3/27/2018 6:11:58 AM
5/6/2011 11:09:35 AM
Clerk - CC Ord Res Min Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
City Council Reg Mtg Minutes <br /> Wednesday, April 20, 2011 <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br /> E Approval of Community Forestry Assistance Grant Agreement with the Washington State <br /> Department of Natural Resources to help pay for shade and habitat trees for use at Lions Park <br /> F Award contract to ESN Northwest, Inc for the project titled "ORC Infection at former Chevron <br /> Property" <br /> There were no comments from the public <br /> 05:54:42 M /S /C /U (Runyon/Wofford) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented <br /> CLOSED RECORD HEARING <br /> 6A — CLOSED RECORD HEARING FOR BREMERTON INVESTMENT GROUP LLC PROPOSED <br /> SITE SPECIFIC REZONE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 15 STREET AND CAMBRIAN <br /> AVENUE Roger Lubovich City Attorney, explained that the action before the City Council is to hold <br /> a closed record heannq on an application for a site specific rezone for property located at the <br /> northeast corner of 15 and Cambrian The applicant, Bremerton Investment Group, LLC, requests a <br /> rezone of 0 34 acres from Neighborhood Center Core to Low Density Residential (R -10) The <br /> Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Neighborhood Center The Department of Community <br /> Development reviewed the application and recommended denial of the rezone <br /> A site specific rezone application is processed as a Type IV City Council decision pursuant to <br /> provisions set forth in the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) BMC 20 58 040 requires City Council to <br /> act on the proposal after the Administrative Hearing Examiner holds an open record public hearing <br /> and makes a recommendation to the City Council The Hearing Examiner recommended that <br /> The City Council review the Comprehensive Plan, the City's 2005 Zoning Map where the R -10 <br /> is described, and the rezone application to determine if the rezone request from NCC to R -10 <br /> is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan If so, it is recommended that the Council remand <br /> the application to the Department of Community Development to analyze the remaining <br /> criteria for approval of rezone to determine if the request should be granted If no, then the <br /> rezone request would be denied and the Council need not take further action at this time <br /> A site specific rezone application is a "quasi judicial" matter, and as such City Council Members shall <br /> not have ex -parte communication with City staff of the Applicant regarding the matter Each party <br /> shall be entitled to a five - minute presentation to Council, whereby the Applicant will have the <br /> opportunity to present first, followed by the City, followed by a rebuttal by the Applicant The parties <br /> may not introduce new evidence into the record The Council must make a determination on the <br /> proposal based on the record The following page contains a table of contents of the public record <br /> The action before the City Council is whether or no the proposed rezone is consistent with the City's <br /> Comprehensive Plan <br /> • If the proposed rezone is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the rezone <br /> application will be remanded to the Department of Community Development for further <br /> processing and review OR <br /> • If the proposed rezone is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the rezone <br /> application is denied <br /> President Maupin read the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any Council Members 1) <br /> have demonstrated bias or prejudice for or against any party in the proceedings, 2) have a direct or <br /> indirect monetary interest in the proposed project, 3) have developed pre - judgment prior to hearing <br /> the record, or 4) have had any ex -parte communication with the applicant prior to the hearing <br /> All Council Members responded in the negative so President Maupin discussed contact with the <br /> applicant that did not relate to this issue but asked if this would be considered ex -parte <br /> communication Roger Lubovich responded that this does not constitute ex -parte communication <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.