HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/88TAPE #527
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
#0028
#0046
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 9, 1988
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, March 9,
1988 at 5:30 p.m. with Council President Hank Waibel
presiding. Council members present were , A1 Colvin,
Spencer Horning, Morrie Dawkins, Shirley Marry Crutcher,
C. R. "Tiny" Collins, Lon Overson, Russ Johnson and Lynn
Hotton. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and
Deputy City Clerk Gil Johnson.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
Council President Hank Waibel and Invocation was given by
Councilman A1Colvin.
President Waibel announced that Item 6A would be heard as
Item 4B.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Mlnutes Of Meeting Held March 2, 1988, #AB88-066
M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Horning) to approve Consent Agenda as
presented.
CLAIMS/WARI~sJrT REGISTER
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.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Collins) on March 9, 1988, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further
described as follows: Warrants Nos. 34855, 34856, 34863
through 35009 in the total amount of $228,573.46 and Regular
Payroll in the amount of 8310,785.55.
#2167
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
4A - EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION AWARD GREG FINKE - FIRE DEPARTMENT,
#AB88-067
The Committee met on 2/29/88 to review Mr. Finke's
suggestion to install Ground Fault Interrupters on portable
electrlc generators and portable extension cords. The
Committee felt that this was an important safety
recommendation and under the terms of the ordinance
recommends an award in the amount of $100 and a Certificate
Of Recognition for Mr. Finke's efforts and interest in the
welfare of his fellow firefighters.
Spencer Horninc, as Mayor Pro Tempore, presented Greg Finke
with a Certificate of Recognition and commended Greg and
other employees who have spent time on their own and made
contributions for the benefit of the City. Grec Finke
thanked the Council and the group who meet in regards to the
Safety Committee and their recommended acceptance of his
suggestion and hoped everyone will benefit from it.
M/S/C/U(Collins/Colvin) to approve award of $100.00 to Greg
Finke for the suggestion.
TAPE #527
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 9, 1988
Page 2 of 11
4A - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING DEPART!eNT'S
DECISION TO ASSESS CHARGES FOR CATCH BASIN REPAIR - DAN
ISBELL, #AB88-068
This item is submitted at the request of Council President
Waibel for full Council review of Administrative actions
from Engineering Department and City Attorney's office.
Dan Isbell, 1724 Burwell Street, stated he was present to
appeal a decision of the Engineering Department and
questioned if the City Council would be willing to hear his
appeal.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated the City Council is
concerned with Mr. Isbell's point raised on lack of an
appeal process to the Council or confusion over the process
coming to Council and would probably like to review that
after hearing the circumstances of his case. And, Council
may direct staff to look further into the matter and
report back to them. However, by placing this item under
Public Recognition Council has acknowledged there is no
ordinance procedure to hear an appeal this type of complaint
in place at the present time.
President Waibel stated that the Council would like a report
on procedures for hearings of this nature.
Mr. Hornin~ pointed out that it was not perfectly clear
what type of issues the Council can hear or not hear as
appeals - now it appears that the public also does not know
and he thanked Mr. Isbell for bringing this issue up to the
Council and Council will address this problem.
Mr. Johnson stated it war up to the Council to decide what
they would or would not hear. Mr. Hornin~ stated Council
needs to identify those issues that are currently heard by
the Council first and learn what areas staff understands as
appealable to Council and then review the whole process
including method of informing the public. of their options.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Hearing Examiner ordinance just
provided a more streamlined process in special cases and
beyond that issues would come before Council. Mr. Horninc
stated in this particular case the Hearing Examiner
Ordinance did not change anything. But, Council is now
thinking it possibly should have. President Waibel stated
based on the discussion held for the past two weeks on the
Hearing Examiner Ordinance modification and Mr. Isbell's
issue there is need for real clarification for the Council
and the citizens on the proper procedures available.
Mr. Johnson requested that the Council Legislative Assistant
obtain information from Municipal Research on the subject
of what are proper appeals and hearings for various cities
in the State of Washington.
Mr.. Isbell requested the City Council to ask the City
Attorney to cease with all legal proceedings against him
until the Council has come to a conclusion as to what is
applicable or not. President Waibel stated that to his
understanding this is out of the hands of the City and just
a hearing date needs to be set. Mr. Sievers stated he
would cooperate with the spirit of Council's discussion and
would not set a hearing date. for at least a month or until
Council can re-address this matter.
TAPE #527
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 9, 1988
Page 3 of 11
Mrs. Elizabeth Buell, 1722 High Avenue, expressed her
concern as to the possibility of a drought this summer and
why the City is not doing some type of conservation now.
President Waibel stated that the City Water Department has
been planning for the drought for a long time and the City
is probably in better shape than any other municipality in
the state.
Bert Geaner, 3040 Pawnee Drive, presented a resolution for
Council's consideration, requesting the resignation of
Kitsap County Commissioner Ray Aardal due to his recent
conviction of a morals offense.
Mim Huess, Executive Director of the Bremerton/Kitsap County
Visitor and Convention Bureau, reported that the City of
Bremerton was not named as the City to hold the 1989
Centennial Games, however, we did have a very strong and
good bid and they have asked that the bid stand for 1990,
giving us another year to work on the things that we need
to be a little stronger. She reported that the City of
Spokane was named for the Summer events and the City of
Wenatchee for the Winter events. Because the bid was turned
in under the City of Bremerton name, the VCB needs to know
if the City wants to continue on and go for the 1990 games?
President Watbel stated that another Resolution would be
necessary to reintroduce the application and pre~ented to
full Council.
Richard Hennin~er, 608 S. Cambrian, stated he had several
years experience in the Job Corps Program and was very
interested in organizing youth activities whic would
include job skill training as well as alternative type
activities which would help take the young people off the
street. President Waibel suggested that he talk with Mayor
Lobe and to put his plan/program in writing.
Roy McGinnis, 2711 Maple Street, expressed his concern over
Council"s decision to purchase the vehicle analyzer, noting
that it was a basic piece of equipment and would need to be
upgraded to get the most out of it; and he suggested that
someone monitor closely the utilization or non-utilization
of this piece of equipment.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Overson reported that the right-of-way in front of the
small unclaimed park at llth and Washington street (in
Highland District) would soon be in full bloom - he and his
wife completed a "clean up" of the area which when in bloom
will bring a bright spot to that area.
Mr. Collins reported that the Council met on Saturday to
work on goals and objectives.and have scheduled a Retreat to
be held April 18 at Gold Mountain Golf Course. Also,
Councilmen Johnsonl Hotton and himself met with an
individual who will serve as a facilitator for the retreat.
Mr. Dawkins reported that the State Legislature is into
its last minute budget adjustment and hopefully they will
not have to go into a Special Session. It is hoped that the
Senate will concur with the House on permanent funding for
the ferries. If the ferry funding does not pass on a
permanent basis, it will probably be passed for a two year
period.
Mr. Colvin reported he had an opportunity to hear a
presentation by Bremerton Port Commission Larry Stokes and
TAPE #527
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 9, 1988
Page 4 of 11
he hoped the Council and the Bremerton Port Commission could
meet, informally, to discuss ideas and goals for Br'emerton.
Mr. Colvin Announced that the next Sheridan Neighborhood
Association's meeting will be March 17 with Mr. Bill Duffy,
Utilities Manager, as guest speaker.
#1013
Mr. Johnson expressed his disappointment that construction
of the Kitsap Lake Park cannot be started until July with
completion by October and did not understand why the City
cannot find a contractor that is willing to build a boat
ramp within a 6 month period. Mr. Johnson pointed out that
the Kitsap Lake User Ordinance has still not been brought to
Council after being drafted by a citizens committee and he
stated his intentions to place it on Council's Agenda for
March 16. On the Charter Change Committee issue he is
designing a selection procedure and hopes to come up with a
workable number and well represented committee -
anticipating by mid-April to have the the Committee in
place. Relating to this, he received a request from the
major Department Heads of the City offering up a major
change to the Civil Service procedures and coverage, which
will be put through the committee with other requests. Mr.
Johnson raised the point, due to the request from the
Department Heads, relating to the Personnel Director having
signed the Charter Change request as well as serving as the
Civil Service Commission Secretary and the possible
appearance of fairness aRd conflict of interest it presents.
He asked that the City Attorney advise the City Council and
the Civil Service Commission as to the propriety of the
Director of Personnel continuing as Secretary to the
Commission. Ian Sievers, City Attorney stated he would look
into the matter.
Mr. Waibel stated that as a member of the Puget Sound
Region Standing Committee on Transportation he had the
opportunity to tour the Bus Tunnel and found it to be very
impressive and it will tie directly into the Ferry system
when completed.
6B - REQUEST FORAPPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF VEHICLE AND RELATED
BUDGET ADJUSTNENT, #AB88-062
Need has arisen to purchase a vehicle which was not
anticipated in the 1988 budget. The Budget Adjustment
describes the circumstances necessitating the replacement of
Vehicle #3037.
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer, stated that the Budget
Adjustment and Purchase authorization relates to a new pick
up truck to be utilized by the Street Department,
specifically by a Foreman position that was created in the
1988 budget.
M/S/C/U(Crutcher/Hor%on) to approve the purchase of the
described vehicle and related budget adjustment.
7A - ORDINANCE $4148 (SECOND READING) A!e~NDED gRaRING
EXAMINER ORDINANCE #3960, #AB88-058
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated he did a redraft to
include a Council appeal procedure following the Hearing
Examiner consideration of an appeal but had some questions
regarding the present ordinance that the Council needs to
TAPE #527
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 9, 1988
Page 5 of 11
#1499
address. Under the ordinance as it stands now he was
uncertain if the appeal to City Council involves a de novo
hearing of limited to the issues being appealed from the
Hearing Examiners decision or whether it is just a review of
the record and only a hearing to consider arguments on the
written record. The intent may have been to review the
record because there is a written transcript that is
required to be produced at the cost of the appellant,
however, there is an extensive public notice and notice to
the parties and speak to a public hearing that will be heard
before the City Council. He felt that it was not clear as
to what the appeal before Council would be. The redraft is
a denovo hearing which allows additional testimony to be
taken before the Council only limited to the issues that are
being appealed but not on all the issues a/though they may
be included on the notice of appeal to Council. The reason
this was done was to keep the cost minimal as a verbatim
report is very expensive - about $75.00 to transcribe one
hour of testimony. In the event that the Council's decision
was appealed through Superior Court, an additional
transcript would be required which would increase the costs
for the appellant. Therefore, the redraft was modeled
after the Council appeal of Planning Commission decisions
that come to Council - Council hears the matter, it is a de
novo hearing and there are.no transcriptions required.
Jim Adrian, 621 Washington, questioned the cost to the
citizen to file an appeal before the Council - is there an
additional $75.00 fee or does the Hearing Examiner Hearing
fee carry over? Mr. Sievers stated there is a single
$?5.00 fee and is refunded wherever the appellant wins an
appeal and there is no additional fee to appeal to the
Council. Mr. Adrian felt that it was up to the Council to
decide whether or not the appeal would be held behind closed
doors but the ordinance, as it is written, does not permit
them to do it. Mr. Stevers stated that the Jury System may
operate under one set of procedures but,the Council as a
quasi judicial body is regulated by the Public Meetings
Act, however, there are exceptions listed such as
personnel and real estate issues. Mr. Adrian urged Council
not to approve the ordinance as it is redrafted and
suggested further study be given the ordinance as well as
standard instruction sheets explaining the citizens appeal
rights and process; and he volunteered his time to work on
this issue.
Councilmen Colvin and Collins supported delaying action on
this item until further study can be completed.
M/S/C/U(Overson/Colvin) to table this item for four weeks
and put before a Committee of the Council as a whole and
these problems be ironed out so everyone understands what
the Hearing Examine~ is, what he will do and that all that
should be there is included and how it dovetails with the
Council.
Mr. Johnson requested that Mr. Adrian be invited to the
Council Committee meeting to help provide input and
background knowledge on this matter. Mr. Hornin~ suggested
that Mr. Isbell be included as well as any other person from
the public who might be interested to work on this issue.
He suggested putting a notice on Channel 29 requesting
citizen involvement.
?B - RESOLUTION #2206, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES RELATED TO
PUBLIC NOTICE AND ADOPTION OF THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE,
INCLUDING THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS, #AB88-051
TAPE #527
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 9, 1988
Page 8 of 11
#1889
The new proposed Zoning Ordinance has been recommended by
the Planning Commission for City Council approval and will
be before Council soon. Prior to scheduling any public
hearings or taking any action, it would be beneficial to
formalize the most important aspects of this adoption
process, specifically "notification" and "correction of
'errors" following adoption.
Ron HouGh, Planning, stated the resolution is returning
after a couple weeks of study and the main changes to it
pertain to notification of up coming public hearings and
adoption process of the new Zoning Ordinance. Those changes
are incorporated in Section i of the resolution. The first
resolution proposed a full page ad in The Sun, some City
utility billing notices and possibly some public access
television. The new proposal is to expand notification to:
Utility Billing, Taxpayer Mail-out, The Sun full page ad,
Hearings Notices of public hearings as required by State
law, posting all public places such as Post Offices, public
libraries, etc., Public Access Television - advertising on
the character generator as well as a video presentation,
group/organizations meetings, neighborhood groups. The
Correction of Errors phase is included which is outlined in
an attachment to the resolution and will be formalized
through a separate ordinance at a later date.
Jim Adrian, 621 Washington, stated he had the opportunity
and pleasure to work with Mr. Collins and his Committee to
develop the methods of notification and noted it ts very
comprehensive plan and demonstrates Council's good faith
with the citizens that they have gone the extra mile. Mr.
Adrian suggested that Mr. Pratt be supported with staff and
back up information to respond to the public once the
notification process has started.
Grant Osbera, Osberg Construction Co., Seattle, suggested
that notification be placed in any construction organization
such as AGC, business newspaper within P~get Sound area*to
inform any construction company doing business in this area.
Bert Ge~ner, 3040 Pawnee Drlve, questioned the section under
Correction of Error - asking if the Committee membership and
process be part of the ordinance. President Waibel stated
yes it will.
Mr. Homing stated that as co-chalr of the Committee it was
the intent to take advantage of every easy access to the
public that is available because funding is limited to carry
out this process.
Mr. Johnson questioned proper procedure for Councll
signature on resolutions, noting that only the Mayor and
Clty Clerk's signatures were evident on the proposed
resolution. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated it was an
error on the part of the sponsoring department and they
would be notified to correct their process.
M/S/C/U(Horntng/Colltns) to approve Resolution #2206,
establishing procedures related to public notice and
adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, and including a
process for the correction of errors as modified by striking
the following words under item (F) "if feasible, a brief";
and on Page 2 of 2 Corrections Of Errors, last paragraph
delete: "Depending on the number of corrections to be
considered by the City Council".
TAPE #527
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 9, 1988
Page 7 of 11
#2286
#2314
#2346
8A - PUBLIC HFJLRING - 10% ANNEXATION PETITION NOTICE OF
INTENT: SINCLAIR PARE UTILITY PROPERTY ANNEXATION, (A) 10~
PETITION ACCEPTANCE TO COBeeENCE ANNEXATION, (B) YS~ PETITION
HEARING FOR APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION AND (C) ORDINANCE (FIRST
READINO), ~AB88-069
The City, represented by Mayor Lobe's signature is
petittoning the City Council for Water Utility owned lands
south of the City~s boundaries. The City Council may or may
not accept a petition from the owners of 10~ of the
valuation.
After the City votes to accept the petltlon for annexation,
and after presentation of a petltion represented by the
owners of 75~ of the property value in the area, the Clty
Council conducts a hearlng to determine whether r not to
annex the properties. A vote ls held on the annexation
hearing.
If Council approves annexation, a vote on first reading of
the Ordinance is held.
Ken Huuhes, staff, stated the CltV has been in the process
of annexing utility properties and this is the last major
acreage for this process. Also, the property under
consideration is owned 100~ by the City.
Mr. Hornlnc pointed out'~that this is a continuation of the
Ctty's effort to protect our Utility and it is appropriate
it be done through this method.
M/S/C/U(Horning/Colvin) to accept a petition from the owners
of 10~ of the valuation of the property described on this
annexation section - commonly as Sinclair Park Uttlties
Property Annexation.
M/S/C/U(Colltns/Crutcher) to accept the 75~ petltton and
approve the Sinclair Park Annexation with the following
considerations: (1) The area shall assume legal Clty debts;
and (2) the current Comprehensive Planning designation shall
be applied.
M/S/C/U(Horton/Dawkins) to approve Ordinance, on first
reading, providing for the annexation of certain territory
to the City of Bremerton and incorporating the same within
the corporate limits.
8B - PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL
DEVRtO~ & CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, DEVELOPMENT OF A
MINI-PARE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF DOCESIDE ON LITSAP LAKE
SUBDIVISION (SL-4-87), #AB88-070
The City Council is being requested to approve a Shoreline
Substantial Development and a Conditional Use Permit for the
development of a private recreational shoreline tract on Lot
? in the recorded Subdivision, Dockside on Eltsap Lake. The
proposal is in compliance with the state statues and the
Bremerton Shoreline Management Master Program (BSMMP).
Ed Davis, Planner, stated that the permit sought by the
applicant is for Lot #7, one of 3-4 lots that happen to fall
within the 100 ft., of the Osprey protection. Mr. Davis
reviewed the background data which included: (A) Shoreline
Designation is R-Residential; () Proposed Designation in
Update Study - to remain as Residential; (B) Location: 6040
Osprey Circle; (C) Site: approximately 9,727 sq. ft.,; (D)
Existing Land Use: undeveloped lot (Proposed Land Use:
TAPE #527
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 9, 1988
Page 8 of 11
development of a private waterfront access to Kitsap Lake
and mini-park for future residents of the Dockside On Kitsap
Lake Subdivision); (E) Existing Zoning - R1 - Residential
(proposed zoning recommended to be SF-2 - Single Family
Residential with a minimum lot size of 9600 square feet);
(F) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential,
dwelling units per acre; (G) State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) Compliances: the City of Bremerton as lead agency
issued a DNS on February 29, 1988. Also included were
departmental and relevant agency responses. Findings Of
Facts/Analysis And Conclusions reflect:
(A) Approval of a shore Line Substantial Development Permit
(SDP) must be based upon the followins:
(1) Consistency with the policies and procedures of
the State Coastal Management Act. (In Compliance)
(2) Consistency with the Bremerton ShoreLine Manage-
ment Master Program (BSMMP). (In Compliance)
(3)
Consistency with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning. (In Compliance)
(B) The Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Shall be
~ranted when it has been demonstrated that all of the
followinu criteria has been met:
(1) The use will cause no unreasonably adverse affects
on the environment or other existing or potential
uses which are allowed outright in the subject
environment.
(a)
As part of the City's approval of the Sub-
Division , numerous conditions were adopted
which reduced adverse effects to the
environment, such as: Osprey Habitat Manage-
ment Plan; a 25 foot Riparian Management
Plan; and development of Erosion Control
Plan.
(2)
The use will not interfere with public use of
shorelines.
(a)
The proposed use will not interfere with the
public use but will enhance the use of the
shoreline. By providing access to the shore-
lines the proposed sixty (60) foot pier will
be the exception as high speed summer
boaters will have to stay away from the
shoreline in that area in order to avoid
protrusion of the pier into the lake. Also,
it should limit high speed water skiers
coming close into the shore which might
disturb the Osprey.
(3)
Design of the site will be compatible with the
surroundings and the Master Program
(a) see under 4(a)
(4)
The proposed use will not be contrary to the
general intent of the Master Program.
(a)
The requested uses of the site is permitted
in the BSMMP and are not contrary to the
general intent of the Shore Line Master
Program.
TAPE #527
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 9, 1988
Page 9 of 11
CAPE #528
The role of the City Council, acting as the Shorelines
Hearings Board, is to evaluate and permit the development
according to the Local Shoreline Master Program and in
conformance with various state administrative regulations.
Mr. Davis stated staff recommends granting the requested
applications with the following five conditions:
(1) To comply with the Residential Development Regulations
Section of the BSMMP, the applicant/developer shall
incorporate existing vegetation/trees in a minimum ten (10)
foot wide landscaped buffer of evergreen trees and shrubs
along the north property line. Along the south property
line, the landscaped buffer shall be a minimum width of 12
1/2 feet to compensate for a 7 1/2 foot existing utility
easement along the property lien. The buffer shall include
any remaining native vegetation and be developed with
evergreen trees and shrubs. A path, trail or walk shall be
encouraged and permitted in the shoreline vicinity of the
southern landscaped buffer to provide access to the dock (or
pier). A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Director of Community Development for review and approval.
(2) The floating dock or pier shall be developed in the
location shown on the site plan to provide the maximum
distance from the Osprey nest and shall not violate the 100
foot radius when the radius is extended west into Kitsap
Lake.
(3) The proposed floating dock (or pier), gazebo and
parking area shall be constructed in compliance with the
Osprey Habitat Management Plan. The plan on page 3 states:
"No heavy earth moving, (i.e. bulldozers, pile
drivers) construction activities can occur within
300 feet of the nest tree during nesting season
which occurs between April I and August 31."
(4) The applicant/developer shall work with the
Superintendent of Utilities (sanitary sewer) of the City to
coordinate the location/construction of the pier, (whether
floating or on piles) with the location of the existing 15-
inch sanitary sewer pressure main that crosses the site (Lot
#7) in close proximity to the shoreline of Kitsap Lake.
(5) There shall not be permitted any permanent moorage at
or in conjunction with the dock.
Mr. Davis stated staff, as well as the Kitsap Neighborhood
Association, felt strongly that a "mini marina" not be
allowed and wished to discourage use of the dock by high
speed type boats.
Grant Osber~, Osberg Construction Co., stated that the park
will be a neat addition for the residents of the
subdivision, giving them access to the lake. The plan is to
provide a landscaped type park-with a gazebo, providing a
place to hold community type activities as well as sales
activities.
Gll Johnson, Deputy City Clerk, read a letter into the
record from Jim Strait, President of Kitsap Lake
Neighborhood Association, stating that the Kitsap Lake
residents and Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association find no
objections to this request.
TAPE #528
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
December 16, 1987
Page 10 of 11
#0436
Pat Cater, 109-B Oak, questioned how do the developers
intend to keep non-residents from encroaching on this area
and if there would be any restroom facilities on site?
Mr. Davis stated that would be the responsibility of the
Home Owners Association once the development is built out
and the developer turns over the common land site to the
Home Owners Association. Also, it will probably be signed
for "residents only" and if trespassing is a problem then
the Bremerton Police Department could be called in. There
is no plan to have restroom facilities on the site.
Mr. Colvin questioned who would maintain the dock once it
was built? Mr. Davis stated that this would be the
responsibility of the Home Owners Association. The action
before Council is granting the developer the right to go out
into the lake to build a dock/pier. The developer has
included a drawing of the planned dock/pier.
Mr. Johnson questioned what other rights along the shoreline
does the developer have, such as swimming areas, etc.?
Mr. Davis stated that their only right is what is granted in
the Special Use Permit - to extend the dock in the
configuration shown in the drawing into the lake.
Mr. Collins questioned what is to stop a homeowner from
changing the contour of the shoreline so that a private boat
could be parked along the edge of the lake? Mr. Davis
stated it is hoped that.the subdivision will attract people
who will enjoy the area' as it is, however, a neighbor may
report the action whereby the Building Official would
investig-te and determine if a violation had taken place.
Mr. Colvin questioned how much of the Lake would the Home
Owners ~aSociation own? Mr. Davis stated actual frontage of
the lake is only 60-75 foot frontage - no water is owned by
the lots. Mr. Osber~ stated there were some government lots
that went into the lake at the time the property was
purchased, however, when it was subdivided the property line
was limited to the shoreline. Mr. Colvin pointed out that
if the lake is public then the pier will be protruding out
into a public area. Ian Sievere, City Attorney, stated
that the Lake itself is City Park property and under the
State Shoreline/Tldeland regulations it is allowable to
place a dock out into the water and if this request is
approved it includes approval of use of City's underlying
property.
Mrs. Hotton question what agency controls regulations on
Osprey nest. Mr. Davis stated that it was a combination of
State agencies and the City working together to approve a
plan, which the City adopted, and would be the City's
responsibility for enforcement. Mr. Davis noted that there
is presently no penalty on record in the event there is a
violation.
M/S/C/U(Johnson/Colvtn) to approve the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the
development of Lot #7 in Dockside on Kitsap Lake Subdivision
as it conforms to the goals, policies and regulations of
Bremerton Shoreline Management Master Program with the
mitigated conditions:
(1) To comply with the Residential Development Regulations
Section of the BSMMP, the applicant/developer shall
incorporate existing vegetation/trees in a minimum ten (10)
foot wide landscaped buffer of evergreen trees and shrubs
along the north property lien. Along the south property
line, the landscaped buffer shall be a minimum width of 12
TAPE #528
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 9, 1988
Page 11 of 11-
1/2 feet to compensate for a 7 1/2 foot existing utlllty
easement along the property line. The buffer shall include
any remaining native vegetation and be developed with
evergreen trees and shrubs. A path, trail or walk shall be
encouraged and permitted in the shoreline vicinity of the
southern landscaped buffer to provide access to the dock (or
pier). A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Director of Community Development for review and approval.
(2) The floating dock or pier shall be developed in the
location shown on the site plan to provide the maximum
distance from the osprey nest and shall not violate the 100
foot radius when the radius is extended west into Kitsap
Lake.
(3) The proposed floating dock (or pier), gazebo and
parking area shall be constructed in compliance with the
Osprey Habitat Management Plan. The plan states:
"No heavy earth moving, (i.e., bulldozers, pile
drivers) construction activities can occur within
300 feet of the next tree during nesting season
which occurs between April i and August 31."
(4) The applicant/developer shall work with the
Superintendent of Utilities (sanitary sewer) of the City to
coordinate the location/construction of the pier, (whether
floating or on piles), with the location of the existing 15-
inch sanitary sewer pressure main that crosses the site (Lot
#?) in close proximity to the shoreline of Kitsap Lake.
(5) There shall not be permitted any permanent moorage at
or in conjunction with the dock.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
EATHLEEN L. MCCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK
HANK WAIBEL, Council PresAdent
City of Bremerton
KLM/HW/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault