counsel and~is
essentially a catch all if there is something not specifically
contemplated. Mr. Johnson stated it sounds like if there is ~ny
money let over it could be used for any thing capital in the C~ty
budget. Mr. Hanna stated no, that was not correct~ the intent was
not to place too restrictive language in the ballot measure.
Mr. Johnson questioned for clarification when the citizens vote on
this measure all of the money authorized would go into the public
works complex? ~r. Hanna stated yes.
~_Daw~i_n_~ questioned if there was any way senior citizen rates
could be reduced? Mr. Hanna stated there is provision for low
income senior citizens whereby they are exempt from excess property
tax levies. This provision is a State statute. Mr. Colvin stated
he would like to receive a copy of that State statute.
#3008 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Colvin) to pass Ordinance #4287, oh emergency
reading, providing for the submission to the voters of the City at
a special election to be held therein on November 6, 1990, in
conjunction with the State General Election to be held on the same
date,- of a proposition authorizing the City to incur indebtedness
by issuing its general obligation bonds in a par amount not to
exceed $2,150,000, payable by annual property tax levies to be made
in excess of regular property tax levies, for the purpose of paying
all or a part of the cost of acquiring land and constructing and
equipping a public works complex to house City departments,
TAPE 9765
City Council Keg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5,_ 1990
Page 27 of 38
including Street Vehicle, electronics and facilities maintenance,
and for other capital purposes and to levy those excess property
taxes.
TAPE #766
7E - ORDINANCE 94284 (SECOND READING) FALSE ALARMS RELATING TO
REGULATION OF PRIVATELY OWNED BURGLARY AND/OR ROBBERY ALARMS,
DESCRIBING OFFENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND PRESCRIBING FEES
AND PENALTIES, 9AB90-227
Public comment - none.
90067 M/S/C/U(Waibel/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance #4284, on Second reading,
relating to the regulation of privately owned burglary and/or
robbery alarms, describing offenses in connection therewith, and
prescribing fees and penalties, and repealing Ordinance No. 3159,
Ordinance No. 3177, and Ordinance No. 3899, pertaining to the
regulation of privately owned burglar alarms.
7F - ORDINANCE 94285 (SECOND READING) AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
THE BREMERTON ZONING ORDINANCE AND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP THAT
PERTAINS TO OFF'STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, 9AB90-218
Public comment - none
90095 M/S/C(Waibel/Dawkins) to pass Ordinance #42~5, on second reading,
amending certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, and the Official Zoning Map, as they pertain
to off-street parking.
Vote: In Favor: Estes, Horning, Waibel, Collins,
Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson
Opposed: Horton
Councilman Overson returned to the meeting at 9:02 PM.
8A - PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF BREMERTON CAPITA~__IMPROVEM~? PROGRAM
(C.I.P.), RESOLUTION 92316, #AB90-23~
The C.I.P. is a prioritized listing of the City's existing and
proposed Capital Improvement Projects, showing estimated costs and
possible funding sources, for use by the staff in efficiently
expending capital funds. This represents the combined efforts of
the public, staff, administration and Council.
Dave Baker, City Engineer, stated the Six Year Improvement Plan,
Comprehensive Plan for the sewer and water, and Comprehensive Plan
for Parks and Recreation had been approved, so what is being
discussed as new are just those projects that are General funded.
The projects include parks, waterfront parks, safety and general
government. The rest of the document has already been approved and
had been prioritized as per Council's directions at the last
meeting.
Public comment - none.
TAPE %766
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 28 -of 38
Mr. Johnson stated-he did not'remember moving the addition to Gold
Mountain Golf Course ahead of the athletic sports complex.
President Horton stated yes, it had been moved because of the
funding aspect. Mr. Johnson expressed concern over the immediate
need for more ball fields. Mr. Waibel stated the intent was that
the expansion of Gold Mountain Golf Course would not delay the
athletic sports complex. President Horton stated part of the
reason for making Gold Mountain (second 9/18 hole) was that was the
one project that would recoup money more rapidly than anything
else, which in turn would help some of the other projects within
the Parks Department. M__r. Baker pointed out that both of these
projects are considered revenue generating so they are not
competing with either the General Fund projects or amongst
themselves. Mr. Johnson questioned if support for the sports's
complex was slacking off? ~r.-Baker--. stated no.
Mr. Johnson questioned the Ferry Terminal Park project - he said it
at the time discussion was held on money from the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and he still feels the same...their donation
of $10,000 was a joke as far as building a park. So far there had
only been a small patch of grass, several small trees and shrubs
planted. He stressed it is the State of Washington that says
"there will be open space and landscaping in development of urban
areas. He felt this would set a'precedent for developers in the
downtown area. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development,
stated the $10,000 is in addition to what has already happened.
The money has been set aside and he believes they can dol an
adequate square footage of park area for $10,000 and ts.~in~he
designing stage. Mr. Johnson questioned what would the park lOok
like? Mr. Pratt stated there are two pieces of land, a thin strip
on the southern edge of First Street and a landscape island within
the holding area that helps channel the traffic through the holding
area. The design that they are contracted to do has only one
stipulation from DOT to provide space for two picnic tables_, the
rest of the design is up to the City. DOE is meeting their
Shoreline Permit requirements. Mr. Johnson stated they may be
meeting their Shoreline Permit, however, they are not meeting any
of the requirements for screening and landscaping and things
desired downtown. Er. Pratt stated they met the requirements that
were in effect when they submitted for a Shoreline Permit. The
holding area is considered a State highway over which the City has
no jurisdiction, but there was an element of a Shoreline Permit for
the terminal area and landscaping is being provided.
Vote: In Favor: Overson, Estes, Horning, Waibel, Horton,
Collins, Dawkins, Colvin
Opposed: Johnson
~0308 M/S/C(Waibel/Dawkins) to approve Resolution ~2316, adopting the
Capital Improvement Program.
TAPE %766
-City Council Reg. Mtg, Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 29 of 38
~ - PUBLIC HEARING - TO ACCEPT COMMENT AND CONSIDER THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO AMENDTHE DEFINITIONS, SIGNS AND PUD
SECTIONS OF THE BREMERTON ZONING ORDINANCE, ~AB90-237
The Planning Division is currently reviewing and revising the
Zoning Ordinance which was adopted nearly two years ago. The
changes are meant to correct problems and ma e the ordinance work
more effectively and fairly. Most of the changes involve six of
the eleven chapters and are coming to the City council from the
Planning Commission in three groups. This is the second group of
changes and includes proposed amendments to (1) Chapter III.
Definitions; (2) the Sign Provisions of Chapter IV.; and (3)
Chapter VI. Planned United development.
Zoning Ordinance amendments require public hearings at the Planning
Commission and City Council. If approved by the Council, the
necessary amending ordinance will be prepared and returned for
adoption.
Ron Hough, Plan~ing Manager, briefly reviewed the process through
'the Planning Commission and other groups within the City. Under
Chapter III - Definitions - there were only 10 changes to the
Definition section, some being new definitions and some are just
amended and most are intended to clarify the definitions to make
them work better, adding definitions that are not already there but
are needed or eliminate in one case. Changes include: Under
"Adult Business" include massage parlors, as all licensed massage
parlors fit the definition of Adult business and there is also a
definition under the B.M.C. that deals with legitimate and adult
type massage parlors. The recommendation of the Planning
Commission was to add "massage parlor" as defined in BMC 5.92 to
the definition in the Zoning Ordinance. Doing this makes it easier
to determine what zones _ these types of-business~ will be
located. "Callow Business District" was left vacant in the
original ordinance because a district was not defined for that area
and it was felt that a district should be defined even if it may be
tentative and expanded on later as more detailed studies are
undertaken of that area. About a year ago, there was a proposal to
do a Callow Business District study, however, it was never funded.
A study of that sort would clearly define what the business
district should consist of, but at this point it is suggested that
it be defined as the blocks on Callow Avenue south of llth and
north of First Street that front on Callow Avenue. Later on in
this section there is a definition of the Manette District and it
would be described as the area including the General Business
Zoning district and may be further expanded under subsequent
commercial rezones. The reason these are being defined is that
certain parts of the Zoning Ordinance exempt the Manette Business
District and Callow Business District as well as the Central
Business District (CBD) from certain requirements, so it is
important to have ~t included.
TAPE #766
City Council Reg. Mtg.-Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 30 of 38
The "Density" defini-tion describes "net allowed density" and does
not include streets, wetlands, etc., which is contrary to the
manner in which development is allowed. It is prdposed to change
that definition to reflect what "gross density" is - number of
dwelling units usually stated per acre that may be permitted by the
applied zoning district on a unit of land that includes the
parcel's total area landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM), as defined in the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program.
The definition of "Dwelling Unit" deals with a "family" unit,
however, through use it is more appropriate to .define "Dwelling
Units" as being occupied by household rather than by "family" that
are related through blood, marriage, etc. There are a lot of
household units that occupy dwelling units that actually do not
meet the definition of "family"-but are considered "households"
The recommendation is to add the term "households" into the
definition of Dwelling Unit..."A unit providing independent year-
round living facilities for one family or household, constructed_to
the minimum standards of the Uniform Building Code or HUD Code, and
with provisions for sleeping, eating and sanitation".
"Lot Line, Front" definition does not take into consideration the
possibility of a private street. If a private street is approved
for a subdivision or other development, adjacent lots should relate
to that street as if it were a public street. The recommendation
is to add "private street" to that definition.
"~a_j_or Rehabilitation" had been fairly confusing lately in
discussion relating to major rehabilitation in the downtown a~ea
and What the City might require when someone rehabilitates a
building. Discussion included greater than 10~ of the building'$
area or more than 25~ of the assessed value, tending to be confused
with the figure of 75% that pertains to replacement value of a ?~
nonconforming structure. It is recommended to simplify _the
definition of "rehabilitee" to say: "The upgrading of a building
previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition for human
habitation or use".
"Standard Industrial Code" - it is recommended to eliminate this
definition because it was originally used by the City. Currently,
the City does not use that code but rather the "Standard Land Use
Coding Manual", which is the document to which they refer.
"YARD"- the Planning Commission recommends amending the definition
to read: "The portion of a lot that lies between a lot line and the
building (or required setback) line".
"~_r__Y_a_~" area currently allows accessory buildings with "0"
setbacks from alleys, etc.., and it was not clear whether side yard
setback still apply, so the purpose is to add a phrase to say "for
TAPE #766
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 31 of 38
-situations' in which accessory or other structures are exempt from
the rear setback requirement, the side building lines shall extend
to the rear lot line and side-setback requirements shall continue
to apply"
Public comment - none.
Mr. Johnson questioned if "through lots" had been eliminated? Mr.
Hough stated no.
Mr. Waibel stated under the definition of "Yard" there is a
parenthetical remark-"(or required setback)" he questioned if the
required setback was related to the lot line or to the building?
Mr. Hough stated the required setback is the same as the building
line. Don ~Pratt, Director of Community Development, stated the
-question that is being resolved is that a side yard terminates at
the rear yard setback.
SIGNS
Mr. Hough stated the proposed changes had been reviewed by sign
companies, business and others who were interested in seeing some
changes made to the Sign Section. Some felt the code should be
stronger and should phase out nonconforming signs. Others had some
personal problems with particular types of signs, such as sandwich
board signs, political or special purpose signs, or wanting/needing
more signs that the code allows. Many felt the size allowances for
free-standing signs and shopping center signs were too restrictive,
particularly along major commercial corridors such as Kitsap Way
and Wheaton Way. This review attempted to address all those
concerns and to find adjustments that would be in the best interest
of all concerned.
The review and preparation of a new proposal was initially done by
the Planning Division and then they were sent out to the community
for review. A Study Session was conducted by the Planning
Commission June 19,1990, making some minor adjustment at that time,
and public hearing was held in July.
The proposed amendments include: Sign Permit - there is a new
section D-2 to require correction of nonconforming signs prior to
issuing building permits for new signs on the same property. This
would prevent someone who had an old, deteriorated nonconforming
sign that was too large from coming in and getting a permit for
another sign on the same property.
Exempt Signs - three changes, one was previously approved and that
was to add Public Information/Identification signs approved through
the Special Use Permit process (approved about one year ago).
Prohibited Signs '- one section was revised to exempt
readerboard/message center signs and time/temperature signs from
TAPE #766
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 32 of 38
the general category of moving and flashing lights. There was a
change to refer to "Bench signs" rather than "Bus bench signs".
And, there was a change to clarify the prohibited placement of
portable signs.
Sign Measurements - Section G-10 was added to note that the area of
a portable sign is calculated as part of the total free-standing
sign area available to the site. There are a lot of sandwich
boards signs that are legal signs as long as they are on private
property and not on public right-of-way, but the number of those
would be restricted because they are part of the total calculation
of sign area.
Sign Placement Requirements - this whole section was reorganized to
make it read better. There were no major changes made to this
section.
Temporary-Special Use Signs - a new Table was added to clarify
regulations. This was very important as staff uses this
information daily during political campaigns.
General Sign Regulations - this is a new section that contains
regulations that pertain to all zoning districts. These were taken
from other sections to simplify and reduce confusion.
Commercial District Sign Regulations - there are two major changes,
one dealt with the allocation of area for free-standing signs and
the other for wall signs of businesses. The first retained a $00
sq. ft. maximum sign area for free-standing signs but it eliminated
the 30 foot setback for larger signs along such places as Kitsap
Way, Wheaton Way. Now larger signs would be allowed but signs
would be based on front footage of the lots. For very narrow
parcels they are allowed at least one 50 ft. sign, as they get
larger beyond 100 feet in width, they are allowed signs that
increase in size up to 100 sq. ft. For shopping center signs, they
can get up to 300 sq. ft., provided they have a frontage of at
least 300 lineal feet and are at least 100 ft. from the nearest
property line and there is no other free-standing sign on the
property larger than 50 feet.
Sign Area For Buildings - is based on the building facade width,
allowing 2 sq. ft. sign area for each foot of width.
Industrial and Special Purpose District - those districts would
have a smaller sign area for on-building signs based on 1 sq. ft.
of sign area per lineal foot of building. Generally in industrial
areas they do not do as much commercial advertising and do not have
drive-through businesses as the retail, commercial districts do.
Residential Regulations - no significant changes, just some minor
wording.
TAPE #766
City Council Reg. Mtg. ~-Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 33 of 38
Additional changes - approved by the Planning Commission at its
June 19 Study Session: Definition of Abandoned Sign was amended to
add "nonconforming", so when talking about abandoned signs they
don't cause conforming signs to become abandoned and then
removed...just nonconforming signs. The terms "face" and "multi-
faced sign" caused some confusion and the wording was changed some
to make it more clear.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Waibel stated on definitions of abandoned signs, he wondered if
"eyesore" was in the eye of the beholder just as beauty is and
questioned if the City could enforce the last word in abandoned
signs? President Horton suggested using the wording "physical
disrepair". Mr'. Hough stated he did not have a suggestion for
~etter wording than what was in the document unless "lack of
maintenance" but that tQo can be in degrees. Or, possibly using
the words "as determined by the Planning Director or Building
Official" could replace the word "eyesore".
Mr. Johnson questioned how is it now the very large billboards are
declared inappropriate - reference to Chapter IV (for those who may
not be aware, he feels the very large billboards in the downtown
area are no longer appropriate), and at some point he wanted to put
in an amortization period? Mr. Hough stated there is an
Amortization Section in the Nonconformities Chapter of the Zoning
Ordinance and can amortize certain things that are nonconforming,
but it needs to be determined what areas are to be targeted on an
equitable basis. Mr. Johnson questioned the use of large billboard
anywhere in the City - some of the larger business along the
freeway, such as Denney's, motels/hotels, do have large signs. Mr.
Hough stated the problem they have tried to avoid in this document
is talking about the text of the sign. ~esident Horton stressed
their concern relates to size of billboards not text. Mr. Pratt
stated there are many free-standing billboards that are above
permitted size today, but they are nonconformities and can be
maintained under the Zoning Ordinance. If it is desired to do away
with those type signs, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will be
required to add signs above a certain size in the Amortization
Section, identify what signs are illegal, how many years they have
to live out their useful financial life and then notice must be
given to each property owner of those signs. The reason they have
not done this is: (1) not in Amortization Schedule, there is
something in there that they have not started the clock ticking on
because it is a matter of what is more important for them to do.
He estimated that would take 2-300 hours of a person for a full
year to implement that. It can be done, but given the current
level of staff - something else will not get done. ~_~__Jqhn~o__~n
expressed his opinion that he did not see it as such a large task.
~S~n__t~_H_9~ questioned if effort could be placed on that
subject at least targeting the urban renewal zone? Mr. Pratt
TAPE #766
City Couhcil Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 34 of 38
stated yes, however, he did point out that it may entail a
significant legal battle as well as a political battle, He felt it
would truly take 2-300 hours of someone's time from the beginning
to the end. Up to this point Council had not identified that as a
priority. President Horton emphasized this should be considered in
the urban renewal zone. Mr. Pratt stated discussions will be held
on Thursday, September 6, that will provide an opportunity to
discuss such an issue and he felt it would be well coordinated with
some other things that are being discussed. Mr. Johnson stated he
just wanted to get started.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - Chapter VI
Mr. Hough stated the City has several Planned Unit Developments
(PUD) coming along and felt better quality designs are being
proposed, however, there are still some problems that need to be
worked out and corrected.
Process of the PUD - the way it is worded now is that the Planning
Commission does not make the final decision after it has gone
through the neighborhood meeting and public hearing before the
Planning Commission. Where the problem arises is in the section
that says someone can appeal the Planning Commissions
recommendation, which is odd since Council does not normally appeal
a recommendation as it is not known whether or not there will be
an appeal when it ge~ to the Council. The Planning Commission's
recommendation is that the Planning Commission be the approval body
on a PUD and it stops there unless someone appeals it to the City
Council, or unless the PUD involves a subdivision or a rezone~ or
something else the City Council would approve then it would go to
the City Council as a public hearing. Mr. Hough reviewed the four
or five steps that would implement that change in various section
in this Chapter.
An amendment to Section 14-D reflects a change so that it reads:-
"Any use applied for and not specifically listed in the Zoning
Ordinance, shall be permitted in a PUD if approved by the Planning
Commission" This would apply if someone came in with a PUD that
included an aerobics program or health spa that is not listed as a
permitted use in that zone it can be included in the PUD and if it
makes sense the Planning Commission could include it as part of the
project.
Real Property Restriction - all the land within the PUD shall be
subject to such contractual agreements or recorded covenants as the
City may deem necessary to protect the public interest?. This
reflects a very minor change ... "as the City may deem necessary to
protect the public interest". The word "Council was removed leaving
just the word "City".
Parcel Size & Requirement For PUD - at the present time a PUD
smaller than one acre has to meet certain criteria in order to be
TAPE #766
City Coun6il Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 35 of 38
a PUD, designed as such and proces~as such. In some zones the
City requires that any new development larger than one acre has to
be designed and approved as a PUD. It is not felt this makes a lot
of sense if the proposal meets all the developmental requirements
of the zone or does not need a combination of zones or has no need
for other flexibility that might be offered to the PUD. If someone
comes along with an apartment project and meets all the setbacks,
heights, open space, parking, etc., required by the Zoning
Ordinance, it is not felt that project needs to go through
additional review that a PUD would normally go through. What is
being suggested is to eliminate the mandatory "Requires PUD" column
from the Lot Requirement Table of Chapter V., and not require a PUD
just because it is a certain zoning district. This would make. the
PUD process more optional. At the same time, it is suggested that
the Landscaping Provisions Section, Chapter VIII, of the Zoning
Ordinance take on the open space requirements that would normally
be required. It is felt the primary benefit of the PUD process is
the open space requirement so a suggested change by the Planning
Commission will be discussed at a public hearing this month.
Density Bonus For Additional Open Space - some Density Bonus was
added. Currently, densities allowed in a PUD are about the same as
normally permitted in the Zoning district in which the PUD would be
located and there is no bonus possibility, so the developer can
develop pretty much what the zone allows. In order to encourage a
little more creative site planning and creativity by offering some
bonuses. The open space requirement right now is 15~, but they are
suggesting if the developer permit additional open space then a
little high, density would be allowed. And, on the other hand, if
the developer provides active recreational facilities on the site,
such as a gym, club house, swimming pool, etc., that they could get
a slight reduction in active open space on the site by a portion of
15~. An amendment is suggested to the Maximum Units/Gross Acre By
Percentages Of Open Space Table, which shows the currently required
15~ open space and density allowed, along with 20~ and 25~ or more
open space and added density with a particular Zoning district.
The percentage of added open space is greater than the percentage
of added units in all cases.
Residential Vs Other PUD's - this chapter pertains to PUD's in
general and includes commercial and industrial developments. The
15~ open space requirement and the "active" recreation area
requirement are not popular with commercial/industrial developers
and may not be totally appropriate for those application. The
Planning Commission recommends the following changes: "1. There
shall be a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of a
residential PUD or the residential portions of a mixed use PUD,
dedicated as common open space, accessible..."
Changes To The Final PUD Plan - there are a couple conflicts in the
ordinance the way it is now about how much can be adjusted once the
TAPE #766
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minut6s
September 5, 1990
Page 36 of 38-
plan is approved and goes back for administrative permits, etc.
What is suggested is that two sections be combined and the
Director's authority clarified and increased slightly to better
avoid the need to bring the Plan back for minor adjustments.
There are some very minor one and two percent adjustments, which
out of a 100 unit apartment complex one percent adjustment is one
unit, and seems insignificant and it is recommended to increase
that a little - (1) the total number is not increased by more than
54 (that would mean 5 units on a 100 unit project); gross square
footage of commercial, office, or industrial space has not
increased by more than five percent (54) over those shown on the
Preliminary Plan. The amount of approved open space has not
decreased by more than three percent (34). These would be
administrative adjustment made when it came to time to finalize the
plan for Building Permits.
Changes To Final PUD Plan - the Director of Community Development
may administratively approve minor changes to an approved Final
Plan in accordance with the criteria of Section ll-B.
Perimeter Setbacks - these must be "generally the same as those
required in the underlying zoning district". This does not work
well in all cases, particularly cases in which the PUD is a
combination of zones, or when a PUD is a very large development
adjacent to a more sensitive area. It is being suggested that a
residential PUD smaller than an acre in area shall conform to the
normal setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is
located. If the PUD was larger than one acre, it would have
setbacks according to the heights of the buildings.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Horning stated proposed changes looked fine and appeared to
make sense.
Mr. Waibel questioned under Item #7 - Amend Section 14-D, it
sounds like they are allowing either a rezone or redefinition of a
rezone to take place at the Planning Commission level and he was
not sure this is what Council intended. Mr. Hough stated there is
already a section in the Zoning Ordinance that if they come across
a use ~ i~ not listed in the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning
Commission can approve that use with a Special Use Permit. What
this is saying is that it is going to the Planning Commission at a
public hearing any way on the PUD and is the same process as a
Special Use Permit, and is appealable to the City Council. Another
way to do that would be to apply separately for a Special Use
Permit for that particular use to be included in the PUD.
~F~s~.~_~g~gD questioned if it would then become a Special Use
Permit. Mr. ~ough stated no, just a part of the PUD. Mr. Hornin~
pointed out at least it would go through an entire PUD process, so
it will get heard at all the levels.
TAPE #766
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 37 of 38
Mr. Waibel questioned if numbers 1-5, under Amendment to Section
/I-B, "and's" or "or's" - if any of those are violated would it
come to council or if all of them are violated...? Mr.
stated it would mean if "all of the following (items 1-5) were
true. Mr. Waibel stated he wanted this point on record - if there
is an adjustment of anyone of those 5 items, the full process would
have to gone through.
Mr. Johnson questioned what was the open space requirement for
commercial and industrial PUD's? Mr. Hough stated currently it is
15~. ~__~9h__n_.~o__n_ noted all that was read was a section about
residential and questioned if that meant wall-to-wall concrete
again? ~.~___Hg~ stated no, there are also setback requirements
for commercial and industrial projects. Mr. Johnson pointed out
that other communities, he has observed do have open space with
grass, trees and shrubs incorporated into those projects. He
expressed concern that certain requirements can be waived on PUD's.
Mr. Horning stated in the very nature of the PUD there may be
something unusual that would warrant a setback that might be waived
in place of getting something else. Mr. Hough stated currently the
15~ applies to all PUD's but what is being proposed is to apply
this percent to only residential, PUD's or residential portions of
PUD's. The Industrial districts all have 20~{setback requirements
in front, which will continue to apply, parking lot landscaping
requirements are required under the Parking Section and if
designed as a PUD it will be reviewed for landscaping. Mr. Johnson
stated he supported taking out the wording that addressed taking
out playgrounds, but not the doing away with the requirement for a
certain percentage. ~F. Hqu_g_~ stated the input they have received
from people, primarily the business community, they do not want 15~
open space in the industrial area. ~F. J_o_h_n_~R stated that was
typical, they want to pave the whole area. Mr. Hough stated they
are saying it is fine for residential areas where people need open
space. Mr. Johnson pointed out workers need a place to go for
lunch and so do people who drive by after hours and look at a nice
industrial park. Mr. Homing stated if a developer goes through
the PUD process, then the City has the opportunity to make trade
offs for something that is more desirable than just open space. He
questioned if there was a requirement for an industrial park that
does not go through a PUD to have open space. Mr. Houg~ stated no.
Mr. Pratt stated there was no initiative to do a PUD if open space
is not needed now. He suggested saying whenever doing an
industrial building the landscape that is submitted will include
15% open space - this evens the table up between going non-PUD.
M~-._._~P!D~ noted it may not be desirous to have that open space
downtown, so this would apply within the zoning districts. Mr.
Johnson stated he did not want to soften up the PUD law until the
other one is toughened up. ~_~_~r~_t~ stated he could bring back
something at first or second reading to address the open space for
industrial areas.
TAPE #766
City Council Reg. Mtgl Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 38 of 38
t2480 M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvin) to approve the Planning Commission's
recommendations to amend the Definitions, Signs and PUD sections f
the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance, except for of the deletion of the
15% open space requirement in commercial and industrial PUD's.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m..
KATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY C~ERK
APPROVED
~, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/LH/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault