Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/89TAPE ~568 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 26, 1989 AUG 9- LRB #0014 #0029 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, July 26, 1989 at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Spencer Horning presiding. Council members presen~ were Lon Overson, Shirley Marty Crutcher, Lynn Horton, Morrie Dawkins, C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Ai Coivin, Russ Johnson and Hank Waibel. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathieen McC!uskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Horning and invocation was given by Reverend Michael Grimshaw of the First Church Of The Nazarene. President Horning announced Item 6A had been pulled from the agenda and would be heard in one week. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - Ju].y 12, 1989, #AB89-203 M/S/C/U(Dawkins/Coivin) 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 Deen made available to the council. M/S/C/U(Coivin/Crutcher) on July 26, 1989 the Council does approve fox' payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 44618, 44619, 44625 through 44778 in the total amount of $201,050.38 and Regular Payroll in the total amount of $342,910.09. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Waibel reported he artended a Transit conference in Santa Barbara California last week and had the opportunity to visit their City officials. He noted parking is also a problem in Santa Barbara, having sampled one of their parking tickets, and pointed out they are using the computerized system that the City of Bremerton is currently considering. He did attend their City Council meeting and brought back samples of their "Request To Speak" form and "Council Meeting Agenda". Upon his return home he viewed a video tape of the public hearing addressing Roosevelt Field - he complimented both the Council and the public for handling the discussion in a very professional manner. He was concerned that several strong procedural questions were introduced during the hearing and in his opinion Council should not have introduced a second hearing date until those questions had been answered. He was not in a position to ask for a reconsideration to the motion setting a second public hearing date (due to his being absent from the first public hearing) but did feel it would be appropriate to do so. President Horninq stated it was not the Councii's intent to just have hearings but to make known ~o the public information contained in answers to those questions. Mr. Dawkins announced a delegation from. Kure, Japan is arriving in Bremerton and on Tuesday, August i the Bremerton Central Lions Club will be hosting them at a reception at the Bayview Quality Inn, sight seeing on Wednesday, Golf on Thursday followed by a banquet dinner in the evening at the Bayview Quality Inn. This is the 20th Anniversary of the Bremerton/Kure~ Japan Sister City Program and Bremerton will have a delegation of Lions Club members and interested citizens traveling to Kure Japan in October. The TAPE #568 City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 2 of 15 delegation will attend the August 2 City Council meeting and will be introduced at that time. Mr. Colvin thanked the TV crew for their excellent coverage of City Council meetings and particularly the lengthy and very warm one on July 19. He also thanked the gentlemen in the audience during the public hearing for standing up and offering their seats to ladies who were standing. He stated it does not make sense to him not having air conditioning in the Council Chambers and the devastating affect the heat has on the citizens attending Council meetings. He invited everyone to Scalawag Fair on August 12 and 13 as well as the Bremerton Central Lions club pancake feed. He invited all the politicians to come out to the Scalawag Fair and pancake feed to participate in a pancake flipping contest. Mr. Johnson stated work continues on solid waste issues. Sometime soon the Council will have to take action to approve or disapprove whatever the County's final draft of the Solid Waste Management Plan in order for it to have an affect on Bremerton. It appears, after some research by the Council's Summer Interns, that there is some real opportunities in plastics recycling beyond banning styrofoam products. Mr. Johnson apologized to the Council and general public for The appearance of his wanting to conclude any further business immediately after the public hearing on July 19. He pointed out the difficulty in concentrating and doing good business after having sat through four hours of testimony. He stated he believed the citizens are owed the courtesy to tell them what the purpose of the next hearing is and what they should prepare for if they plan to participate or attend the meeting. In reference to the last Boundary Review Board meeting - he found it incomprehensible that a Boundary Review Board could come to such an agreement as they did when the Bremerton School District wants to annex their property into the City of Bremerton and then have some group stand in their way. This is a perfect example why Boundary Review Board jurisdictions need to be done away with. President Horninq stated in response to the Council motion last week setting a public hearing to discuss Roosevelt Field - because there were a number of people who left the hearing due to its long duration, he believes it is proper to allow those individuals the opportunity for new testimony. The City staff and Mr. Sievers have been asked to look into all of the procedural items questioned and it is his intent to respond to those questions as well as offer everyone who did not have the opportunity speak at the first hearing a chance to give their testimony at the second hearing. Mr. Waibel pointed out depending on answers to the questions raised on proper procedures the public may be asked to address a different forum. Mr. Overson indicated that in this case the procedures process for public input many not be the same as other issues. Mr. Collins stated he believes citizens are being activated into things they have no information about, such as Resolution 1131 dated May 3, 1961 which establishes certain policies and use of park and recreation land. The City's position was not worked out or determined prior to letting people give their input. He believes the Council needs to set down better rules before asking citizens to have a public hearing on a specific issue. President Horninq stated the public has a right to speak and that was the issue requested by the Mayor - to air this issue publicly. Mrs. Horton stated based on the response she has received from the public on this issue, people who artended the public hearing felt that the meeting was useful, that it was well conducted and they welcomed the opportunity to be able to speak to the issue. If procedures were violated in doing that {which she does not believe is the case) she thinks everyone who attended-feit they received their "day in court". It is not too late to go back and follow a different procedure if required. After an overwhelming 4 hours TAPE #568 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 3 of 15 of discussion on 'this issue people left feeling good on both sides of the issue. Mr. Colvin stated some of the citizens' response that he received questioned the fact that the City has not declared Roosevelt Field as surplus property. President Hornin~ pointed out the Mayor has the right to ask the Council to hear opinions and which in turn would help him in bringing a proposal for Council action. Mr. Collins questioned if Municipal Research had been contacted to provide a legal review of Resolution #11317 Ian S_.ievers, City Attorney, stated he had discussed their input with Michael Bond, Council Summer Intern, and he was not sure if they had responded in writing to the Council. PUBLIC RECOGNITION John Hawkins, representing the Fire Department and Rescue One Corporation, explained briefly the organization of the Rescue One Corporation in 1963 to accept donations from the citizens in appreciation of work done by the Bremerton Fire Department Paramedics. Since that Zime, the corporation has accepted approximately $20-25,000 and used those funds toward costs of CPR training for citizens, mannequins used in CPR training and Jaws Of Life. in March of 1989 the City Council established their own Rescue One Fund and with that in mind it was decided that the Rescue One Corporation should dissolve and turn over all assets and funds to the City. Following the establishment of a City Rescue One Fund the corporation came to an agreement with the City as to how the funds would be handled prior to its being turned over. Officer Hawkins received a fire call and had to leave the meetinq immediately. Judith Katsirubas, volunteer accountant for Rescue One Fund of the corporation, stated it was with great pleasure to represent the Paramedics of the CiEy and Rescue One Corporation and noted depreciated assets at an original cost were over $16,000, including the items mentioned by Officer Hawkins, and presented to President Horning a check in the amount of $17,753.23 which represents the sum total of the liquid asset of their fund. On behalf of the Mayor and City Council President Horninq thanked the Paramedics for the excellent service they provide to the citizens and appreciation also to the Rescue One workers and volunteers for their contribution to the City. President Horning encouraged those who wish to continue supporting Rescue One to continue to do so as funds will be directed to the same good cause. Wayne Estes, Bremerton resident, stated his concern that the City needs to adopt a Cruising Ordinance and put it into effect as soon as appropriate equipment is received. He also expressed concern that the City does not have any valid loitering law and he suggested the Council ask Chief McNea! and the City Attorney to write up a functional Loitering Ordinance. He felt the type of individuals that were parked on downtown streets a week ago were such that no one would want to venture downtown to do business. He was amazed to learn that the Bremerton Municipal Judge did not consider "mooning" as an inappropriate behavior. He did not believe the only problem was people parked in cars on the street but the other elements such as selling of drugs and prostitution that are also evident. Andrew Parypa, 1122 Hayward Avenue, spoke in reference to proposed sale of Roosevelt Field and felt that the proponents of the proposal had many months to prepare for their arguments. In order for others, who are opposed to this issue, to have more time to prepare a response they feel they should have notice in advance, from the City Attorney, on what his rulings are and what conditions they should work under. The issue cannot be addressed intelligently if they are kept in the dark. Elizabeth Bueli, 1722 High Avenue, stated something should be done about young people in cars parked in the Security Pacific Bank parking lot during evening hours. She is not comfortable using the TAPE #568 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 4 of 15 banking machine under these conditions. Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, spoke on the fact that the City has very limited Police Officers on duty - 3 Officers and one supervising officer - at any one time. Over the weekend he observed Police activities involving an investigation into a break in and at that time was very angry with the limited response given by the Police Department. However, he had cooled down once he understood the City was being covered by such few officers. He noted the Fire Department and Police Departments are the two most important units in the City and he urged the Council to look at increasing the ability to protect the citizens of Bremerton. Ann Haven, 343 Hill Court, stated she canvassed her neighbors on willows, Stephenson and Lebo regarding the proposed sale of Roosevelt Field. She collected 70 signatures - 20 said let the w~ters decide, 3 said yes/sell, 62 said no/don't sell. It was interesting that no one indicated "i don't care". She urged the Council to keep Roosevelt Field for the young people of Bremerton. She questioned if the option to lease parking to Olympic College until they can get their act together to resolve their parking needs had been considered? 6B - CIVIL SERVICE RULE CHANGE - RULE #9, #89-205 The Civil Service Commission passed a Civil Service Rule change on June 27, 1989, former Rule 9.09 read "Appointing authorities shall not participate in any facet of the examination process." Rule 9.13(c) read "The Civil Service Officer may request proposed examination questions from departments..." The Rule change clarifies that department heads cannot participate in any facet of the examination process with the exception of provisions in 9.1i(B) (Formerly 9.13(c). This will help eliminate ambiguity in the two rules. In order that the rules follow a more logical sequence - the new 9.09 B was formerly incorporated in rule 9.09 - the new 9.09 C was formerly rule 9.13 E - the new 9.11 B was formerly 9.13 C - the new 9.13 A is one paragraph, formerly two paragraphs - the new 9.13 C was formerly 9.13 D Ian Sievers~ City Attorney, stated he was aware of the circumstance which brought the proposed change to issue - under old rule 9.09 it said the appointing authority, meaning the department, was not to participate in preparing the exam. Then, there was another rule which said queszions could be solicited from the department, however, the sections did not reference one another which presented a direct conflict. The important part of the rule change is new 9.09B which simply says: "they, Department Heads, will not participate except for soliciting questions". Mr. Collins questioned the practice of soliciting questions from employees in the department but not soliciting any questions from the management of the various departments. The only things management would be doing is putting the question into a sealed envelope and sending it to the Civil Service Officer. He did not feel this was appropriate in that the person who is going to be doing the actual hiring should have some kind of input into what the test should be, what kind of questioning should be included and then let the unbiased third person make the decision as to who came out on top~ Mr. Waibel stated this requested change is actually an affirmative effort to involve the employees whereas they were not involved before, it was the heads of the Department providing questions, which was in conflict with the statement saying they could not. At some point there must have been an affirmative decision to #1479 TAPE #568 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 5 of 15 include employee participation in submitting questions. Without representation from the Civil Service Commission or Civil Service Office, it would be difficult for Council to understand what brought about this proposed change to expand the rule to include the employees themselves. It may present a problem with confidentially for internal applicants. Mr. Sievers stated if it was a real affirmative step he felt he would have been aware of it and maybe too much is being read into the language change. He noted the only difference in the new section (new 9.11 B) is the word "employees" after department. Mr. Waibei noted that by adding the sentence "...the applicants themselves cannot participate in producing questions".. it affirmatively said it is being expanded to those people. Mr. Sievers stated the old rules said that individuals working in the department who are applicants for the testing cannot submit questions but all others can. Also, Department employees would certainly include the Department Head so he did not believe a change would be effected there. Mr. Overson questioned what else goes into creation of an examination and. who evaluates whether or not the questions are appropriate? Mr. Sievers noted it was just a matter of getting the information to the Civil Service Secretary who is charged with putting together the test for the selection process and this includes what questions will be used. Hopefully they would modify direct questions and look for content and change the question so that no one in the Department would be aware of what the answers might be. Mrs. Horton questioned if each time there is an examination if the test is totally different? Mr. Sievers stated if a good system is in place people should be able to retest within a couple years. M/S/F(Overson/Crutcher) to pass the rule to change Civil Service Rule 9. Vote: in Favor: Opposed: Abstain: Motion failed. Dawkins, Overson, Crutcher, Horning Horton, Collins, Coivin, johnson Waibel 6C - COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND 306A GRANTS: AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR FUNDS AND FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN GRANT CONTRACTS, #AB89-206 Washington State Department of Ecology has made funds available tc local governments for shoreline and coastal zone improvements and planning. Staff has initiated pre-application procedures resulting in the City being invited to submit the following grants: Shorelines and Coastal Zone Program, Section 306A - to establish a trail from the Second Street observation tower to the beach below including lighting, benches~ bike rack, directional/interpretive signage, and landscaping - Grant amount $29,672 City In Kind 30,000 Total Cost $59,672 Coastal Zone Managemen~ Planning Grant - to develop Link 2 and 3 of the Waterfront Access Plan. Link 2 is proposed to cover waterfront access systems from Lions Field to Bachmann Park. Link 3 is proposed to cover the eastern shore of Kitsap Lake - G Grant Amount $8,000 City In Kind 8,000 Total Cost $16,000 ~onnie Devaney~ Grants Mangerr stated staff has been working with the Department Of Ecology to fund one of three projects. The ~1691 TAPE #568 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 6 of 15 targeted project is construction of a pathway from the 2nd Street observation tower to the beach below. The project is identified in the Waterfront Access Plan and is included in the draft concept drawing of the Waterfront Pathway Park, which is now before the Planning Commission. The second grant proposes development of Link 2 and 3 of the Waterfront Access Plan - this would include the area from Lions Field to Bachmann Park and the eastern shore of Kitsap Lake. The first grant request is for $29,672, the second grant request is for $8,000, making a total of $37,672. The local match is all in kind services and a property easement provided by Bremer's Trust and Olympic College, which allows public access to the beach. Russ Johnson questioned the location along the east side of Kitsap Lake where beach access is being proposed and noted a map was referred to but not included in the packet? Don Pratt, Director of Community Development~ stated the Waterfront Access Plan referred to has not been adopted by the Planning Commission - they are still working on it and Council has not seen it. The first phase or Link 1 goes from First Street to Olympic College. There are approximately !0 more miles of shoreline in the City and not all of it is on salt water...some on Kitsap Lake. At this time they do not know where~ if any, access ~ught to be at Kitsap Lake. What they are requesting is funding for planning to determine if there is appropriate waterfront access on Kitsap Lake. A map was not included but the area was identified as the eastern shore of Kitsap Lake, which is in the City's jurisdiction. Mr. Colvin questioned now many miles between Lions Field and Bachn~ann Park? Mr. Pratt stated he did not know, however, the proper planning work will identify the exact distance. Mr. Overson noted this could appear to be just another study and it is involving $38,000 of City funds of some form or another in kind. He hoped the City could receive the grant, however, it was no't one of his priorities. Mrs. Horton requested clarification of the "in kind" services being proposed. Ms. Devaney explained it is not all Planning money and the vast majority of it will build a pathway for the City, $8,000 is Planning money. The vast majority of the "in kind" involves the City's Planning staffs' time but S30,000 is an easement provided to the City for use of tke land so the walkway can be built on the 'waterfront and allow public access on land that does not really belong to the City. President Horninq stated the City needs to get on with this sort of thing and allow the best use of the waterfront. Mr. Colvin noted he believed this is an excellent opportunity to enhance the waterfront and he supported the proposal. PT/S/C/U(Crutcher/Coilins) to authorize the proposed grant requests to be submitted to the Department Of Ecology and that we further authorize the Mayor to sign the grant contract, the budget and work program are the same as the request. 6D - BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST TO PURCHASE TWO COPY MACHINES, #AB89-197 The request for budget adjustment is to facilitate purchase of two (2) copy machines: I - Mayor's Office, 1-Municipal Court. The existing machines in these offices are in excess of eight years old, have excessive copy counts and are beyond economical repair. The machines are no longer in production and maintenance coverage #1905 TAPE #568 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes july 26, 1989 Page 7 of 15 is not available on an annual basis. Manufacturer's representative service is from Seattle at the rate of $50 per call and $50/hr. portal to portal plus parts. Local service is available at $70./hr., plus parts. The cost to bring the machine to performance standards is $800.00 for one. No estimate could be made on the second machine. There is no guarantee of performance after repair. The budget adjustment has been passed on by Fiscal and Budget. President Hornin~ questioned if the City could get a "State contract price" from a local vendor? Gil Johnson, Purchasing Supervisor, stated yes, the State contract prices have been extended to local vendors so purchase would be made off the State contract but using local vendors. M/S/C/U(Horton/Coivin) to approve the Budget Adjustment Request to enable purchase of two copy machines. 6E - EXPANDED CONTRACT; PATHWAY/BOARDWALK/PARK DEVELOPMENT - ART ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, #AB89-200 A total of $160,336 of Block Grant Funds have been allocated for Waterfront Park/Pathway/Boardwaik construction between 1st and 2nd Streets. $10~000 has been budgeted for design consultants. (1988 and 1989 grants) Council approved a Design Selection Committee to work with the consultant and the committee has been reviewing options. Art Anderson and Associates was selected from the Small Works Roster for an initial contract of $4,000. The initial contract was limited to $4,000 because the additional 1989 CDBG funds were not yet available. The previous contract cannot be extended because it has expired. In order to complete the design work, the Administration proposed to negotiate a new contract with Art Anderson and Associates. The $6,000 additional funds from the 1989 CDBG program and other contract elements have been changed. Coun. cii is asked to authorize the Mayor to sign the new contract. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated the key item in this request is the fact that the full amount of $10,000 was not available when the project was initially started with Art Anderson and Associates ... now it is available. He did let the first contract expire before having it amended for the full amount, therefore, a new contract is in order. Besides just the additional $6,000 in funding, there are two elements within the text of the contract that have changed: (i) extending the delivery date to some time this fall; (2) at the time of the original contract the City did not know if it would be a boardwalk, pathway, etc., now it is known that all the City can get for the $160,000 Block Grant funding is a plaza type park on land. This contract simply designs a plaza style, on land, park between 1st and 2nd Streets. The Administration will probably come back to Council in several weeks because in the course of doing the design the Design Review Committee requested to look at information as to what might be happening on surrounding properties and what is happening on surrounding properties, including on the water. Mr. Dawkins questioned if the idea of utilization of the USS Hornet as a museum project could be added into the scope of services. Mr. Pratt stated the Block Grant funds will only allow the design and construction of a small park between 1st and 2nd Streets, and those funds cannot be used for anything else. There was a display vessel shown in the conceptual design, that being the USS Turner joy. Mr. Dawkins questioned if the project could be expanded if something #2175 TAPE #568 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 8 of 15 like the USS Hornet were added? Mr. Pratt stated no - it would mean just taking one ship out and putting another in. Mr. Johnson stated for clarification that there is no plant intention or reason to take the USS Turner Joy off the waterfront as is being proposed. If something happened where the USS Hornet was developed on the waterfront, that would be in addition to what is already being proposed. M/S/C/U(Waibel/Horton) to authorize Mayor Lobe to sign the contract with Art Anderson and Associates. 7A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ADOPTING OF NEW BUILDING AND FIRE SAFETY CODES, #AB89-207 Amendment to the current Building and Fire Safety Codes are necessary to implement changes mandated by State law, July 1, 1989. Those changes include adoption of 1988 Model Codes with State Building Code Council Amendments. Dick Mumma, Building Official, stated every three years the International Conference Of Building Officials publishes a new revised version of the Model Codes that most jurisdictions use. This organization is made up of Building Officials from across the country and these code revisions, through a code change process starting with a committee of experts that look at the proposed change (either approve or deny them) then they are presented to the full body of Code Officials at the annual business meetings. These business meetings usually represent about 1,000 Code Officials and proponents and opponents to the code revisions. Once these code revisions are adopted and printed in the Model Code, local jurisdictions have the option to adopt them. In the City's case, the State of Washington, through the Legislature, has a State Building Code Council. The State Building Code Council adopts these Model Codes and then further revises them, if they wish. The State Building Code Council is regulated by the Legislature and they may revise the code that affects 1-4 family dwelling units and require that all local jurisdictions not amend those 1-4 requirements without first achieving approval from the State Building Code Council. The Legislature further stated that those Model Codes may not be reduced from the minimum standards established at ICBO but they may be increased. The State Building Council mandated that as of July 1, 1989, all local jurisdictions will adopt the 1988 Model Codes. Changes which would affect single family dwellings and local contractors are as follows: (1) there was a change that stated "permit cards were no longer required to be posted on outside of buildings if there is conditions of hazardous weather they may be kept other places and be available to the building official"; (2) living quarters must now be separated from businesses by one hour separations (technically termed R3 residence must be separated from a B2 business occupancy by a one hour fire resistive construction). One hour fire resistive construction is also required between dwelling units of multi-family construction, so now all condominiums, apartments and any other combination of multi-family units requires a fire separation between each unit. Further, the requirement for the one hour separation may not be eliminated if sprinklers are used..it is still in force. Changes have also been made to location of smoke detectors - smoke detectors are now required in sil basements when previously they were only required in basements that were connected by an open stairway. Hallways adjacent to rooms with higher ceilings than the hallways (higher meaning higher by 24 inches than the ceiling of the hallway) must have a smoke detector in the area higher than the hallway. Smoke detectors may now be mounted on the walls if approved for that type of installation. Previously they were only TAPE #568 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 9 of 15 permitted by code to be mounted on ceilings. In the previous Code, studs in a pony wall (short walt under a foundation, for example) were not permitted to be shorter than 14 inches. If they were shorter than 14 inches a solid wood member was required. Now, a stud shorter than 14 inches may be used if the walls are covered with plywood. Previously the Code required that anchor bolts in masonry walls had to be 15 inches long and now has been revised that seven inch anchor bolts may be used, which is parallel to what is required in concrete walls. Use of the 7 inch bolts have been in use for quite some time in the City of Bremerton. in the 1985 version of the Building Code a third story room required to have two exists. In the 1988 version a third story room that is less than 500 feet may have one exit. In the 1985 version of the Code landings were required to be level on the outside of doors and now landings may have a quarter inch slope to them to permit water to shed off. In the 1985 Code a stair end at a doorway - there was no landing required on a stair if the door opened inward and not over the stair. This rule has been revised that all exterior stairways are required to have a landing on both sides. The Code Committee felt it was unsafe for a person to open a door and walk immediately on a stair without some sort of landing. The handrail height has been raised from 30-34 inches from the nose of the tread to 34-38 inches. This provides the builder with an opportunity to make a handrai!/guardrail combination. An amendment has made to the skylight section of the Building code now prohibiting the installation of annealed glass in skylights. Previcusiy annealed glass was permitted if screening below the glass was used, but now That has been eliminated and no annealed glass will be permitted with or without screening. Sheetrock fire separation - most commonly seen in garages between the garage and residence. In the previous code all the joints of the sheetrocked walls were required to be tapped, now if the joints occur over a solid wood member they may be left unsealed. Joints that occur between the wood members are still required to be tapped. There were significant changes to Chapter 9 of the Building Code which deals with hazardous occupancies and also Article 80 of the Fire Code and the City has adopted those revisions. Changes were made to sprinkler requirements in the 1988 version but apparently the City of Bremerton's Ordinance is more restrictive than the changes so it does not affect the City. The ceiling height of a stairway was 6 foot 6 inches and has been increased to 6 foot 8 inches because people are becoming taller. There have been no significant changes made to the Plumbing Code or the Mechanical Code. T~e changes made to the 1988 Code should have no cost change effectiveness to the home builders as long as they are aware of the changes. Roy McInnis, 2711 Maple Street, questioned where someone could view the Codes mentioned? Mr. Mumma stated Code books are available in the Building Officiai's office, City Clerk' office and Public Libraries, TAPE ~568 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 10 of 15 #2666 Mr. Waibel questioned if the City's requirements are more restrictive than State requirements? Mr. Mumma stated there are no current requirements in recent Code language in ordinances that the City has passed that is more restrictive. The only change the City has is the sprinkler change and that change went into effect before the requirement that the State Building Council to review those changes. Mr. Waibel questioned if the City's sprinkler restrictions were more restrictive than those approved in the County? Mr. Mumma stated yes, however, he had not reviewed Their current Sprinkler Ordinance but under the 1985 Ordinance and 1985 Building Code the City of Bremerton's Sprinkler Ordinance was more restrictive than the County's. President Hornin~ requested Mr. Mumma to provide a memo to the Council giving a comparison between the City's Sprinkler Ordinance and the County's Sprinkler Ordinance and the position of the UBC. Mr. Mumma explained during the last Code change session residential sprinklers were on the agenda and were very close to passage. There is more and more support by Code Officials and Fire Officials for adoption of residential sprinkler systems. There is opposition from many of the members of the building industry because they fear it will raise the cost of construction and the cost to the public. And, he projected that requirement for residential sprinklers will be adopted within the next few years. Mr. Overson questioned if there were any changes for wall and ceiling insulation? Mr. Mumma explained the wall and ceiling insulation is regulated by the Washington State Energy Code and is mandated by the State and may not be revised. The 1988 version of tke Energy Code does not change the insulation requirements for single family dwellings. Mr. Overson questioned if there was a change relative to window size/window structure? Mr. Mumma stated there was a change in egress window size. The previous language stated an egress window shall have a net free opening of 5.7 sq. ft., and the language has now been changed to say an openable area...meaning it is less restrictive for the builder giving them a wider option of windows allowable. Mr. Coivin questioned if the ordinance would be a living document and subject to change? Mr. Mumma stated yes, however, any amendments that would restrict the construction of items 1-4 family residence will have to be approved by State Building Code Council before they would be allowed to be adopted by a local ordinance. M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Coivin) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, revising the Building and Fire Safety Code, B.M.C. Chapter 17.04, by adopting 1988 editions of Uniform Construction Codes. 7B - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING CLOSE-OUT AND DISTRESS MERCHANDISE SALE REGULATORY LICENSES, #AB89-208 In light of numerous business closures throughout the City it has become evident that the Close-Out Sale License fee has become a burden for those entrepreneurs who are holding viable Going-Out- Of-Business Sales. To rectify this situation the following revisions are proposed: !) Reduction of Close-Out Sale License fee from $200 to $25 for 60 days. Each additional day will remain at $50 after 60 days. 2) inventory records still must be kept for review upon request but not submitted with application. 3) Moving or Removal Sale regulations have been deleted. from this ordinance. Mr. Johnson noted he wanted to maintain the protection against the phony going-out-of-business sales. Ms. McCluskey, Director Of TAPE #568 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 11 of 15 Administrative Services, stated they too want to protect the City against phony sales but also wanted to lift an added burden from the legitimate business going out of business. And, to protect the City there still remains a necessary license/inventory listing/S50.00 per day fee after 60 days. Mr. Collins stated his support of keeping the $200 fee thereby protecting the City from the phony sales and covering the costs of administering the license. Mr. Colvin questioned if the City had considered raising the license fee for a second going-out-of-business sale? Ms. McCluskey stated no - but this has not been a common occurrence. TAPE #569 Mr. Crutcher pointed out no one wants to see someone go out of business but if they do we want them to leave with a good feeling because many may return and if they are not treated right they won't want to come back. Mr. Overson noted the proposed ordinance may be a bit more enforceable and hopes the $50.00 fee per day will keep away the phony type sales. #0096 M/S/C(Dawkins/Crutcher) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, revising in pertinent part Chapter 5.12 of Bremerton Municipal Code, relating to the licensing of closing-out and distress merchandise sales in the City of Bremerton. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Overson, Crutcher, Horton, Waibel, Horning, Dawkins, Colvin Collins, Johnson #0209 7C - ORDINANCE #4220 (SECOND READING) STREET VACATION BRC PARTNERSHIP - 3721 KITSAP WAY, #AB89-194 M/S/C(Coivin/Crutcher) to pass Ordinance #4220, on second reading, vacating portions of Kitsap Way abutting lots 25 through 28, Block A, "Oyster Bay Addition", subject to reservations of utility easements and other conditions. Vote: In Favor: Opposed: Crutcher, Overson, Horton, Waibel, Horning~ Dawkins, Co!vin, Johnson Collins 8A - PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: TEMPORARY/SPECIAL PURPOSE SIGNS (POLITICAL SIGNS), #AB89-202 The new Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between political signs and other temporary special purpose signs. The Planning Commission recommends revision of the Zoning Ordinance to limit temporary/special purpose signs to 4 square feet and to limit display to 60 days prior to a special event. Don Pratt, Director Of Community Development, stated when the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted they knew there were a number of errors in it, all of which should have been corrected during the six month correction process. This is one error that was not identified at that time and if it were administered as it is written today, they would be disrupting an important institutional process in the City - political campaigning. The City cannot legislate the content of signs, however, it can legislate size, where and how they are placed. For the purpose of administering political signs in the City they fall under the section of the Zoning Ordinance known as Temporary And Special Purpose Signs. Currently Temporary and Special Purpose Sign, whether it is a political sign, garage sale sign or one time only celebration going-out-of-business sign for a car dealer, there is TAPE #569 City Council Rag. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page i2 of 15 a seven day period unlimited size, unlimited placement - meaning they are exempt from all elements of the Zoning Ordinance. That seven day period can not be used more than once in a 90 day period. If a political sign were placed in a front yard that was bigger than two square feet for more than seven days - that would be an illegal sign. The Zoning Ordinance does allow signs up to two square feet in the residential areas for certain purposes. There are other ordinances in the City that relate to Temporary/ Special Purpose signs, they are the Right-Of-Way Ordinance and reguiations...a sign cannot be placed on the right-of-way unless a lease or permit is obtained (Engineering Department handles administration of this process); and the proposed ordinance does net alter how the Building Code affects signs. The Planning Commission recommends that the existing ordinance not be used which says "seven days unlimited size" but instead that a short term Special/Temporary Purpose Sign which is the same as the proposed ordinance which allows unlimited sign size for seven days. For any longer than seven days the Planning Commission recommended that a sign size maximum of 4 sq. ft., (two sides may be used for signage) displayed at a height not to exceed 4 feet, this sign could be placed any where in the City, would be exempt from the Zoning Ordinance for up to 60 days before the event that it advertises. The 60 day period was selected because the maximum time period between a Primary Election and General Election is 54 days in the next five years. This would allow a candidate sign who remains a candidate for the General Election to leave signs up between the two elections. Unsuccessful candidates, however, are covered by the ordinance to having to remove their signs within seven days after the event. There is no restriction on the number of signs per parcei...any residence can have unlimited 4 sq. ft. signs provided they are no taller than 4 feet. if a candidate wanted to place a larger sign, such as 4'x8', a temporary sign permit from the Zoning Ordinance would be required as well as a fee for the permit (a fee schedule is not available at this time but will be brought to Council soon). The Building Code fee for this sign would be $29.00. Mr. Pratt stated he explained the proposal no the Chairmen of both political parties - the first time neither one had any problems, but the second time one did feel it was infringing upon his freedom of speech. Wayne Estes, 1604 Gregory Way, stated in his opinion political signs create political pollution. if the signs are allowed, he suggested limiting it to "one sign per yard" Elizabeth Buell, 1722 High Avenue, questioned what is the intent of the proposed ordinance and what was wrong with the current ordinance? Mr. Pratt explained about 5-6 years ago the City adopted a Political Sign Ordinance that required a deposit. As he recalls there was a procedural error in the adoption of that ordinance but was implemented any way. Because of that procedural problem the City stopped enforcing the ordinance and some money was refunded about three years ago. In fact, on the advice of the City Attorney it may have been an illegal ordinance because it legislated content of the signs. Mr. Pratt stated the recommendation from the Planning Commission to go to a 4 sq. ft. sign has a problem. Sign painters use a 4.27 sq. ft. sign rather than 4 ft., as it is a costly operation having to trim off the sides...they use a 22"x28" rainyday board. Therefore, he recommended allowing 4.27 sq. ft. per sign, and the model motion requests a 10 days implementation period of this ordinance after it is printed. Some candidates are desiring to put signs up immediately - they will be able to but only seven days TAPE #569 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, i989 Page 13 of 15 prior to this ordinance taking effect. Mr. Overson questioned who will do the policing of sign placement, i.e., city rights-of-ways or leasing? Mr. Pratt stated the Street Department has the responsibility of policing the right-of-way. A sign cannot be placed in the right-of-way unless a permit is obtained. Mrs. Horton questioned if a sign is larger than 4.27 sq. ft.~ and a Special use Permit is required are all the other rules pertinent...number of days? Mr. Pratt stated nor they will call it a Special Temporary Purpose sign which will be subject to all the rules in the Zoning Ordinance and there will be a limit on size according to what zone it is located in and there will be a requirement for a site plan drawn to scale showing the location of the sign. Mr. Waibel questioned how general are the permits or lease for use of rights-of-way? Mr. Pratt stated the City Engineer administers the permits and leases for rights-of-way and does require a fair amount of detail due to the City being liable for anything in the right-of-way. These permits and leases are not easily granted, they can be obtained and not subjectively granted. Placement of a political sign in the right-of-way with a permit would be very rare because it would be looked at as a non-essential sign. Leases are approved by the City Council only. Mr. Collins stated supported placement of political signs and that we owed something to the American political process, which has served so well, to have something that is not quite as restrictive as other cities. Mr. Dawkins stated he did not think signs should be allowed on City rights-of-way. He did support the recommendation to change the sign size to 4.27 sq. ft. Mr. Colvin expressed concern about the clearing of signs after the event has concluded. Mr. Johnson stated he did not think the proposal was thought out very well. In his opinion, no one enforces removal of signs in rights-of-way. He did express concern that not everyone knows where the right-of-way is located for sure. In regard to sign size he is concerned that for many events signs used are 2 ft. by 4 ft., such as Boy Scouts/Pee Wees fire works or Christmas tree sales and did not feel it necessary for those type of groups to obtain a sign permit; and suggested an 8 sq. ft. sign would be a little better size. President Horninq noted he is not fond of larger size signs over the 4.27 sq. ft., however~ they are a fact of Americana. And, he questioned if Council were to pass the ordinance, as proposed, how would a candidate get placement of a 4 ft., by 4 ft., sign? Mr. Pratt stated a candidate would have to obtain a Sign Permit, a permitting process would be established for Temporary/Special Purpose signs and would establish a nominal fee for that sign. A site plan would be required showing structural supports for the sign and if the location of the proposed site was not familiar to staff they would request a photograph of the surrounding area. President Horning questioned what would be considered a nominal fee? Mr. Pratt stated assuming there will be a $29.00 fee for most signs something on the order of $5-15.00 would be appropriate. President Horninq expressed concern that setting the fee too high would exclude a lot of people from the process and did not feel it was fair. The fee of $29.00 (non-refundable) from the Building Department and $5-15.00 through Planning is unreasonable. TAPE #569 City Council Reg. Mtgo Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 14 of 15 Dick Mumma, Building Official~ stated the Building Permit fee is only required for a sign that exceeds six feet from the ground. There is a blanket exemption in the Uniform Sign Code that was adopted that says any sign that is below six feet does not require a permit from the Building Department. So, the $29.00 fee would not apply to a 4 ft., by 8 ft., sign. He suggested Council consider if a Building Permit is required that no Special Use Sign fee be required and conversely if no Building Permit is required then a Special Sign fee of $5.00 be required so that those Special Use signs that are less than six feet in height and still over the maximum allowed with no permit by Zoning be charged $5.00 and those signs that exceed the six foot requirement or Building Permit would be charged the $29.00 fee. Mr. Pratt offered a second option - the City is not making money on $5-15.00 fees, the purpose of the fee is to establish the process. If it is the Councit's policy to say not to charge fees it is possible through the Zoning Ordinance but Council does not have that option through the Building Code...that is mandated by the State. Mr. Collins stated he was still of the opinion that this is a political process since Abe Lincoln's time and he could not endorse this change because it is too restrictive. He would support something that is even less restrictive than current requirements. Mr. Dawkins questioned if a blanket fee of $99.00 for large signs be more equitable? Mr. Pratt stated they would prefer that if signs are not exempt from the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code that they view the site plan before placement. And, at this time not a lot of thought had gone into a fee structure and they were interested in Council's input. What they are concerned about is where and how the signs are placed. Mr. Pratt noted sign pollution is becoming an increasingly active complaint in the City today and the Administration believes the City needs some control over the amount of signs displayed. #1389 #1433 M/S/C(Overson/Crutcher) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, pertaining to temporary/special purpose signs which amends #4172 (Bremerton Zoning Ordinance) by changing the permitted size and display period of temporary/special purpose signs and to make the Ordinance, after second reading, effective 10 days after publication. Amendment To The Original Motion Mr. Pratt stated for clarification - what is being discussed is what signs are exempt from the Zoning Ordinance and right now the recommended size is 4.27 sq. ft., anything above that has to go through the processing, including a fee, and regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, if you make the maximum size of a sign 8 sq. ft.~ anything below 8 sq. ft., is exempt from all elements of the Zoning ordinance. M/S/C(johnson/Collins) to increase the maxmmum size of a sign before getting into any fee structure to 8 s~. ft. vote on the amendment: In Favor: Crutcher, Horton, Waibe!, Collins, Dawkins, Colvin, Johnson Opposed: Horning Abstained: Overson Vote on original motion: In Favor: Horton, Waibel, Collins, Dawkins~ Cotvin, Johnson, Overson, Crutcher Opposed: Horning TAPE #569 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 26, 1989 Page 15 of 15 With no further business the mee ing was adjourned at 8:02. LEENKK APPR NCE~ HO cil President KLM/SH/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault CLERK