Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/30/02 AGENDA
FILE 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337 * Phone (360) 478-5280 · Fax (360) 478-5251 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY - DECEMBER 30, 2002 "FISCAL & BUDGET" and "OPERATIONS,' COMMrl-rEE MEETING 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in Council Conference Room CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in Council Chambers A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Invocation CONSl[NT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - December 11, 2002 (#AB02-261) B. Minutes of Meeting - December 18, 2002 (#AB02-262) CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS ~' /~0~ aV4;/p(~l~' '/J~;~' COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PUBUC RECOGNITION - Comments limited to 3-rninutes NEW I~USINESS A. Appointment of Dennis Treger, CPA to the Audit Committee (~AB02-263) B. Appointment of Ryan Nickels to the Public Access Citi~-ns Advisory Committee (#AB02-264) C. Appointment of Wendy L. Davis to the Public Access Citi~ns Advisory Committee (#AB02-265) PUBLIC HEARINGS - RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES A. Ordinance [Second Reading] No. 4828 Repealing the Dov~town Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan and Amending the Zoning Code establishing the Downtown Distdct (#AB02-219) B. Ordinance [Second Reading] No. 4829 Amending the Shoeline Master Program relating to Downtown Development Regulations (#AB02-220) C. Ordinance [Second Reading] No. 4830 Reaffirming Designated Blighted Areas, Re-designating the Project Area, and Creating a New Community Renewal Plan for the Project Area (#AB02-221) D. Resolution No. 2881, In Support of Passenger-Only Ferry Service (#AB02-266) ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS ltI~ETING ol'1 5.2 E-mail: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us · Web: www. ci.bremerton.wa.us 12/30/2002 13:06 FAT ~001/001 FILE 30 December, 2002 To Bremerton City Council Subject: Consideration of the Commercial Core boundaries for central Bremerton; Agenda item for City Council meeting 30 December, 2002. I am requesting that thc Bremerton City Council, in it's scheduled meeting 30 Dec 2002, reconsider it's intended boundaries for the commercial core for Central Bremerton. According to the Sun Newspaper dated Monday, 30 Dec you are considering recognition of the core area boundaries to be identified as running firom Washington St to Warren Ave (East to West limits) and thc Shipyard to 6tb S~reet (South to North). It is a fervent wish by most of us in the business community that the core area attain commercial success, with a business focus and gro,~h opportunity for the new businesses we all hope to see in the near future. Accordingly I would strongly urge thc Council to consider extending the core designation beyond the 6th street limit northbound. I recommend that the entire a_rca from Washington to Warren between 6a' and 11' be added to the commercial designation. If'you are reluctant to convert that much residential to thc commercial category, then an alternative of strip extension of Warren, Park, and Pacific Avenues to I 1~" should be considered. These sections already have sufficient commercial development that they should be a part of the business core in order to pe,ait orderly development of new businesses, growth ofex. isfing businesses, and a sense of participation in the core sector of Bremerton commercial endeavors. I apologize for not presenting this in person but am committed to a longstanding obligation that conflicts with the Council schedule. Shanc Foraker.. ..... O~cr, PIP l~rinting 711 Pacific Ave. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: MINUTES OF MEETING - DECEMBER 11, 2002 FOR AGENDA OF: DECEMBER 30, 2002 ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY COUNCIL ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS, PRESIDENT DATE SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 19, 2002 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back ifnecessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT [--] MAYOR: INFORMATION APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY COUN~CIL PRESIDENT: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: 5. RECOMMENDATION: 7. NOTICE OF ACTIQN: PULLED [--] TABLED []]]]] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: DISAPPROVED [-~ AMENDED []]] DATE: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:. 10. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 11. RESEARCH SOURCES: TAPES #1868 & #1869 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 11, 2002 The weekly 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, December 11, 2002, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Eric Younger, Mike Shepherd, Ed Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed by the invocation provided by Council Member Daren Nv¢lren. President Arends made the following announcements: 1. A Pre-Council session was held in the Council Conference Room to discuss general Council business; and 2. The Council will hold a 15-minute Executive Session to discuss "POTENTIAL LITIGATION". CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - November 13, 2002 (#AB02-242) B. Minutes of Meeting - November 20, 2002 (#AB02-243) C. Agreement between the Washington State Department of Revenue, Edward Faulk, and the City of Bremerton (#AB02-244) ~0015 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0040 MISICIU (Younger/McConnell) On December 11, 2002 the Council approved payment for Check Numbers 276932 through 277080 in the amount of $325,176.44; and Regular Payroll in the amount of $1,021,886.38 for the period ending November 30, 2002. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mike Short reported on the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) meeting he recently attended, where they continued their work on "Lane Use". Mike Shepherd commented on the showing of "Pearl Harbor" at the Charleston Cinema this past weekend, and particularly thanked the owners of the Theater; and Don Green, a member of the "Pearl Harbor's Survival Association for his presentation. Ed Rollman noted that he had a wonderful time at the First Friday Art Walk and Winter Fest events in downtown Bremerton last Friday, and thanked all the businesses that participated. was sad to report the death of Mr. Rich Danjel, one of the original band members with the Wailers. He Daren Ny.qren thanked the American Red Cross for organizing the 4th Annual American Red Cross Heroes Breakfast on Tuesday, December 10; and also thanked the Bremerton Yacht Club and its members for organizing the Christmas Ship display. TAPES #1868 & #1869 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 2002 Page 2 of 6 Wayne Olsen thanked his fellow Council members for the conduct they showed at the meeting last week, particularly Council member Eric Younger; and encouraged the public to support the YWCA with a donation or even a visit this Holiday Season. Carol Arends also enjoyed the First Friday Art Walk and Winter Fest event last week. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Bozem~n read a statement to apologize for his "emotional outburst" during the Council meeting last week, and provided further details to explain his position on the management and administration of the Public Safety Bond. He noted that he looks forward to working with the Council on this issue. He then introduced Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager, reminded the public that a City program is available to assist homeowners in disconnecting downspouts from their homes if they are connected to the sewer system to help reduce combined sewer overflows. Citizens may call 479-2837 for a free site assessment, or visit the web site at www.cityofbremerton.com for additional information. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Allan Shute reiterated his concern about the City's proposal to charge a residential parking fee. Don Larson announced a Tree Planting event on Saturday, December 14 at 10:00 A.M. on the northwest side of SR303 at the end of the Warren Avenue Bridge. Helen Miller read a statement into the record in support of previous Mayor Lynn Horton for initiating the discussions with the Department of the Navy to obtain the Eastpark property. John Thomas expressed his concern over the use of interest proceeds from the bond to pay for a project manager, and asked the Council to consider other uses for that money like the purchase of police cars or fire trucks rather than to increase staffing. 8A - AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE "CASAD DAM INTAKE TOWER SEISMIC UPGRADF PROJECT" PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES WITH ACRES INTERNATIONAL~ CORPORATION (#AB02-245): Michael Mecham, City Engineer, summarized that the Department of Public Works & Utilities has negotiated an amendment to the Casad Dam Intake Tower Seismic Upgrade Project Professional Services Agreement for design services with Acres International Corporation. This amendment adds scope and budget for evaluation of alternative braces, and replacement of the tower gate operators and operating rods. The amendment adds $35,275 to the existing contract of $152,858, for a revised contract amount not to exceed $188,133. There are sufficient funds within the DWSRF loan to fund this amendment. The requested action before the City Council is approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Acres International Corp. There were no comments from the public. #0735 M/S/C (Maupin/Short) Move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Acres International Corporation in an amount of $35,275.00 for a total contract amount not to exceed $188,133, and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. TAPES #1868 & #1869 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 2002 Page 3 of 6 Voted in favor of the Motion: Nygren, Rollman, Shepherd, Younger, Maupin, Short, McConnell, and Arends. Abstained: Olsen Motion carried: 8-Yes; and 1-Abstention 9A - RESOLUTION NO. 2880 FOR REMOVAL OF GARBAGE AND DEBRIS ON THF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1906 N. WYCOFF AVENUE {#AB02-246): Janet Lunceford, Building Inspector, stated that on October 11, 2002, Public Works & Utilities removed garbage and debris from the property located at 1906 N. Wycoff Avenue after the owners of record, Homeside Lending, Inc. failed to do so as ordered. The legal requirements for notice were met. The cost of this action, including administrative fees totaled $902.44. Council must now decide if the fees are just and reasonable, and how the fees should be collected. There were no comments from the public. ~q)860 M/S/C/U (Younger/McConnell) Move to pass Resolution No. 2880, ordering that the fees in the amount of $902.44 incurred for the abatement of garbage and debris located at 1906 N. Wycoff Avenue be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property. 9B - PUBLIC HEARING APPROVING A STREET VACATION FOR A PORTION OF SECONn STREET EAST OF WASHINGTON AVENUE (#AB02-247): Michael Mecham, City Engineer, said that the City has initiated the vacation of a portion of Second Street east of Washington Avenue. A hearing date of December 11, 2002 was set by the City Council on November 20, 2002. Posting of the hearing notices has been completed in accordance with state law and the Bremerton Municipal Code. The vacated area will be incorporated into the abutting City owned property to provide a site compatible with usage for downtown redevelopment. Functionality of Second Street as a transportation facility will not be significantly affected. Access to the waterfront will not be impeded with this vacation. This is a Class [! right-of-way and compensation is not required in accordance with BMC 11.20.080. Helen Miller asked if the ordinance affected the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Lubovich stated that the purpose is to maintain the air rights over the sidewalk, and that the vacation would actually improve access for pedestrians. Mr. Mecham indicated that there have been no concerns voiced by the public. #0990 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Rollman) Move to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to vacate a portion of Second Street, east of Washington Avenue. 9C - ORDINANCE NO. 4838 rSECOND READING] AMENDING THE 2002 BUDGET (#AB02- 240): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on December 4, 2002. There were no comments from the public. #1090 M/S/C/U (Olsen/Short) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4838 amending the fiscal year 2002 budget on second reading. TAPES #1868 & #1869 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11,2002 Page 4 of 6 9D - ORDINANCE NO. 4839 [SECOND READING] ADOPTING THE 2003 BUDGET (#AB02- 241 ): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on December 4, 2002. Several of the Council members thanked the Mayor and his staff for the collaborative effort in working with the City Council on this budget. #1850 Amendment to Main Motion/S/F (Rollman/Shepherd) Move to increase Fund 354.0000 "PARKING INFRACTIONS" by the entire amount necessary to pay for the Residential Parking Permit Program. Voted in favor of the Amendment: Rollman, Shepherd Voted opposed to the Amendment: Maupin, Short, Olsen, McConnell, Nygren, Younger, and Arends Motion failed: 2-Yes; 7-No #1935 Main Motion/SiC (McConnell/Olsen) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4839 on second reading, including an amendment to the "2003 Budget" to change the Position Titles under the "Department of City Council Fund 001-11" and the "Pay Band" to read as follows: "Council Liaison" is re-titled to "Legislative Assistant", "Legislative Assistant/Internal Auditor Assistant" is re-titled to "Council/Auditor Assistant", and to change Position Title under the "Department of Auditor Fund 001-18" and "Pay Band" to read as follows: "Internal Auditor" is re-titled to "City Auditor". Voted in favor of Main Motion: Short, Olsen, McConnell, Nygren, Younger, Maupin, and Arends Voted opposed to Main Motion: Rollman and Shepherd Motion carried: 7-Yes; 2-No 9E - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] RELATING TO COMMERCIAL PARKING TAX RATES (#AB02-248): ,Kathy McCluskey, Administrative Services Director, pointed out that the proposed ordinance amends Section 3.82.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to increase the commercial parking tax rate to 8%. Bob Dupree of Diamond Parking provided additional information in support of this increase. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Olsen endorsed a 6% increase, but not 8%. #2295 M/S/C (Younger/Short) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. Voted in favor of Motion: McConnell, Nygren, Rollman, Shepherd, Younger, Maupin, Short, and Arends Voted opposed to Motion: Olsen Motion carried: 8-Yes; 1-No 9F- ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS (~b~,B02-249): Kathy McCluskey, Administrative Services Director, announced that the proposed ordinance amends Chapter 10.09 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to establish permit fees for the issuance of parking permits, makes minor amendments, and update Chapter 3.01 Rate Tables A and B relating to parking fees and fines. Additionally, it was noted that the fee would be $12.00 per vehicle (with a limit of two), two free visitor permits would be provided, and billing would take place once per year. TAPES #1868 & #1869 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 2002 Page 5 of 6 The fo/lowing citizens voiced their opposition to the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program: Allen Shute, John Thomas, Del Knauss, Helen Miller, and Terry Hod¢~en. TAPE #1869 After an in-depth discussion by members of the Council, the vote was taken .... #0625 M/S/C (Younger/Maupin) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. Voted in favor of Motion: Nygren, Younger, Maupin, Shod, Olsen, McConnell, and Arends Voted opposed to Motion: Rollman and Shepherd Motion carried: 7-Yes; 2-No 9G - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] RELATING TO GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSER (#AB02-250): Ro~er Lubovich, City Attorney, summarized that the proposed ordinance repeals Chapter 5.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to business licenses, business and occupation taxes and utility taxes, and creates a new chapter 5.02 relating to the issuance, denial, and revocation of general business licenses and establishes provisions relating to the renting and leasing of real property. There were no comments from the public. #0955 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Maupin) Move to approve the proposed ordinance as amended on first reading. 9H - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING1 RELATING TO BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION (B & O) TAXES (#A~02-251): Roller Lubovich, City Attorney, told the Council that the proposed ordinance updates the BMC provisions relating to business and occupation taxes; separates the provisions of the BMC related to business and occupation taxes from those related to business licenses and utility taxes; and establishes provisions relating to administration of the same. There were no comments from the public. #1405 M/S/C/U (Short/Maupin) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. 91 - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] RELATING TO UTILITY TAXES (#AB02-252): Rog~er Lubovich, City Attorney, emphasized that the proposed ordinance updates the provisions relating to utility taxes; separates the provisions of the BMC related to utility taxes from those related to business licenses and business and occupation taxes; and establishes new taxes for certain utilities. John Thomas referred to Section 3.50.050 "PERSONS SUBJECT TO TAX--AMOUNT" of the proposed ordinance, and asked why there was such a disparity in the rates of utilities. Mr. Lubovich responded that the 7% is the payment in lieu of taxes that the utility pays the General Fund; the 6% are the general taxes on the utilities; and the current 11% tax for Solid Waste has actually gone down the last several years from a high of 21%. #1565 M/S/C/U (Nygren/Shod) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. 9J - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR TAXES (#AB0~-253): Roc3er Lubovich, City Attorney, stated that the proposed ordinance creates a new chapter in the BMC, which establishes new provisions for the administration of 7 TAPES #1868 & #1869 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 11, 2002 Page 6 of 6 City codes relating to business licenses, business and occupation taxes, utility taxes, and other City codes making reference to said chapter. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Maupin thanked Mr. Lubovich for his proactive approach in updating these ordinances. #1755 MISICIU (McConnell/Short) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. At the conclusion of regular business, the Council recessed to the Council Conference Room for a 15-minute Executive Session to discuss "POTENTIAL LITIGATION". The Council members then reconvened in the Council Chambers to continue the Council meeting. 10A- POTENTIAL LITIGATION REGARDING THE CITY OF BREMERTON V. FOSTER PEPPER & ~SHqFELMAN (#AB02-254): Gary Sexton, Economic Development Director, established that a briefing was provided to the Council regarding the City of Bremerton v. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN. There were no comments from the public. #1805 M/S/C/U (Younger/Olsen) Move to approve the mediated offer of settlement in the matter of the City of Bremerton v. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN, Cause No. 01-2-00968-2, and to authorize the Mayor to finalize the settlement. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Prepared and Submitted by: Attest: LORI SMITH Council Liaison PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk CAROL ARENDS, City Council President City of Bremerton CA/PJ/Is/cge c: Normal Distribution; File AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: MINUTES OF MEETING - DECEMBER 18, 2002 FOR AGENDA OF: DECEMBER 30, 2002 ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY COUNCIL ORIGINATOR: CAROL ARENDS, PRESIDENT DATE SUBMITTED: DECEMB£R 19, 2002 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back ifnecessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT [~] MAYOR: INFORMATION['-] APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: 5. RECOMMENDATION: 7. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED [-] TABLED [~] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [--] DATE: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: 10. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 11. RESEARCH SOURCES: lO TAPE #1870 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 18, 2002 The weekly 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, December 18, 2002, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike Shod, Will Maupin, Eric Younger, Ed Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member Mike Shepherd was absent. Aisc present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed by the invocation provided by Reverend Frankie Coleman from Word of Life Fellowship Church. President Arends made the following announcements: 1. A Pre-Council session was held to discuss general Council business; 2. The Council will hold a 20-minute Executive Session to "REVIEW LABOR NEGOTIATIONS"; 3. The Council will hold a Study Session on "EXEMPT EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL POLICIES & PROCEDURES"; and 4. The City Council will hold the next regular business meeting on Monday, December 23, 2002. CONSENT AGENpA A. Minutes of Meeting - November 26, 2002 (#AB02-255) B. Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for Public Defender W. David Rovang (#AB02- 256) #0025 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0045 M/S/C/U (Younger/McConnell) On December 18, 2002 the Council approved payment for Check Numbers 277136 through 277323 in the amount of $929,154.95. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Cecil McConnell wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday! Daren Nv.qren announced a Habitat for Humanity Work Party on Saturday, December 21 beginning at 9:00 A.M. He suggested that anyone interested in participating to call the Council office at 478-5280. He also encouraged citizens to "shop locally". Ed Rollman also wished the citizens a Merry Christmas; and after a brief report on her career, noted celebrity Lee Meriwether was from Bremerton. Will Maupin reported on a Bremerton Housing Authority Board meeting he recently attended. Mike Short thanked Shirley Wise for organizing the "NIGHT OF 1000 STARS" event, providing an opportunity for local officials to participate in a "ride along" with City, County, and State Officers. He also reiterated information about the Habitat for Humanity Work Party on Saturday. Carol Arends also provided a brief report on her "ride a long" event as part of the "NIGHT OF 1000 STARS". TAPE #1870 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 18, 2002 Page 2 of 4 MAYOR'S REPORT On behalf of Mayor Carv Bozeman, Sherril Huff-Menees wished everyone a very Happy Holiday Season. She then introduced Rich Rucker and Gre_~ Mecham, who provided an update report on the Bremerton Ice Rink, which is progressing ahead of schedOle. A memento (hockey puck) was provided to each of the Council members in appreciation for their unanimous vote in approving this project. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Allen Shute thanked citizens for continuing to send messages to his personal e-mail, and mentioned he is now a resident in District #8, represented by Council member Will Maupin. Burt Geqner expressed his appreciation to the State and the County for 'listening to the people" by backing off on several proposals to increase taxes, and hoped that the City will follow suit. 8A - PROFES~.IONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ED FAULK, GREENS SUPERINTENDENT AT GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX (#AB02-257): Jim Spencer, Parks & Recreation Director, summarized that Ed Faulk has been the Greens Superintendent at the Gold Mountain Golf Complex since October 1, 1996. During this time the conditions have been so exceptional that they have attracted national attention for their playability. Mr. Faulk brings over 25 years of experience to this position, including 13 years as the Assistant Superintendent at Gold Mountain, in addition to his over 6 years as the Greens Superintendent. This new contract was necessitated by findings in a recent Department of Revenue audit. Compensation levels are consistent with previously agreed to levels and a review of actual expenditures. There were no comments from the public. #0585 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve the attached Professional Services Agreement for Mr. Ed Faulk. Jim Spencer took a moment to thank Pat Westhoff for all his help and support during his 33 years with the City of Bremerton and offered him best wishes on his recent retirement. President Arends also thanked Mr. Westhoff for his years of service to the City, and welcomed back Mr. Ed. Faulk. 9A - ORDINANCE NO. 4840 rSECOND READING1 RELATING TO COMMERCIAL PARKING TAX RATES (#AB02-248): The first reading of the ordinance was heard on December 11, 2002. There were no comments from the public. #0660 M/S/C (McConnell/Nygren) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4840 on second reading. Voted in favor of Motion: Rollman, Younger, Maupin, Short, McConnell, Nygren, and Arends Voted opposed to Motion: Olsen Motion carried: 7-Yes; l-No 9B - ORDINANCE. NO. 4841 [SECOND READING1 RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS (#AB02-249): The first reading of this ordinance of the ordinance was heard on December 11, 2002. Allen Shute thanked the Council for their proposal to Table this issue, and thanked Eric Williams for his article regarding this issue in The SUN. Michael Croon stated that parking enforcement was necessary, and he did not believe that proposal to charge residents $12 per year was unreasonable. He encouraged the Council to retain the fee to improve the service. /2- TAPE #1870 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 18, 2002 Page 3 of 4 President Arends announced that a majority of the Council agreed this issue required mom study, therefore noted them would be a Parking Committee formed under the dim ction of Sherril Huff-Menees. Mr. Maupin pointed out that m vitalizing Bm merton was the priority for the City, but that if a zero-fee program was implemented, the money would need to be recouped through the loss of another City service. Mr. Younaer and Mr. Nwren expmssed their concern that by not implementing this system, them would be a $25,000 "hole" in the City's 2003 Budget, therefore would not vote in favor to Table this item. Mr. McConnell and Mr. Short agreed that the ordinance needed additional work, them fore agreed to Table this item #1105 M/S/C (Rollman/Olsen) Move to table Agenda Item 9-B. Voted in favor of Motion: Maupin, Short, Olsen, McConnell, Rollman, and Arends Voted opposed to Motion: Younger and Nygmn Motion carried: 6-Yes; 2-No 9C - ORDINANCE NO. 4842 [SECOND READING] RELATING TO GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSER (#AB02-250): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on December 11, 2002. Allan Hum, Jerry Van Fossen, and Bert Geoner, members of the Puget Rental Owners Association (PROA), voiced their opposition to the $55 fee for rental owners. Allen Shute stated that ranting land is a "business", and therefore a license fee should be expected. #2080 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4842 on second reading. 9D - ORDINANCE NO. 4843 [SECOND READING] RELATING TO BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION (R & O) TAXES (#AB02-251): The first reading of the ordinance was heard on December 11, 2002. Bert Gegner asked for clarification on the activities that would require a Business License. Mr. Lubovich pointed out that this ordinance applied to activities engaged for the purpose of "a gain or profit". Mr. Maupin established that rental property would not be subject to the B&O tax. #2095 M/S/C/U (Younger/Maupin) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4843 on second reading. 9E - ORDINANCE NO. 4844 [SECOND READING] RELATING TO UTILITY TAXES (#AB02-252): The first read/ng of the ordinance was heard on December 11, 2002. There were no comments from the public. #2115 M/S/C/U (Maupin/Shod) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4845 on second reading. 9F - ORDINANCE NO. 4845 [SECOND READING] RF~_ATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION-e- FOR TAXES (#AB02-253): The first reading of the ordinance was heard on December 11, 2002. There were no comments from the public. #2170 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Younger)) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4845 on second reading as amended, lowering the "charge-off" amount from $5000 to $1000 in Section 3.86.250, CHARGE-OFF OF UNCOLLECTABLE TAXES as follows: "Charge-offs in excess of $1000 require City Council approval". TAPE #1870 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes December 18, 2002 Page 4 of 4 The Council recessed to the Council Conference Room for a 20-minute Executive Session to "REVIEW LABOR NEGOTIATIONS". NO action is anticipated. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M. The Council members then reconvened in the Council Conference Room for a Study Session to discuss "EXEMPT EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL POLICIES & PROCEDURES". Prepared and Submitted by: Attest: LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk CAROL ARENDS, City Council President City of Bremerton CAIPJIIs/cge c: Normal Distribution; File AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Appointment to the Audit Committee FOR AGENDA OF: December 30, 2002 ORIGINATING DEPT: Audit Committee ORIGINATOR: Michael Stephenson DATE SUBMITTED: December 17, 2002 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back ifnecessary) 3. EXHIBITS: Application for Appointment MAYOR: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY COUBICIL PRESIpENT' 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The CPA position on the Audit Committee must be designated by City Council per Charter Section 18 and it is recommended Mr. Dennis Treger, CPA be reappointed for a three year term. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Move to confirm the appointment of Mr. Dennis Treger, CPA to the Audit Committee per City Charter. 7. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED ~] TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED ~-] e RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED DATE: 8A 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: ~'~ "'- ~5~-3 /d 9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: The Audit Committee would be without the professional assistance of an Independent Certified Public Accountant. 10. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: This is a volunteer position without compensation. Mr. Treger has been a member for over a decade. 11. RESEARCH SOURCES: OTE: APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE As an applicant for a City Board, Commission or Committee, your name, address, and telephone number will be available to the press and public. You will be contacted before any action is taken on your appointment. ~lease type or print clearly) ATE: December 6, 2002 AME: Mr. Dennis Treger, CPA HOME PHONE: 377-7040 OME ADDRESS: 2248 Holiday Place NW, Bremerton STATE WA ZIP CODE 98312 CCUPATION: Certified Public Accountant EMPLOYER: Partner of Ball & Treger, LLP IORK PHONE: 360-479-6868 E-MAIL: dtreger@ball-treqer.com FAX: 377-7089 USlNESS ADDRESS: 400 Warren//430, Bremerton, Wa. 98337 DUCATION: Bachelor of Arts, Accounting, Washington State University, Summa Cum Laude ~)CAL REFERENCES (name & phone number): eith Hallman, M.D. 792-6736 teve Rice, AIA 377-8773 im Botkin, Attorney ~,M INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (please check one Disability Action Committee ( ) Civil Service Commission(18 yrs. & older) ( ) Urban Forest Committee ( ) Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee ( ) Community Development Block Grant ( ) Advisory Committee ( ) Youth Council ( ) Safe Streets Steering Committee ( ) Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries this an application for reappointment? Yes (x) or more): Planning Commission (18 yrs. & older) Parks & Recreation Commission Ethics Commission Parking Advisory Board Solid Waste Management Bremerton Housing Authority Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes Mayor's Select Committee on Law Enforcement Other- Audit Committee yes, how many years have you served on this commission/committee? 10 + Please turn page ~HY ARE YOU APPLYING FOR THIS APOINTMENT? erve the City IHICH OF YOUR PERSONAL AND/OR PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS PROMPTED YOU TO APPLY FOR HIS APPOINTMENT: rained in auditing and have a Certificate of Educational Achievement in Governmental Accounting and uditing. AVE YOU SERVED ON ANY OTHER BREMERTON BOARD, COMMISSION, COMMITTEE OR TASK DRCE? IF YES, PLEASE LIST: LEASE LIST YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS APPOINTMENT (INCLUDE SKILLS, ACTIVITIES, RAINING, EDUCATION): CPA for 26 years. ~HAT ARE YOUR COMMUNITY INTERESTS (COMMITTEES, ORGANIZATIONS, SPECIAL CTIVITIES)? Bremerton Rotary Club, YMCA ~e welcome your willingness to serve Bremerton. Please return this completed form to: AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR AGENDA OF: December 30, 2002 ORIGINATING DEPT: Mayor's Office ORIGINATOR: Mayor Bozeman DATE SUBMITTED: 12-19-02 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: Application of Ryan Nickels to the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT: SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: There will be two vacancies on the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee in January, 2003, the Mayor recommends filling one of the vacancies with the appointment of Ryan Nickels. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Confirmation of appointment of Ryan Nickels to the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee. 7. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLEn [] TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [~ DATE: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: There will be an incomplete Board for the policy work of Public Access Television. 10. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: N/A 11. RESEARCH SOURCES: APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE ~TE: As an applicant for a City Board, Commission or Committee, your name, address, and telephone number will be available to the press and public. You will be contacted before any action is taken on your appointment. .=ase type or print clearly) DATE: ~',~ HOME PHONE: .~ GO -,~O'-~- STATE ~ ZIP CODE :CUPATION:T~J / ~.) ~ ~_~-_(3 .-T~qcl,~e~ EMPLOYER: )RK PHONE: ~-qW~-~t ~ E-MAIL: ~ ~c~t~ ~5,~...FAX: SINESS ADDRESS: )~ ~'~ ~~+, ,~~~~, CAL REFERENCES (name & phone number): M INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (please check one Disability Action Committee Civil Service Commission(18 yrs. & older) Urban Forest Committee Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee Youth Council Safe Streets Steering Committee Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries :his an application for reappointment? or more): ( ) Planning Commission (18 yrs. & older) ( ) Parks & Recreation Commission ( ) Ethics Commission ( ) Parking Advisory Board ( ) Solid Waste Management ( ) Bremerton Housing Authority ( ) Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes ( ) Mayor's Select Committee on Law Enforcement ( ) Other ,es, how many years have you served on this commission/committee? Please turn page -+ HY ARE YOU APPLYING FOR THIS APOINTMENT? / HICH OF YOUR PERSONAL AND/OR PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS PROMPTED YOU TO APPLY FOR tiS APPOINTMENT: ~.VE YOU SERVED ON ANY OTHER BREMERTON BOARD, COMMISSION, COMMITTEE OR TASK tRCF_~? IF YES, PLEASE LIST: EASE LIST YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS APPOINTMENT (INCLUDE SKILLS, ACTIVITIES, [AINING, EDUCATION): HAT ARE YOUR COMMUNITY INTERESTS (COMMITTEES, ORGANIZATIONS, SPECIAL :TIVlTIES)? welcome your willingness to serve Bremerton. Mayor's Office 239 4th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Please return this completed form to: (360) 478-5266 (360) 478-5883 FAX E-mail: mayor@ci.bremerton.wa.us AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR AGENDA OF: December 30, 2002 ORIGINATING DEPT: Mayor's Office ORIGINATOR: Mayor Bozeman DATE SUBMITTED: 12-19-02 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: Application of Wendy L. Davis to the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: There will be two vacancies on the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee in January, 2003, the ~~recommends filling one of the vacancies with the appointment of Wendy L. Davis. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Confirmation of appointment of Wendy L. Davis to the Public Access Citizens Advisory Commi,1~e. 7. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED [-'] TABLED [--] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED ~'~ RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: DISAPPROVED [~] AMENDED [-'] DATE: AGENDA BILL NO.: 9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: There will be an incomplete Board for the policy work of Public Access Television. 10. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: N/A 11. RESEARCH SOURCES: APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDSICOMMISSIONSICOMMITTEE :)TE: As an applicant for a City Board, Commission or Committee, your name, address, and telephone number will be available to the press and public. You will be contacted before any action is taken on your appointment. lease type or print clearly) liME: ~.,~, ~& L, )ME ADDRESS: )DE ~ ;CUPATION: DATE:. !(~ - ~'~._ .,J ~, HOME EMPLOYER: STATE ~ ZiP 3RKPHONE: .....~'q~ -~'~--~ ~+-[ E- ML: ISINESS )DRESS: ,?~c[ L.~-~ ~-~_~-., ~'~Jc~_~,~-~v~, ~CAL REFERENCES (name & phone number): M INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (please check one or more): Disability Action Committee ( ) Civil Service Commission(t8 yrs. & older) ( ) Urban Forest Committee Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee ( ) Community Development Block Grant Planning Commission (18 yrs. & older) Parks & Recreation Commission ( ) Ethics Commission Parking Advisory Board ( ) Solid Waste Management Youth Council ( ) Safe Streets Steering Committee ( ) Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes Mayor's Select Committee on Law Enforcement this an application for reappointment? ~-o ~ Other ~f~T ~,,~-~en% yes, how many years have you served on this commission/committee? Please turn page HY ARE YOU APPLYING FOR THIS APOINTMENT? HICH OF YOUR PERSONAL AND/OR PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS PROMPTED YOU TO APPLY )R THIS APPOINTMENT-~ WE YOU SERVED ON ANY OTHER BREMERTON BOARD, COMMISSION, COMMITTEE OR TASK )RCE? IF YES, PLEASE LIST: ,EASE LIST YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS APPOINTMENT (INCLUDE SKILLS, ACTIVITIES, ~AINING, EDUCATION): AGENDABILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE REPEALING THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AND AMENDING THE ZONING CODE ESTABLISHING THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT FOR AGENDA~ ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney's Office ORIGINATOR: Roger A. Lubovich DATE SUBMITTED: Oct. 22, 2002 2. CLEARANCES: (Commenfonbackifnecessary) 3. EXHIBITS: C.Iz[R~S J-t~G'~,_~r_o£Co~ Development PROPOSED ORDINANCE ,/ . ROGER A. LUBO9~, ICH, City Attomey>, FISCAL & BUDGET CHAIRMAN OPE~>,AT~0~T~ CHAIRMAN APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESDENT [>z%'P~., 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The current provisions of the Zoning Code set forth in Chapter 21.02 BMC provide that downtown development standards be regulated by the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP), which is outdated and not conducive to development of' the Downtown District. The proposed ordinance repeals DWURP and adds a new section to the Zoning Code relating to the Downtown District. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Move to pass Ordinance No. ¢~_, ,~ o,~econd reading. 3o :zoo'o-, 7. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED E] TABLED [-] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director of Community Development ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director of Community Development EXPIRATION DATE: n/a REVIEW DATE: n/a ~~ APPROVED ~ DISAPPROVED ~ AMENDED~~: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: CJ ,.k - & Iq 9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: 10. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 11. RESEARCH SOURCES: ORDINANCE NO. 4828 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, repealing the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP) as adopted in Ordinance No. 4187; amending Chapter 21 of the Bremerton Municipal Code by adding a new section, Section 21.02.152, entitled "Downtown District"; amending Section 21.02 Appendix, Figure 120 relating to the downtown Urban Renewal District and design review; amending the Zoning Map and the Appendix to Chapter 21.02 BMC by establishing the Downtown Core (DC) and Downtown Waterfront (DW) zones and designating the same Appendix Figure 152(a); and further amending the Appendix to Chapter 21.02 by adding a Height Map as Appendix Figure 152(b). WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1730, the City Council declared that area generally described as from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard north to 6th Street and from Warren Avenue east to the shoreline of the Washington Narrows in the City of Bremerton to be a blighted area; and WHEREAS, the City Council, in 1986, passed Resolution No. 2117 confirming and reaffirming Resolution No. 1730 and directed the Mayor and his staff to prepare an urban renewal plan and project for that area bound by Washington Street on the west, the Outer Harbor line on Sinclair Inlet on the east, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard on the south, and the northerly line of Fifth Street extended easterly as a "Blighted Area" as described in RCW Chapter 35.80; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4187, the City Council adopted Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP) based upon findings in a report by William B. Reems, C.C.I.M., C.R.B., C.R.S., Senior Certified Appraiser, that the downtown waterfront area west of Washington Avenue between the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Manette Bridge to be in a state of blight; and WHEREAS, the current provisions of the zoning code set forth in Chapter 21.02 BMC provides that downtown development standards be regulated by the 1 Downtown District Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP) as adopted by Ordinance No. 4187; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan and amend the Zoning Code to allow development of the Downtown District in accordance with new development standards and regulations; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as if set forth herein in full. SECTION 2. The Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP) as adopted in Ordinance No. 4187 and as currently in effect is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. There is hereby created a new section, Section 21.02.152 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Downtown District" to read as follows: 21.02.152 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. (a) Zones. (See Map of Zone Districts, Figure 152(a)) (1) Downtown Core (DC). (i) Purpose: To focus commercial, entertainment, cultural, civic uses and urban residential into an intense, compact, walkable area served by public transit. (ii) Allowable Uses: mo g. h. i. commercial, financial, retail eating and drinking establishments general offices entertainment, museum, and cultural government and education residential and hotel religious institutions parks and open space structured parking 2 Downtown District (iii) Prohibited Uses: ao industrial uses drive-through uses motor vehicle sales, service, repair or washing storage of equipment and materials adult entertainment work release facilities commercial surface parking lots, not serving a permitted use (2) Downtown Waterfront (DW). (i) Purpose: To provide for an array of uses related to the water, multi-modal transportation facilities, view corridors, public access and residential. (ii) Allowable Uses: a. retail, including marine retail b. eating and drinking establishments c. hotel d. residential e. transportation facilities f. parks and open spaces g. structured commercial parking with other permitted use h. General offices comprising no more than 25% of the total gross floor area of a mixed use development. (iii) Prohibited Uses: ao same as downtown core, plus boat sales, storage and repair stand alone commercial parking not serving a permitted use (b) Development Standards-Table. District Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = (Floor area/Lot area) Base Maximum Maximum Parking View W/Amenities Building Height (stalls/k gsf) Corridor Non- Res Non- Res Min Max Res Res DC 1 2 3 6 See Figure 152(b) 1 4 N/A DW .5 1 1 2 See Figure 152(b) 1 3 See Table 3.2 of the Shoreline Master Pro.am 3 Downtown District Notes: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the amount of floor area within a building as a multiple of the lot area. Floor area is measured to the inside face of the exterior building walls. Calculation of FAR can exclude the following: ao spaces below grade. space devoted to parking. mechanical spaces. elevator and stair shafts. space used for retail uses or restaurants that front the sidewalk. space devoted to Special Amenities. exterior decks open to the air. The FAR for non-residential uses and residential uses within a given development are individually calculated for each use and may be added together for a combined maximum, provided that the maximum allowable FAR for each use is not exceeded. (Example: A project that includes Special Amenities may have a total FAR of 6, with 2 in commercial use and 4 in residential use.) 3. For the Downtown Core district, new development shall have a minimum FAR of 1. Maximum Building Height excludes: a. parapets. b. mechanical penthouses and elevator overruns and machine rooms. c. roof forms and decorative elements not intended for occupancy. 5. The first 3,000 sf of ground floor retail uses are exempted from parking requirements. 6. For residential uses, the minimum parking requirement is .5 spaces per 1000 sf. 7. For purposes of this code, hotels shall be considered residential uses. (c) Design Standards Applicable to All Development within Downtown. (1) All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened by either a high parapet or a stepped or sloped roof form that is a part of the architecture of the building and is at least as high as the equipment being screened. Fencing is not acceptable. (2) Street trees shall be provided with no fewer than 3 trees per 100 linear feet of frontage. Tree grates shall be used to cover the planting pits. Where existing areaways or vaults prevent this form of planting, trees shall be planted in planters equipped with irrigation. All trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 V2" at the time of planting. 4 Downtown District (3) Surface parking lots, if they abut public sidewalks, shall provide a perimeter landscaping strip containing a combination of trees (with no fewer than 3 trees per 100 linear feet of frontage), and shrubs. Masonry walls no lower than 15" and no higher than 30" may be substituted for shrubs. (4) For parking lots containing more than 20 stalls, at least 15% of the interior area shall be planted with trees and shrubs. All trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 V2" at the time of planting. Pedestrian walkways from adjacent sidewalks shall be provided. (5) The street-facing, ground-level facades of parking garages shall be designed to screen the view of parked cars. Where commercial or residential space is not provided to accomplish this, features such as planters, decorative grilles, or works of art shall be used. (6) Any sidewalk level faqade that faces any downtown street shall have at least 35% of the facade area in transparent glass windows. (7) Any faqade facing a public sidewalk shall incorporate more refined materials such as stone or brick and details such as pilasters, plinths, brackets, or belt courses on at least the first floor. (8) Buildings taller than four stories shall display a distinctive design for the top of the building which can be achieved by various means including a change in materials, architectural detail, color, or step backs at the top floor, a prominent projecting cornice, or a roof with a form such as a curve, slope, or peak. (9) All development along any Primary Pedestrian Street (First, Second, Burwell, Fourth, Fifth, Pacific, and Park) shall meet the following standards: (i) Building facades shall abut the sidewalk. However, entrance areas may be recessed. Furthermore, buildings may be set back to accommodate Exterior Public Spaces conforming to the provisions in Section 21.02.152(d)(1 ). (ii) At least 50% of the linear, sidewalk level frontage of any structure shall consist of, or are adaptable to, retail, restaurants, cultural or entertainment uses, financial institutes, office, indoor public spaces, or art galleries. (iii) At least 75% of the frontage shall include weather protection in the form of a flat or sloped canopy, projecting at least 5 feet over the sidewalk. 5 Downtown District (d) Amenities required to achieve the Maximum Floor Area Ratio. In order for a development to achieve the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratios set forth in the Development Standards table in Section 21.02.152(b), Special Amenities must be provided. In return for incorporating any one of the three special amenity features on the following list, the maximum FAR shall be allowed. The design of each feature will be reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate for the proposed location and provides for a public benefit. Exterior Public Space that is at least 10% of the site area and includes the (1) following features: mo seating in the amount of one sitting space for each 100 sf of area. trees and other plantings. art or water feature. solar exposure during the summer. access and visibility from the nearest sidewalk. (2) Public a. b. C. d. Benefit Use consisting of at least one of the following: meeting room(s) available to the public. day care. museum. performing arts theatre. (3) Work of Art or Water Feature in a location that is visible to the public at all times. There may be more than one artwork or water feature, so long as the cost of the item(s) is equivalent to at least 1% of the building permit value for the project including site improvements. A work of art consists of an original, artist-produced creation such as: a. murals. b. sculptures. c. paintings. e. inlays. f. friezes. g. mosaics. h. tile work. SECTION4. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02 Appendix Figure 120 relating to Urban Renewal District and Design Review Overlay as set forth in Title 21 Appendix 15- 18 is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. 6 Downtown District SECTION 5. The zoning map of the City of Bremerton and the Appendix to Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 21.02 BMC are hereby amended by establishing the Downtown Core (DC) and the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zones designated as Appendix Figure 152(a) as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and by reference in incorporated herein. SECTION 6. The Appendix to Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 21.02 is hereby amended by adding a Height Map designated as Appendix Figure 152(b) as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and by this reference incorporate herein. SECTION 7. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2002 day of ,2002 Approved this day of CAROL ARENDS, Council President ,2002 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk 7 ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney Downtown District PUBLISHED the EFFECTIVE the ORDINANCE NO. day of day of R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development~Downtown District.doc ,2002 ,2002 8 Downtown District ZONES [Description/Intent I Min. Standards v ............. r ........................ guidance between Washington Avenue and the shoreline. Tho several components for lan~ u:e and development SpecJ~c controls and development requirements for this zone are Downtown contained in Section 21.02.152 entitled Core "Downtown District." ) ......... ~.:-~ Review" may bo ~.k:~;, ,,n,, , ......... u~. ,.~ ~o;g. policies and ~ ........... ~" ................ ~ ................ ha~ a s!grJficant effect on the visual change: may bc as major as tho DW Specific controls md development requirements for this zone are Downtown cont~n~ in Section 21.02.152 entitled Wate~ront "Downtown Dis~ct." LPO This zone provides for the development of Std: Must meet City's adopted co~ercial and commuter p~ng 1o~ in ~eas tbund to ~ paring lot development Li~ted P~king suit~le for those uses, but not per~ued by the underlying zone. st~dards. Overlay Application: Special Use Petit required for all lots. ~e provisions of this district ~e li~ted to ~as shown on ~e B~me,on ~ning Map ~ "~mited P~king Overlay" and a~ Mlowed Lots: intended to supplement the provisions of the underlying zone. Per~tted Uses: Cla~ "A" lot (Special Use Pe~t) 1. Surface p~ing lots for off-s~et p~king. 2. Accessory facilities necess~ for the proof function or desi~ Cla~ "C" 1o~ may also be approved of the lot, including p~ng meters, instmctiona~dimctional by SUP, subject to addition~ cdteda si~ing, fencing. ~d l~dscaping, and a time li~t of no longer than five Development Standards: years from date of approve. Applicant 1. ~ts shall be only for the paring of vehicles in daily use and then has the option to: shall not include co~ercial vehicles, im~und lots, or other storage. 2. ~ts must ~ develo~d in accord~ce with the Ci~'s Class (a) Apply for time extension "A" p~king lot st~d~ds, units approved as a "co~uter as an amendment to the S~; p~king lot". (b) Apply for a SUP for a 3. A Class "C" commuter lot may be approved if: pe~anent Class "C" paved (a) It is provided for long-te~ commuter pa~ng by visitors, lot; or employes, fe~y commute~, or si~lar co--utes. (c) Cease the use ~d remove (b) It will not be used for customer or client ~ng or other all improvements from the site. non-~r~ng l~d use. (c) Paring fees will be ch~ged by the day, week, month or other ~fi~ which, in no case, may be sho,er th~ 8 hours .(d) It will be fenced or othe~ise secu~d. 4. A Cl~s "C' lot may ~ approved with a gravel or similar surface only if: (a) The need is tem~r~ and for a ~dod not longer th~ five 3'/ Downtown District - Exhibit A ZONES [Description/Intent I Min. Standards years; and/or (b) The proposed site is in a transitional area and will likely be needed for new development or a different use within 5 years. Title 21 Appendix: Page 15-18 Downtown District - Exhibit A Downtown District Zonin~ EXHIBIT B Ordinance # Appendix Figure 152(a) PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD Legend DC: Downtown Core Zoning Code Designations ~DW: Downtown Waterfront Downtown District Building Heights 6TH EXHIBIT C Ordinance # Appendix Figure 152(b) 5TH 4TH 2ND STREET PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD Legend DAREA A: 100 Foot Height Limitation DAREA B: 70 Foot Height Limitation ne70 Foot Height Limitation, Special Considerations (see footnote) ,g~t.m. ,s 7'"---~ feet a.'""--~easured .ur~ua.t to'~--~re--'~e.o. S--'"'%P C~ter 8 De..,t~o.s. He~. a.d W^C ~ 7~-=~-0~0 <~, no case at any point shall a structure be more than five stories pl0~ five feet above th~levation of Washington Avem ~ at th~site's front property line (edge of right-of-way). The added height of any roof ~cture shal~/excluded from the height determi CITY OF BREM ERTON BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT D ET E R M I N AT IO"N Environmental Application No: PL01-0024 Date issued: July 12, 2001 Date published: July 14, 2001 OF NONSlGNIFICANCE Parcel No's:Various- Central Business District ACTION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: This application consists of A Comprehensive ~Plan Policy Text Amendment and Implementing Code Amendment is proposed that encourage development and redevelopment of Downtown Bremerton's Central Business district. LOCATION: The Central Business District includes the Shoreline of Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows and all properties on both sides of Beach Street, Washington, Warren, Park, Pacific, Burwell, 4th, 5t~ and 6th Streets from the Port Washington Narrows to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Warren Avenue. PROPONENT: City of Bremerton Building & Planning Department 286 4t~ Street Bremerton, Wash. 98337 The Responsible Official of the City of Bremerton hereby makes the following Findings and Conclusions based upon a review of the environmental checklist and attachments, other information on file with the City of Bremerton, and the policies, plans, and regulations designated by the City of Bremerton as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.060. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Growth Management/lct encourages the efficient use of land for urban development. 2. The Central Business District for the City of Bremerton has been designated in the City Comprehensive Plan and within the Bremerton Municipal Code. 3. The Comprehensive Plan discussion of the Central Business districts on pages 56-58 includes the Ci~s adopted Vision as required by the Growth Management Act. 4. The City's vision for the CBD includes that it will "continue to the heart of the Bremerton" and become a "more of a people place" and offer culture and entertainment, retail, and other services. 5. Plan Policies on page 57 indicate eight directives as to implementation of the vision including: (g) Revise plans, regulations, and the permitting process, as necessary, to allow and encourage the intended types of uses and get them approved as expeditiously as possible." And (h) promote land uses and development patterns consistent with the following Urban Diagram and continue to study and ref'me the diagram to reflect the best interests of the community. 6. The Central Business district urban diagram is larger than the designated Central Business District and in the area east of the Pacific Avenue (both sides) to the Port Washington narrows it includes the following uses: high density residential, waterfront mixed use, compact intense pedestrian-oriented retail, service commercial, and Hotel/Historic areas. 7. The City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendment Application PL01-0024, proposes to amend the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy statements by including more specific Goals and polices for the Central Business District (CBD) and adding two new sub-districts which permits uses for the Downtown Core (DC) and Waterfront (WF) which are consistent with the Urban Diagram and prohibits those not listed such as surface parking lot~. 8. The Proposed Downtown Core (DC) and Waterfront (WF) Policies are to be implemented with the proposed simplified Code amendment that identifies permitted Floor Area Ratios provided certain performance standards and public amenities are provided. 9. The City of Bremerton annually proposes to amend its Comprehensive Plan through city and public initiated amendment applications, which will be, applied city wide as well as property specific. The Growth Management Act allows amendments to Comprehensive Plans only once a year with few exceptions. Comprehensive Plan Amendment application requests are considered non-project actions, which do not propose specific development projects. Throughout the year, applications for Comprehensive Plan Text amendments are received and collectively placed on a docket for processing in order to assess the "cumulative effects". Those amendments recommended for approval as a result of the Public Hearing process conducted by the Bremerton Planning Commission are adopted by City Council Ordinance. 10. A SEPA review checklist has been reviewed for this non-project Comprehensive Plan policy amendment proposal. Further development of property effected by this specific amendment that is not categorically exempt pursuant to WAC Chapter 197-11-800, and, which will require issuance of a City license or permit, will be subject to future review under SEPA. CONCLUSIONS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Responsible Official concludes, based on a review of application materials and a review of City regulations governing the proposal, that this non-development project action proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This Determination ofNonsignificance (DNS) is issued under 197~I 1-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by closing of the comment deadline. The Responsible Official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be f'mal after the expiration of the comment deadline. No permits may be issued, and the applicant shall not begin work, until the comment deadline has expired and any other necessary permits are issued. Responsible Official: Lead Agency: Christopher R. Hugo, Director, Building and Planning Department City of Bremerton, Building and Planning Department 286 4th Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 (360) 478-5275 Date of Issue: July 12, 2001 Comment Deadline: July 27, 2001 Date of Publication: July 14, 2001 Appeal Deadline: August 10, 2001 Christopher R. }~pgo, Respo~lsibl~ Officiay NOTE: Pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.075 and City of Bremerton Environmental Regulations, Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 21.12. Decisions of the Responsible Official may be appealed. Appeals are filed with appropriate fees at the Building and Planning Department, located at the Bremerton Permit Center. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the expiration of the comment deadline. You may APPEAL this determination to: Bremerton City Council NO LATER THAN: August 10, 2001. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact: Building & Planning Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Phone:(360) 478-5275 NOTE: The issuance of this Determination of Nonsignificance does not constitute project approval. Future applicants must comply with all other applicable requirements of City of Bremerton Departments prior to receiving construction permits. Minutes Planning Commission Special Meeting September 17, 2002 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner BUckingham, Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Wood. Quorum certified. Co PL02-0056 - Proposed ordinance amending Chapter 21 of the BMC by adding a new section, Section 21.02.152, entitled "Downtown District"; amending Section 21.02 Appendix, Figure 120 relating to the downtown Urban Renewal District and design review; amending the Zoning Map by designating the Downtown Core (DC) and Downtown Waterfront (DW) zones; designating and reaffirming blighted areas as set forth in Resolutions No. 1730 and No. 2117 and Ordinance No. 4187 and repealing the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP) as adopted in Ordinance No. 4187. Commissioner Kosusko introduced this item and then deferred to staff for presentation. Mr. Hugo explained that this ordinance is the other half of our disassembling the historical linkages. Thc first thing that this accomplishes is on page two, section two - where thc DWURP is rescinded. There are other parts of thc original action to adopt the DWURP and section one, those features are retained because they relate to thc designations of blight that will enable us to conduct other downtown redevelopment activities. This ordinance has more substance that PL02-0055 because it proposes a whole new section of the zoning ordinance - Section 21.02.152 "Downtown District". The way our zoning code is constructed is a little unusual in that it does everything in a table at the back of the code. Normally, each zone district has a title, purpose and a listing of Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2002 Page 22 of 30 the allowed uses which are written into the text of the code. Note that there are two tables: Figure 120 which describes the zone districts, it's purpose and some of the minimum development standards and Figure 140 (not attached), which has a couple of use districts and a matrix that lists all the allowed uses. He then referred the group to Exhibit A, page 15, and explained that the old version had two districts: 1) Urban Renewal District and 2) Design Review Overlay that are being replaced with two new designations: 1) Downtown Core [DC] and 2) Downtown Waterfront [DWI. In both cases, in the table under minimum standards just references you back to Section 21.02.152. We will have one part of our zoning code that is more like the codes he's familiar with where right in the text of the code you describe the uses and the development standards and all references to those things in the tables are gone. He then referred the group back to the draft ordinance, page three, which is the new Section 21.02.152. There is a list of uses for the Downtown Core (DC) zone. He distributed a height district map. He explained from the map that everything between Washington and the waterfront ("C" on the map) is the Downtown Waterfront zone. Everything from Washington west to those properties fronting the west side of Pacific and up to 6th Street ("B" on the map) is the Downtown Core zone. Section 21.02.152 lists all the allowed uses and prohibited uses. This is also unusual because the way Mark Hinshaw's committee constructed this - it state very specifically the activities we WANT to happen and also list the type of things we DON'T want to happen in these districts. Normally, you list what is allowed and everything else is automatically excluded. It is a point of emphasis which provides clarity. Normally, this would be included in the [comprehensive] plan. This made its way into the regulations. Mr. Hugo stated that he left it the way it came out of the process instead of trying to go back and provide a different regulatory philosophy. He then referred to page four of the draft ordinance - development standards. He had everyone change their copy to reflect the 70/50 on the table - DW zone, under maximum building heights. He said that there will be a footnote stating that this will read, "70 feet as measured by the Shoreline Master Program, no more than 50 feet above street grade." OR "as determined in the Shoreline Master Program." He explained that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is also treated in this table. FAR is the relationship between total building square footage and site area. EXAMPLE: Site of 10,000 square feet and you cover the whole site in one story with a 10,000 square foot building - that would be an FAR of 1. Your floor area and your site area are the salne. Site of 10,000 square feet and your covered the site with a four story building - that would be an FAR of 4. Your floor area would be four times your site area. Site of 10,000 square feet and your building only covered half the site and it was four stories - that would be an FAR of 2. Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2002 Page 23 of 30 Your floor area would be half of four floors or equivalent to two floors on the site. This ordinance allows an FAR of two in the Downtown Waterfront district. In some cases they exclude parking. Also, maximum building height excludes parapets - we might have to look at that. I don't think the Shoreline Master Program has such an exclusion, that could actually work fine in the Downtown Core. Another interesting feature is that for the Downtown Core district it states that new developments should have and FAR of one. That means that you don't get suburban style buildings that are one story and only cover part of the site. You would have to at least have a building that is equivalent to a one story building covering the entire site or a two story building covering half the site. When you do this the development economics ensure that you get more urban buildings - you cannot have something so "un- intense" like a partially covered site with a one story building. That is a nice feature. Commissioner Kosusko asked if an FAR of one enough. Mr. Hugo stated that maybe over time that could be revisited. He shared several examples of what could happen without this type of language. He said that this proposal would preclude some of the most serious violations. Mr. Hugo explained that Mark Hinshaw is regarded as an expert in urban development. Commissioner Kosusko asked if this was the same text that we've already adopted. Mr. Hugo stated that the commission had seen this text before in a study session. When they saw it before there was substance but not the ordinance. This is much more formal than it was before. Mr. Hugo, referring to Downtown Core zone (page 3 - (iii) g.) explained that commercial surface parking lots, not serving a permitted use are prohibited. So a downtown building could not be demolished to create a diamond parking lot. He said that this could be controversial. Commissioner Dingfield asked if it would be legal to prohibit work release facilities, wouldn't it also be legal to prohibit SCTFs. Mr. Hugo replied affirmative. And since this location is such a small geographic area, this would not be an issue. Commissioner Dingfield said to put it in there. There was a short discussion about the Downtown Core zone and some of the state regulations that make downtown unlikely for an SCTF. Mr. Hugo referred the group back to the draft ordinance, page three (iv. c.) - prohibited used in the Downtown Waterfront zone. Stand alone commercial parking that is not serving a permitted use is prohibited. There might be an issue with this one. Our civic project, with the 550 parking spaces - some of those parking spaces are designed as commuter spaces. He said that he could not identify a permitted use there. That could be a problem. The commission may consider this in their Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2002 Page 24 of 30 recommendation to council and either make note that if this is inconsistent with the conference center project that you recommend deleting or rewording this provision. He gave several suggestions for rewording: 1) Not serving a permitted use unless it is a publicly accessible parking lot, etc.). 2) Stand alone commercial parking, not serving a permitted use except that parking incorporated as a larger mixed use project. The intent is to disallow a parking structures on the waterfront. Even though we do have a parking structure on the waterfront it is in a mixed use project with lots of on- site uses. Not all of this structure serves a permitted use. - some of it is specifically being provided by Kitsap Transit for the use of ferry commuters. Mr. Hugo suggested that we give this issued further scrutiny between now and the council review of this ordinance. Mr. Hugo further explained that normally you make the association that you have a permitted use and then there is a parking requirement that generates a certain obligation of spaces. He said that he wasn't sure that just because there is commuter retail on the site that that would count. Maybe it does - he said he would ask the city attorney. Commissioner Dingfield suggest that on page 3, under Downtown Waterfront allowed uses (ii. e), we change it to read, "e. transportation facilities and related parking." Mr. Hugo said that we need to work on this issue. Certainly someone could propose a parking garage next door and also say it's linked to the ferry. We don't want that. The intent is to keep structured parking off the waterfront because of the visual impact. Commissioner Dingfieid had another question regarding the prohibited uses (page four). She said she understands where we're going with item (iv) b., the boat sales, storage and repair - because knows exactly what we don't want there. She said she is concerned about saying there is no boat repair available when you are going to be doubling or tripling the size of your marina. She said she was worried about limiting a business type. Mr. Hugo said he thought it would be the same thing for boat sales. It is appropriate for there to be boat sales - commercial marina activity, not as some private enterprise. The same thing as repair, but it might be out of the water repair. Water repairs would be prohibited. Commissioner Cockburn said that he understands that we don't Olympic Boat Sales down there but Lake Union has some yacht sales that seem to be working fine. Mixing the yacht sales because there are only so many slips to handle that will handle a 110 foot boat and you have to have one for marketing purposes. Mr. Hugo said that some of the adjacent residential properties near the conference center may have some retail bays in them. One between 4th and 5th they sell retail down on the water side. He said he was thinking about what that would be. It could be a yacht broker. There was a short discussion about like businesses in the Seattle area. Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2002 Page 25 of 30 Commissioner Dingfield stated that the point is these businesses you are discussing are NOT in the downtown Seattle waterfront. They are in other areas of the city, not in the downtown Seattle core stretch, which is the same kind of hub we're trying to create here. They are in accessible, nearby location but not right downtown. Here in Bremerton they could be allowed in other areas. Commissioner Cockburn said that on the other hand, they want marine retail. So, what does that mean? Mr. Hugo said that a boat sales office is probably okay. We just wouldn't want the small boats stored up on a parking lot. Commissioner Cockburn stated that he wasn't sure that these kinds of business could afford that either. This is why he doesn't have a problem with motor vehicle sales being prohibited in the downtown core because it's just not economically feasible. He then mentioned the prohibition of drive-through uses (page 3 (iii) b.). He said he believes the drive-through uses are all inclusive and it's part of the financial process that banks have a drive-through segment. He was concerned about loosing more of the banks from the downtown area. Mr. Hugo asked the commission to look at the area we are talking about right now - many of these things can exist in downtown, just outside of this core district. The BC Zone (Business Core Zone) is another part of downtown that extends off the map. This applies to a much larger area than what we're talking about. [Banks and drive- through uses are allowed in the BC Zone, so it won't take banks out of downtown.] Drive-up uses are taken out of the equivalent of 6-8 city blocks of the core pedestrian area of downtown. The idea is to de-emphasize the presence of the automobile, as is the $25,000,000.00 ferry-exit tunnel project. All of that is to try and de-emphasize the automobile downtown without closing streets. We are not trying to take cars off the streets - we are trying to de-emphasize the convenience trips into the core. Trips with no intent to park and enjoy downtown. Commissioner Dingfield asked if the absence of drive-through uses also prohibited a transit or ferry kiss-and-ride situation. Mr. Hugo said that we will have to look at that because transportation problems are an issue. He said that a transit/ferry kiss-and-ride may not be a "use" but it is a transportation facility, not unlike the large loading area for the ferry. It is very auto- dominate. He made a note to revisit the issue. Mr. Hugo directed the group to look at the height map. The purpose of the map break out the two use districts: 1) Everything between Washington and the water; 2) Everything west of Washington. There are three proposed height districts: C) The Waterfront - Allow four (maybe five) story buildings along Washington. He then referred to the gentleman that spoke of breaks in codes and cost of development by building types, etc. - this proposal doesn't push those ideas. At 50 feet you could build stick-built over first story concrete. As you go over the hill you may be able to get over 60 feet. Somewhere around 60-65 feet, you get into different development code and safety code issues. Seventy feet is almost artificial. Fifty feet is really the operative limit, in terms of the view shed. It establishes a plane off of Washington for Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2002 Page 26 of 30 the depth of the property (maybe 100 feet or so). Anyone above that plane in elevation will see over it and see to the water and the far shoreline. In the B Zone (referring to the map), it just saying a straight 70 feet. Seventy feet is about the height of the building next to us and not too far off the height of the Washington Mutual Building (70-80 feet). There was a short discussion about the building next to City Hall and the buildings in the downtown area that are 60-70 feet in height. He read from the draft ordinance, "An occupant of the core of downtown..." That means that everything would be at least as big as this building next to us. For Bremerton, that is a substantial downtown. It is that high to accommodate everything you can do under the building/safety code issues we were just talking about. You could build as high a ground floor as you would want for a comfortable commercial, almost atrium commercial space and then stick frame on top of that. He asked if we change our building codes, we could get four over one - or five over one? Commissioner Kosusko answered that Seattle has added and extra floor to allow five over one. He said that the regular building code is four over one. Mr. Hugo said that if we adopt the Seattle model, that would allow five over one for six stories - 70 feet. This would be all the way from 1~t Street, on the west side of Pacific - all the way across the heart of downtown, except for district A, breaks as you are going up between 5th and 6th. District A is 100 feet - which means that if there is a market for residential using concrete construction, you could go up about nine stories. This would allow a view of all of downtown, the waterfront and Mt. Rainier with the Olympics in the opposite direction. What that area includes is both sides Pacific - which would make those three blocks of Pacific pretty grand. People in one direction would be looking toward the Olympics and the other direction they would be looking toward Mt. Rainier and the water. In the top right comer (of the A district on the map) is the Government Building site. The Government Building is about 95 feet above grade. Commissioner Kosusko asked how deep off Pacific the line is - Is it 100 feet back? Mr. Hugo estimated that it was about 150 feet back. There was a short discussion about the distance required for the parking lot, etc. Mr. Hugo said that his goal was to make it at least 100 feet and closer to 150 feet. He explained that the lines are drawn along parcel lines except for the line between districts B and C. At the south end of "C", that line goes right through the conference center site. On the north side it is a 50 foot limit because there is a hotel there that isn't 50 feet above Washington. On the south side of the line the conference center and office buildings break 50 feet by one foot. Mr. Hugo stated that the codes need to accommodate the plans that we've made. He explained that it is a little bit backward but he is comfortable. We have known the direction we want to go and now we want to have codes that direct development to achieve our vision. Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2002 Page 27 of 30 Commissioner Kennedy asked about maximum building height in DC Zone as 120 feet. Mr. Hugo explained that column that mentions the maximum building height (mentioned on page 4), should be taken out. Instead there will be a reference to the map and there will be a new exhibit in the ordinance. The map will be included in the zoning code. There will be a new Figure 152 in the back of the code which identifies this map. Commissioner Dingfield asked about page 5, item 4. Are we coming up with an approved list of trees and shrubs that are of urban height, not rural height? There was a short discussion about trees, shrubs, and landscaping. Mr. Hugo explained that issues surrounding character and quality of landscaping/ building materials, should be outlined in a design guideline book. Ms. Ralph stated that this is an existing Recommended Trees List for the City of Bremerton. Mr. Hugo further explained that most of these issues will be included in design review for the most important places in the City like designated centers in downtown. In order to get the right kind of character or ambiance you need some design guidelines and urban design standards and a design review process. The City Council is agreeable with that. This ordinance represents step one, there is more work to be done. Commissioner Dingfield asked about page 6, item 8. Visually distinctive roof design - does the new Government Building meet this standard. Mr. Hugo stated that the new Government Building is not over four stories. Commissioner Dingfield asked about page 6, item (iii) (3) - work of art. She wants to add the phrase "but not limited to" prior to the list at the top of page 7 (murals, sculptures, paintings, inlays, friezes, mosaics, and tile work). She said that we don't know where art will go in the future - this would then no limit the artwork. There was a short discussion. Mr. Hugo stated that that phrase will be added. Commissioner Kosusko asked if the figures at the end just added the three zones and the tables. Mr. Hugo concurred. There was then some discussion of final changes - Figure 140 (not included in tonight's materials). Because we are showing the allowed uses in the text, not in the matrix - nothing is left out, except the table should have a footnote or something. There will have to be a provision somewhere in the text that says that the uses are as listed in this provision and not shown in Table 140 OR we can add something on Table 140 which refers to Section 152 for allowed uses. Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2002 Page 28 of 30 Commissioner Wood expressed her concern about the height - what it would be like walk into downtown with eight to nine stories. She wondered if any of the other commissioners had any concerns about that. Commissioner Kosusko briefly discussed the small residential neighborhood located downtown (Highland and Pleasant). This spun'ed a short discussion. The group concluded that even though there is some residential downtown, the whole look of downtown area will change. Commissioner Wood is uncomfortable with the 1 O0 foot height in the downtown area. Mr. Hugo asked for clarification. He explained that, in the matter of height (referring to the FAR table in the draft ordinance), the FAR for residential is six. This means that to get to a nine story building, you could only occupy 2/3 of the site, which would create some openness. If you are not residential, the FAR is three - which makes it uneconomical to go to nine stores because you could only occupy 1/3 of the site. The FAR pushes the 100 foot to residential projects. This is the intent. It is not to accommodate office development - it is to accommodate mixed use projects, some retail on the first couple of floors and the rest would be residential towers above the midpoint and allow a view. Commissioner Dingfield stated that her assumption was that it is up to 100 feet, but is not required to be that tall. Commissioner Kosusko stated that residential buildings generally have more articulation than commercial buildings would. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was a need to vote on this ordinance today? Mr. Hugo explained that we are getting into some issues with the downtown projects. If the commission couldn't act today - he would request a special meeting in two weeks. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve PL02-0056, amending Chapter 21 of the BMC adding Section 21.02.152 entitled "Downtown District" including the proposed amendments and adding the Height Map. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: no, and Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved. Update on Comprehensive Plan - Staff updated the Planning Commission on progress of the "Shaping Bremerton" Comprehensive Plan update process. Mr. Rogerson provided update products including goals and policies fi.om each working committee as reviewed for consistency by the coordinating council. Staff also provided an overview of future process and approximate timing of the next steps in the Shaping Bremerton process. He stated that the commission (Coordinating Council) will be receiving 3-ring binders with the first draft of the comprehensive plan. J Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2002 Page 29 of 30 B. C. D. Prior to the October 1 st meeting: 1. Preliminary Land Use Map 2. Additional text framework 3. Filter process on the goals and policies - Process of looking at the goals and policies. Making sure we are in compliance with the Growth Management Act, consistency with the centers concept, and the language of the goals and policies is sufficiently directive to give guidance to staff and council for future decision making purposes. When you receive your draft keep in mind that not all the filtering will have occurred, but the first stages should be in place. Staff will have check for inconsistencies, wording, and definitions that you have pointed out. At the October 1 st meeting, we will be working with the 2"d draR of the comprehensive plan. After the October meeting staff will begin working on the 3 rd draft of the comprehensive plan. This should include more detailed mapping, SEPA alternatives, additional filtering (GMA consistency, consistency with the centers concept, and the directive language). October/November timeline. VI. Business Meeting Chair Report - Andy Kosusko. None given. Director's Report- Chris Hugo. None given. Old Business: None. New Business. None. Meeting was adjoumed at 8:49 p.m. VII. Adjournment The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 15, 2002. Respectfully submiii~d b'y: Executive Secretary Approved by: Andrew J. Kosusko, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting September 17, 2002 5l Page 30 of 30 PROPOSED PLAN / IMPLEMENTATION RELATIONSHIPS COMPREHENSIVE SHORELINE ~ ; MASTER .' " . PROGRAM : '. SHORELINE ~ ZONING USE · ' CODE REGULATIONS '- .~ BMC 21.02 COMMUNITY RENEWAL PI_~N MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Council Chris Hugo, Director, Department of Community Development Procedural Background - Ordinances 4828, 4829, and 4830 December 19, 2002 There arc three distinct, yet related ordinances on the City Council agenda on Monday, December 30, 2002 that specify development standards that will apply to projects located in the "downtown" area of Bremerton. The three ordinances include: a. Ordinance 4828, which repeals the 1989 Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP) and establishes new downtown district standards which are consistent with policies that prompted the creation of the "Calthorpe Illustrative Plan" and were adopted by the Planning Commission on July 31, 2001. The City Council adopted the associated Comprehensive Plan policy amendments and the associated Illustrative Plan on November 29, 2001. This ordinance adopts the related development (zoning) regulations. b. Ordinance 4829, which amends the City Shoreline Master Program in certain respects; and c. Ordinance 4830, a "Community Renewal Ordinance" which adopts a Community Renewal Plan and establishes a community renewal project area downtown and providing additional options for certain types of development within the project area. Detailed below is a suumm~ of the approval process to date regarding these ordinances. It is hoped that this summary, and its attachments, which include copies of Planning Commission and City Council minutes, staff reports, and SEPA documents will assist the Council members by summarizing the review process for these ordinances which, in the case of Ordinance 4828, has been "in process" for more than 18 months. Ordinance # 4828 (Downtown District). The development regulations contained within this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan policies that support them were reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 15, 2001 (refer to P/C Minutes PC-I attached), June 5, 2001 (refer to P/C Minutes PC-2 attached), June 19, 2001 (refer to P/C Minutes PC-3 attached), July 17, 2001, when the Planning Commission recommended approval of the policies and ordinance amendments, subject to formal adoption of findings and conclusions (refer to P/C Minutes PC-4 attached), and July 31, 2001, when the findings and conclusions were adopted (refer to P/C Minutes PC-5 attached)..The file number PL01-0024 was assigned to these policy and development regulation proposals. As indicated above, the City Council adopted the associated Comprehensive Plan policy amendments on November 29, 2001. Staff Reports were prepared and presented to the Planning Commission on June 5, 2001 and June 19, 2001 and are attached as exhibits R-1 and R-2, respectively. A SEPA Determination of Non-significance was issued on July 12, 2001 pertaining to both the Comprehensive Plan policy amendments and related development regulations amendments. This DNS and the associated SEPA Checklist are attached as exhibit S-1. Another DNS was issued on August 3, 2001 which was based upon an amended SEPA Checklist. These are attached as exhibit S-2. The August 3, 2001 DNS addressed numerous site-specific zoning map changes as well as the subject development regulations and related policy revisions, and was primarily intended to address map changes. It should be noted that the staff report issued on June 5, 2001 (exhibit R-l) makes reference to a SEPA DNS that was purportedly issued on July 14, 2001. That reference is a typographical error in the staff report. The Planning Commission minutes of June 5, 2001 reflect testimony of Chris Hugo to the effect that the SEPA Memorandum to City Council - Page 3 December 19, 2002 options for redevelopment within the defined area. This ordinance is not subject to environmental review or review by State agencies or the Planning Commission. CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS: The City Council conducted an initial public hearing and first reading on the three ordinances referenced above on November 13, 2002 and a second reading on November 20~. A continued second reading and third public hearing will be conducted on December 30, 2002. Should any questions arise regarding these ordinances or the information attached to this Memorandum, please feel free to contact Roger Lubovich, Chris Hugo, or Jim Svensson in the Department of Community Development (Phone 478-7986). Enclosures DEO-tT-2002 TUE 01:5] PM OTED LOCAL GOVT FAX NO, 360 753 2590 P, 03 Tho l tonoml)lo Cary IBozen'tan December I ?, 2002 acco.ss to the shoreline. It provides developers with the option to provide public space in exchange £or buildin$ to ma.ximum allowed FAR. Chapter 5 your SMP requires commercial devolopn']ct~t to provklc maximum physical m~cl/or visral access to the shoreline. Wc suggest that you emphasize this in .w)ur downtown ~vatcrrront code, or rc~ecr prospective ~vctopcm to this section of your SMP. Bccausc your sign co(lc could also affect visual access to Ih¢ water'li'ont, w~ st~ggcst thai you review i~ for consist¢~ey with w~tcr view reqttirmnenl,~ of your SM P. Section (¢) orthe propo~¢xl code offers developers the choice to provide public amenities ht return for maximum FAR. It stat~ that thc ~menities will be reviewed to ensure they arc appropriate for the proposed location and provide a public benefit. We suggest that you provide dc~ail on how this review will take place. A set of criteria, such as a design guide, could help to provide admi,dstrative m' committee reviewers with more c. lear and objcctive~ ~view tools. Public amc~ities, offered in cxcha~go for incr~a.~cd FAR, could also include aftbrdablo housh~g- this would implement downto~vn district overall goal 6, "Downtown Brcmc~on will provide places to liw I;~r various tYi~es ofhou~holds with widely vt~ryi,g iacome Thc I~cw section of your municipal code for the downtow~ district includcs specific requirements for latldscaping. This is assumcd m overlay c~isli~g cit~ide landscaping cod~. It appcars that lhc down,town district tCqtlil'emellt$ a~ unclear in sonic arca~, such ~s shrubs. We suggest yot~ review I~ow ll~csc district landscaping rcq~irements work with citywide codes. C:,ngratu ]al ions to you mid your staff for tile good work these amendments embody. If you have any quc~lit)~s or concerns about our commcn~s or any other gro~lh m~nagemdnt issues, please call mc at (360) 725-306~ or Claris Persons at (360) 725-305~. W~ cxtc~d our continued suppo~ to thc City of Brcmenon i~ achieving the goals of growth mm~agemenL $ i nccr¢ ly, Anne Aur¢lia Fritzel Growth Management l'lmmcr C; rowth M:ma gcment Services AAF:Iw Chris Hugo, Plaening Director, City of Brcmerton Sm~dra t,ang~, Shoreline Planner, Shoreline and Environmental Assistance, Washington State I)cpam~ent of Eeoto~ Chri~ Parsons, Scs~i~r Plmmer, Office of Community Developmc~t l~ccmt~r 19, 2002 .Mr. Chris Hugo Page :2 Regarding Pagc 10, ~l~ow~n_town Watcffron~U_~land~ b. P, ern~tt~ Subiact to Conditlon~! Permit: Commercial Parking Lotr, I) the parking lot is design~ and managed for u~ by visitors and patrons of uncs within the downtown wutcrfront, and ~ ava~la~for tYarkins. This language may not be new, but was highlighted, so I am making this general comment. This might become a hardship to water del~ndant or water r~lat~i businesses that are unable to provide any of their own parking for employe~s. I realize that the objective is to encourage workem to use transit or car/van pools, but that is not always possible and a prohibition on i~cn~rai downtown employee parking could hurt the City's efforts ~o l~:vitalize the waterfront and downtown. Would shared vehicle (car/van pool) parking be available anywhere in these structures? Ecology looks forward to continued coordination with the City on the completion of this SMP mnendmem process as per WAC 1173-26-110 and 120, which culminates in recommendation for approval to the Director of the Department of Bcology. Please eonta~ me at ~lan461 ~ecy.wa.gov or 425-6494260 if you have any queslions about my comments or other information to enhance my understanding of the project. Sincerely, Sandra ~ng~, S~relln~ Planner C~ Adrienne Ralph, City of Bremerton Anne Fntzel, Dept. of Community Trade, and Economic Development Jeannie Summerhays, D~p~, of Ecology CHRONOLOGY DOWNTOWN BREMERTON POLICIES & REGULATIONS DATE 5/15/01 ~5~1 ~5~1 &19~l ~19~1 7/12/01 7/17/01 7/31/01 8/3/01 8/29/01 9/12/01 11/20/01 11/29/01 EVENT Planning Commission Hearing (Policies and Regulations) PC-1 (continued to 6/5) Staff Report Issued R-1 Planning Commission Hearing (continued to 6/19) PC-2 Revised Staff Report Issued R-2 Continuation of 6/5 Planning Commission Hearing PC-:~ (Continued to 7/17) DNS Issued S-1 Continuation of Planning Commission Hearing of 6/19 (P/C Approved, subject to formal adoption of findings & conclusions) PC-4 Planning Commission Adopts Formal Findings & Conclusions PC-5 (Policies and Regulations) Second DNS Issued S-2 City Council Public Hearing (Policies Only) CC-1 City Council Public Hearing CC-2 City Council Public Hearing CC-3 Continued City Council Hearing and Approval (Policies Only) CC-4 DOCUMENTATION 11/12/02 11/13/02 11/20/02 12/30/02 Planning Commission Public Hearing on Shoreline Master Progrmn Amendments (Ordinance # 4829) City Council Public Hearing (First Reading - Three Ordinances) City Council Public Hearing (Second Reading) - Tltree Ordinances) City Council Public Hearing (Continued Second Reading and Approval) PC-6 PC-1 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2001 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Berkowitz, Commissioner Boyd, Commissioner Coburn, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Moshay. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Chairman Kosusko indicated that the agenda was published incorrectly with regard to items 7 and 8. It was stated that the items were still open for testimony, but testimony had been closed on those items at the last meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy seconded by Commissioner Moshay to approve the agenda as modified. Called for a vote: Berkowitz: yes; Boyd: yes; Cobum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved. IV. Approval of Minutes The May 1 minutes were presented for approval. On page 7, Commissioner Berkowitz moved that commissioners meet at 4:30 on May 13 for a work session after the meeting to continue deliberations on Loveless Brook. In fact, the conversation included both Loveless Brook and whatever else needed to be gone over. Commissioner Berkowitz asked that the minutes be modified to state ".Loveless Brook and additional work items". Chairman Kosusko indicated that there were places in the minutes where he was referred to as a "she". On page 6 it says "Chairman Kosusko indicated that a copy of the minutes were included in the package by Mr. Strange". That was Commissioner Berkowitz that made that statement. On the first page under approval of minutes, the person who seconded the motion to apprOve the minutes was Commissioner Berkowitz. Commissioner Dingfield moved that the minutes be approved as revised. Commissioner Berkowitz seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Boyd: yes, Berkowitz: yes; Coburn: yes, Dingfield: yes; Kosusko: yes, Kennedy: yes, Moshay: yes. Minutes approved. V. Public Meeting 1. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda): Planning Commission meeting May 15, 2001 Page 1 of 17 Someone stated that a special use permit would be required for 13 or more children. Mr. Hugo stated that since this is all done by Special Use Permit maybe the question of number can be addressed at the time of public consideration. Commissioner Boyd moved that PL01-0011 zoning code text amendment be approved which will implement the policy which was just approved for adaptive reuse. Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion. Call for vote. Berkowitz: yes; Boyd: yes; Cobum: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Commissioner Dingfield returned to the meeting. 6. PL010024 City of Bremerton downtown development policies. Mr. Hugo indicated that the staffhas made presentations on this prior. No staff report has been prepared yet, so they request that it be removed from the agenda. Chairman Kosusko indicated that the public could speak on this if they would like to, but this will be continued to a future meeting. There has been a request by the staff for a special meeting on June 5. Commissioner Kennedy moved that a special meeting be held to deal with downtown Bremerton goals and policies and other agenda items as requested by the planning director. The motion was seconded by a commissioner. Chairman Kosusko indicated the meeting would be on June 5 in this chamber at 5:30. Call for vote: Berkowitz: yes; Boy& yes; Cobum: yes; Dingfield; yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. A five-minute break was taken and the meeting was reconvened at 7:25. 6. PL00-0061 Loveless Brook Inc. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Application at 3915 Wheaton Way. Mr. Hugo indicated that the staff reporting on this is concluded. Chairman Kosusko stated that this item has been dosed to public testimony. Commissioner Cockburn asked for clarification on the Mixed Use zone Chairman Kosusko indicated that Mixed Use zone does not allow the extensive commercial development that general commercial does. Planning Commission meeting May 15, 2001 Page 11 of 17 PC-2 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting June 5, 2001 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:38 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Boyd, Commissioner Cobum, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Moshay. Quorum certified. IH. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Dingfield asked for consideration of postponing item number 3 on the agenda until June 19 since it is a new item and they just received their packets last night. Commissioner Kennedy suggested that at least testimony be heard. Mr. St. Pierre stated that the applicant on a Special Use Permit has the right to have the testimony and the deliberation in one session. Chairman Kosusko stated in that case it would seem prudent to postpone this matter until the 19th. Commissioner Boyd asked for clarification on why it needs to be postponed. Commissioner Dingfield explained that the new members of the commission may not be familiar with this item and since they just received their packets last fright and may not have had a chance to familiarize themselves with the material. Commissioner Dingfield moved to postpone the hearing of PL01-0030 until the meeting of June 19. Commi.qsioner seconded the motion. Call for vote: Boy& yes; Coburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Motion carried. Commissioner moved that the agenda be approved as revised. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Call for vote: Boyd: yes; Cobum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Motion carried. IV. Approval of Minutes Planning Cormnittee Mtg June 5, 2001 Page 1 of 8 Chairman Kosusko indicated that the parcel that went through parking lot development is relatively landlocked for any other development and would not make a good residential development. Call for vote: Boyd: yes; Cobum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Motion carried. PL01-0024 City of Bremerton Downtown Development Policies. A proposal for amending the central business district specific area plan section of the comprehensive plan to include additional goals and policies concerning the land uses, density, and intensity of uses, multimodal transportation, public spaces and the design character of development in the central business district. Mr. Hugo indicated this is being brought to them as a result of the Planning Advisory Committee work as well as the mayor's Downtown Development Committee. The policies are presented as a supplement to what is currently in the 1995 plan. In the central Brernerton sector there is a subarea plan which is the central Bremerton business district plan. This is proposing supplemental policies that will be a part of the central business district subarea plan. There are only two criteria that seem to apply to policy amendments. First, that the proposal be consistent with the goals of GMA and second that the resulting policy set is internally consistent. The proposal includes general goals and general policies and then policies for two districts - the core district and the downtown waterfront district. These comply with GMA goal 1 and 2 urban growth and reducing sprawl by encouraging irrfill development and service to urban areas by promoting new housing, employment and services in the heart of the region's major urban area. Goal 3 transportation - measures to promote infill development and land effic/ency also help promote efficient transportation systems. Increasing housing development downtown provides residents with a broader range of transportation choices. Goal 4 housing - downtown housing will afford convenience and choice for segments of the population overlooked in the current marketplace. Goal 5 - economic development - increasing the city's residential base by attracting infill development creates market opportunity for new economic enterprises. These pohcies promote a healthy mix of urban activity in the city's core to stimulate new retail, service, office, and entertainment acfivites where they are accessible to a workforce that needs access to new employment. He asks that this item be continued until the 19t~ because the Environmental Determination has not been completed. The consistency with the subarea plan - when he looked at the hierarchy of guidance in the 95 plan the most specific guidance is in the subarea plan. That's where the staff report takes focus - the prescriptive - policies are on page 57 of the land use chapter section D. The vision is for a place of diverse economic, residential, recreational and cultural activities that will attract new growth and visitors. The new policy addresses the fundamental need of a comprehensive plan to provide direction on function and character and not just list a bunch of policies. Policies 1 E, G 'and H are directly relevant to the proposed amendment. 1E identifies a work task to develop guidelines for the various subdistricts of downtown. Policy G directs that plans and regulations be revisited to allow and encourage the intended types of uses. Policy O relates to the urban diagram map and directs continued study and refinement to "reflect the best interest of the community". An illustrative plan was passed out. This lays out a mix of land uses, a relationship to the water, a circulation system, the need for parking and significant open space plan. Chairman Kosusko asked if the illustrative plan is part of what they are looking at Planning Committee Mtg June 5, 2001 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Hugo indicated that it was. There is a study that will be initiated through the summer that will provide more direction on circulation and parking which may generate changes to those aspects of the illustrative plan. Commissioner Boyd asked if they would be receiving a copy of this. Mr. Hugo said they would. Commissioner Dingfield asked if they would be receiving copies of the maps. Mr. Hugo said they would. Commissioner Boyd asked about how the city council' s desires for condos on the waterfront blended with this. Mr. Hug° said that both districts talk about housing - a range of market rate housing. If you get downtown residents with higher incomes, it will automatically start to generate other demands. Open to the Public (Public in Favor of this project) - Elizabeth Wilson, Project Manager for Port Blakeley, P O Box 231, Bremerton, WA 98337 stated she wanted to talk about some of the public involvement in this plan. The Calthorp plan started with the Smart Growth Conference that was held downtown. A group of people including the City of Bremerton, private developers thought it would be a good idea to see if Calthorp could do a plan for downtown Bremerton and sponsored it financially. Property owners and business owners downtown were interviewed either in person or through the mail. The first active part of the process was 24-30 people who participated in a workshop with Peter Calthorp Associates, sat down and worked on maps talking about the things they would like to see downtown. They were primarily property owners and business owners downtown. Calthorp and Associates developed a plan and presented it in a workshop downtown. The design guidelines were a part of that. From a developer's standpoint having a plan and design guidelines n place provides some security to potential developers that their dollars will be protected because the character and function of the areas around them will be' known. Dick Hays, Executive Director, Kitsap Transit, 200 Charleston Blvd. As a transportation planner, these policies are more consistent than what has been experienced in the past. They are consistent with the transit system's plans and with thek project list in downtown Bremerton. They look forward to working with the city to help reach the goals that the Caltho~ mapping suggests. Commissioner Dingfield asked Mr. Hays what kind of population they need in an urban area where they can start limiting auto traffic to encourage transit and pedestrian activity. Mr. Hays indicated there are probably a dozen levels of intensity and transit service that can be hypothesized. Their interest is in a downtown shuttle service. 2 and 3 story moderate riseWith some 6 story gives them thc density they need tO support a shuttle service. Helen Miller, P O Box 788, Bremerton stated she was in favor of the downtown develoPment but is curious as to whether the Planning and Building Department will have the authority to make it look like Planning Committee Mtg June 5, 2001 Page 4 of 8 projected. Is there any enforcement. What chance do they have to make the developers look like the draft plan. Mr. Hugo stated that at this point this is a planning document and enforcement will come with the zoning. Ms. Miller asked if there is going to be a loft situation for the artists? Mr. Hugo stated that if they look in the downtown core policies, item 6, residential development including live workspaces for artists will be encouraged. Chairman Kosusko indicated this is a comprehensive plan document and they look to the comprehensive plan when making zoning decisions. Mr. Hugo stated this is the policy foundation for implementing regulations. The land use code will follow. Land use codes can be adm/nistratively handled but design issues are trickier. To handle this, there could be an urban design committee that looks at every project making sure that the project produces a good faoade that is friendly to pedestrians. Or they could have a literal set of illustrations and prescriptive regulations that the stafftries to administer through the design review process. The initial route is coming up with some basic standards for bulk, height, parking ratios. Right now under section. D of the subarea plan, there is item 1 wkich says policies and then a listing. He would propose a new item 2 and again list all of these in the new subsection of the plan and note that these are the most recent and therefore the most directive policies. Open to the Public (Comment that are neutral in nature) none Open to the Public (Public in Opposition) none. Testimony on this item will be continued until the June 19 meeting. C. Meeting: None. VI. Business Meeting Chairman's Report Chairman Kosusko stated they received a letter fi.om William Palmer Consultants regarding the Loveless Brook decision. David St. Pierre, Assistant City Attorney, indicated the letter requests reconsideration of the approval contending that Commissioner Berkowitz was conflicted in this matter in that he didn't state openly at the time that he in fact lived in the area. The law RCW 42.36010 local land use decisions. "Application of the appearance of fairness doctrine to local land use decisions shall be limited to quasijudicial actions of the local land use decision making body as defined in this section. Quasijudicial actions do not include legislative actions, adopting, amending, or revising the comprehensive plan". Furthermore RCW 42.36.030 states "no legislative action taken by a local legislative body, its members or local executive official shall be invalidated by application Planning Committee Mtg June 5, 2001 Page 5 of 8 Minutes Planning Co. mmission Meeting June 19, 2001 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:40 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, and Commissioner Moshay. Quorum certified. IH. Approval of Agenda Mr. Hugo indicated that the agenda was published incorrect with regard to there being no item 2. It was stated that the new item being heard, PL 01-0030 is actually item 2. A motion was made by Commissioner Dingfield and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy that the agenda be approved as modified. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved. IV. Approval of Minutes The May 15, 2001, minutes were presented for approval. There was page-by-page review to complete the draft minutes including commissioner names to finalize. Chaimaan Kosusko apologized to the public and stated that now that there is someone here to take notes, we won't have to go through this much longer. Commissioner Kennedy moved that the May 15, 2001, minutes be approved as revised. Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. The May 15, 2001, minutes approved. The June 5, 2001, minutes were presented for approval. There was page-by-page review to complete the draft minutes including commissioner names to finalize. Commissioner Dingfleld moved that the June 5, 2001, minutes be approved as revised. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. The June 5, 2001, minutes approved. V. Public Meeting A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). None. Chairman Kosusko described how the public hearing POrtion of the meeting would be conducted. Planning Commission Meeting June 19,2001 Page 1 ofl0 B. Public Hearings PL 01-0024: City of Bremerton, Downtown Development Policies. A proposal for amending the Central Business District, Specific Area Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan to include additional goals and policies concerning the land uses, density and intensity of uses, multi-modal transportation, public spaces, and the design character of devdopment in the Central Business District of Bremerton. Chairman Kosusko stated that this is a continued item and that testimony remains open from the public. Mr. Kosusko requested input from the staff. Mr. Hugo stated that a new staff report, dated June 19, 2001. This supercedes the report of June 5, 2001, and goes more deeply in decision criteria. However, there are several changes to this report. Mr. Clyde Strickland assisted in this report. We are working toward being careful about what we (staff) say and which document that we bring to the Commission. The decision criteria are responded to by staff. He stated that he prefers that the discipline that we follow is that the Commission respond to the decision criteria and we then reflect that in the findilags and conclusions, which are your action and not something that the staff has done{Changes to this report are: Under the Environmental Determination, there is a statement"-m the prior report that we had not made that determination. This statement is in error. The second sentence that a B&S was issued by the director today after the completion ora SEPA checklist. We have completed the SEPA checklist, we have not issued the determination. We won't do that for another day or two. J~trike that - this will be updated in a final report. There are still some materialsql~it would be helpful to produce through the record either through public testimony as part of Peter Calthorp's work in the community. We have a report from Calthorp's office that reflects some of the feedback they heard. This report is still not finalized. Mr. Hugo requested-~that the Commission keep this hearing open so that we still have an oppommity to finalize Calthorp's report. This is the last of the Comprehensive Plan revisions (poliCy level revisions). We will not be able to present those as a group and do their evaluation for about another month, then close the public testimony and have your deliberations. Chairman Kosusko questioned whether it was necessary to keep the public testimony open in order to include these stores of materials. Mr. Hugo stated that this would be the only way the public would have an opportunity to comment on those things that are substantive that being offered by the consultants. Commissioner Dingfield asked if the Commission would be receiving a copy of the Calthorp report ahead of time. Mr. Hugo responded that yes, that is what is missing and that you need that as part of the Commission's deliberative process. Chairman Kosusko stated that this item will be continued and requested public comment. Mr. Kosusko then described how the public hearing portion of the meeting would be conducted: 1) Public comment from those in favor; 2) public comments of a neutral nature; 3) public comment against the item; 4) the applicant has a chance to answer public testimony; 5) there will be a 3-minute limit. Helen Miller, P.O. 788, Bremerton asked Mr. Hugo if his idea of having some type of architectural constraints for the facade will be included early enough to have some impact or come in at a later date? Planning Commission Meeting June 19,2001 Page2 ofl0 Mr. Hugo stated that the policy addresses the character of the street and the overall urban quality. The land use code provisions do not go into architecture. That would require an additional effort of documenting what the desired features are. If you put those kinds of decisions in the hands of a citizen body or group of professionals without something adopted as a guide to their decision, the courts would view that as arbitrary and capricious practice. So, the community has to go through a process of deciding what the desired features are and documenting those decisions a community values so that decision makers can rely on that. Mr. Hugo further stated that this is represents a big effort that needs to be staged carefully and suggested it will take time so that it is seen as a benefit, not a threat. First, policies and then land use, regulatory structure and then design review and guidelines. No further public comment. Item continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting, July 17, 2001. PL 01-0030: Application to amend Emmanuel Apostolic Church, Special Use Permit #SUP 98-0017, to increase permitted daycare capacity from 41 children to 56, and amend approval site plan for relocation of the outside play area for the daycare. Chairman Kosusko requested public comment for this item. He reminded the group that this is a quasi-judicial setting and that commissioners should state any conflicts with this item and that the public has the oppommity to challenge any of the commissioners on this item. No comment from commissioners. Lee Wyatt, Senior Planner, City of Bremerton Building and Planning Department, This item is a requested amendment to an existing special use permit #SUP98-0017, which was approved by both Planning Commission recommendation and City Council action in 1998. The approval was to operate a daycare center for 41 children, aged 18 months to school age in two rooms on the first flo6r of the existing Emmanuel Apostolic Church. A 900 sq. ft. fenced play area was indicated on the site plan adjacent and west of the church. The play area was separated from 6 ft. by an existing house to the north, owned by the church; from the alley by an existing garage; and across the alley from an existing single family uses. The church has since gone ahead with establishing and trying to obtain the licensing for the daycare center. They have developed an outside play area for the daycare facility. A concern has been expressed by a neighbor, which basically states that the site location for the daycare outdoor play facilitY had changed. As a result of this concern, some investigation has been done. We then requested that the Apostolic Church revise .their special use permit and request an amended site plan that shows the new location of the proposed outdoor play area and an increase of the capacity of the daycare center from 41 to 56 children. Previously the special use permit for the daycare facility had been approved without any conditions attached. The special use permit was approved for issuance in January of 1999, showing the site location for the outdoor play area in an area different from the area where it has actually been constructed. Mr. Wyatt confirmed that the commissioners and members of the public had the drawing if they desired it. Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 3 of 10 PC-4 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:37 p.m. H. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Cockbum, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, and Commissioner Moshay. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Dingfield and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy that the agenda be approved as submitted. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved. IV. Approval of Minutes The June 19, 2001, minutes were presented for approval..There were two changes: Page one, the meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m., not 6:40 p.m; and page six, the first sentence in the last paragraph should read "Chairman Kosusko stated that he too, is in favor of the application, but was disappointed in the Church because they tried to move this play area without going through the Commission first." A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2001, meeting with the aforementioned changes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Called for a vote: Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. The minutes were approved. ~ V. Public Meeting A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). None. Since there was no public comment, Chairman Kosusko moved dkectly to the public hearing. B. Public Hearing Continued Item - Testimony Open: Chairman Kosusko stated that the first item is a continued item, where testimony was left open. PL01-0024: City of Bremerton, Downtown Development Policies. Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 1 of 7 Mr. Hugo stated that the only addition is the promised report from the consultant that has been working with The City on the downtown development strategies, Calthrop & Associates. You. have the report before you that was provided to The City this last spring. It is a discussion of the overall downtown strategies related to plan that was presented a couple of hearing dates ago. He drew the commission's attention to page three, the Implementation Plan section which talks about the Illustrative Plan and Regulating Map. 1VE:. Hugo reminded the commission that this report is just a narrative, not policy, and that it can be edited to help its clarity. He further expressed that he doesn't think that the public here is familiar with the terminology of the Regulating Map. The concept does have a good idea behind it. The map provides a way of noting where the high buildings should go; these are the important streets; and terms the streetscape and then we tool our regulations to make sure we achieve the urban design attempts expressed in the overall illustrative plan concept. This would be accomplished by using the map as a guide, when we review developments (i.e., If this development on this street you have a different set of standards to follow than if you are on a secondary street or one that doesn't have the same pedestrian emphasis.). Commissioner Kosusko stated that Seattle's zoning code had implemented something like this, where there are designated pedestrian corridors, and streets are ranked according to their uses. He said that it has been codified into the zoning code now, but he imagined that it started with some sort of regulating map. Mr. Hugo, then drew the commission's attention to the second bullet. "The Regulating Map shows towers that encroach visual focal points at key locations." One of the weaknesses with the Illustrative Plan is that it is two-dimension. You cannot tell where the height is in the building. During one of the Calthrop exercises this spring, I noted that San Francisco has a very deliberate strategy using building rise to accentuate their topography. Where the natural form of development might be where the ground is flat, you would do the easy tall buildings. Then when the ground starts getting steep, you don't build as high because it might be more difficult. San Francisco does just the opposite. When the ground is flat in the valleys, they keep the buildings low. That's why you see predominately 2-4 story buildings throughout the loTM parts of San Francisco. But particularly closer to the core, they try to get the higher density towers up the hills and building them on top of the hills to even accentuate the hills more. So when you look at San Francisco from the water or across the bay, you see that very characteristics hilly form. Rather than the other way (natural form), might be the tall buildings will fill in the valleys and the short buildings will chop up the ridgelines and you get a flat urban landscape. So, we are missing the diagram that shows where building rises should go, for regulatory purposes. We have now asked Matt Tucker or Calthrop, to provide a height map. Then when we get to the next phase (Land Use Code or Zoning Code changes), we will have a diagram to propose to you for consideration for a height plan. Commissioner Dingfield asked if existing buildings would be grandfathered in and then as changes are made, would they then conform to whatever is adopted? Specifically, the Caltrhop plan, which has been in the public eye for some time - the plan shows that the Penney's Building disappears. That's more of an open space in an urban center and we do have the Bremer Trust now developing parking there. Mr. Itugo stated that buildings will have non-conforming rights. They will be able to stay in their current configuration in perpetuity. Different communities use different thresholds for how far you can redevelop a project before you essentially have to conform to all the new codes. Sometimes there's a proportionate response. For example, if you redo half the building you would be required to bring about half the things back into code compliance. So, there would be a kind of negotiation that occurs. Some communities, you could loose essentially 60-70% of the building to fire and still have a right to rebuild it to it's pre-fire form without having to meet the new codes. We, the City of Bremerton, haven't gotten there Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 2 of 7 yet. That is an excellent question for the overall zoning code for the City, since those kinds of thresholds applies everywhere. There was a short discussion about the Penney's building. Mr. Hugo expressed that the draft code that will be presented to the commission, the policies are not descriptive about which direction to go in terms of height. The height map will help articulate that. We may need to bring it to you subsequent to this, as a compliment to this before we get to the Land Use Code. It is essential because the draft code states that the waterfront environment the height limit is 60 feet. That is how it is proposed in the downtown, waterfront district from Washington Street to the waterfront. Everything on the interior of that proposed height is 120 feet. Well 120 feet could be 10 stories of residential, for instance. That means that such things as the government center might be built and then it could all of a sudden loose all of it's view access from the high ground because of 10 story buildings being built on the low ground that flattens out the landscape and essentially denies everybody any views. That is a concern. We want the government building to stand out and be a civic icon. We don't want to create unintended development patterns because we haven't thought about it enough. Commissioner Kosusko asked if we waiting for the height map before we move on this agenda item? Mr. Hugo said that we don't need to wait. This narrative goes to a point and then discusses draft code concerns. Since we are still looking at this issues, we haven't brought the land use (code) package to you. We have to review the floor ratio. For example, the proposal we have before the Public Facilities District for a conference center, hotel, condos, parking structure, retail, and restaurant. When I added up the floor areas of all those projects - the total floor area was 4 times the site area. That means that the project requires a floor area ratio of at least 4.0 to be accommodated. Yet the draft code says that if you do all the right things you can get up to 3.0. We are a whole floor short. So we need to go back and check that code proposal to verify that what the Illustrative Plan is showing can be accommodated within the code structure. In response to Mr. Hugo's example, Commissioner Kosusko initiated a discussion about the proposal before the Public Facilities District. Based on this discussion, Mr. Hugo reassured the he will remind the strategies committee looking at that map - don't make that 10 story ban or locations many or too broad. That would make it too limiting, just try to achieve some very specific urban design intents. Otherwise,' he thinks it will kill the market. Mr. Hugo stated that the narrative is informational to the commission. He said that the draft code concerns should be noted that these are issues we are still looking at as we go through the final step of the commission reviewing code for future recommendations. Commissioner Kosusko asked if this is part of our comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Hugo suggested that the first part be added as a "front-end". It still requires some editing before the final pubhcation. Ms. Honore made copies of the Downtown Core Policies for the commissioners. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was any public comment on this item. None. The public hearing was closed on this item. The commissioners concluded that there has been no opportunity to deliberate on the Downtown Development Policies. Commissioner Dingfield asked a question about the downtown core, bOth #8 and #9. Internal corridors or terrace walkways. Is that something that private developers are going to be responsible for doing or is that going to be part of City responsibilities. Mr. Hugo stated that those kinds of features are something that City either negotiates with the project or has to require Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 3 of 7 through an easement and public funds to develop. Unless the property owners see that it is in their own interest and they think that it's a good idea to give access to our property from new directions. Calthrop was not that excited about the cut-throughs, they are controversial. There was a short discussion about block cut-throughs and alley spaces as interesting urban spaces. We are leaving internal corridors, ten-ace walkways, and cut-throughs in. However, it is not specified who is responsible for them. Commissioner Dingtleld stated that we are leaving them in as pretty arbitrary. She thinks we're not leaving any room for movement on that (...new development shouM include...). Would it be more appropriate to leave a little more "wiggle" room on that? Commissioner Kosusko suggested rewording to .... new development is encouraged to include. Mr. Hugo explained that one of the normal ways that planners craft policies for feeding back to the public is to use action verbs as the word. For example: "Encourage internal corridors or terrace walkways .... to traverse the steep topography..." Commissioner Kosusko stated that it would be stronger that should, it is not must. Commissioner Kennedy stated that language can be vague - some planners make a point of saying we must do this. Maybe that was the intent and maybe it wasn't. Mr. Hugo stated that this is included on the Illustrative Plan, but we still wouldn't tell the that they had to do that because it would be an exaction of a public benefit with no relationship to an impact. I wouldn't do that. Anyone operating under the law should not do th/s. Commissioner Kennedy asked if using the word "should" would make it a requirement. Mr. Hugo responded that it would not, this is a statement of public intent as to what we want to accomplish and it doesn't say who is responsible. Commissioner Kennedy had a question regardixtg goals and policy suggestion under #5 "Downtown Waterfront Goals," office use on upper floors should be added to the list of uses encouraged. She stated that this seems upside-down. The office should be on the street level and the residential areas should be on the upper floors of the waterfront district according to what we had discussed. Mr. Hugo stated that these comments are getting into the code section and the land use codes should be considered as history of comment. It was determined that office use is an 8-to-5, weekday use and doesn't activate the waterfront the way residential and retail use does. The waterfront is too valuable to give up to 8-to-5, weekday use. Commissioner Dingfield had a question about parking, #2 (Parking Standards). Mr. Hugo stated that fight now there is no parking required in the downtown area with new uses. Parking is still something that is being discussed. There is a parking access and circulation study going on, which will be presented to you before the final code is adopted. If you look in the code section, there is a range from minimum to maximum. (Minimum of 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet, Maximum of 4.). This will be examined again to make sure there is adequate capacity for uses, commuters, and daily patrons - office workers and people who are shopping. We are on the verge of signing a contract for a fairly extensive study of parking and downtown traffic circulation considering ferries and access to garages, etc. Commissioner Kosusko asked if the Shipyard is part of that discussion. Mr. Hugo state that yes, they are. 'Commissioner Dingfield asked if new construction would be held to a different standard than redevelopment? Mr. Hugo repeated that it would depend on which threshold would initiate it. For example, if you took older waterfront properties and redeveloped the whole thing for a new residential - all of that would be subject to a new standard. If we put in a standard and you take an existing building that hasn't been occupied for a couple of years, they might, have to contribute to a parking structure somewhere to meet their parking demand. Everyone downtown is going to need parking. The land Use section of this report should be completed by end of August or early September. That parking report better be ready;because that is one of the things driving the Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 4 of 7 Government Center decision for the County. They have to make sure that parking has been addressed. Commissioner Dingfield had major concerns about the foot ferry passengers. There was a lengthy discussion about the walk-on ferry passengers and "kiss and ride" areas. She stated that we (City of Bremerton) will become a walk-on ferry destination and that our terminal is unfriendly. The group decided that the best way to address this issue was to modify General Policy #3 by changing it to read, "Parking implies including both on street and off street facilities should be managed to emphasis short term use over long term use ensuring an adequate supply for shoppers, visitors and ferry passenger pick-up and drop off." A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy to approve PL01-0024 as revised and seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Motion carried. VI. Business Meeting In the interest of time, Chairman Kosusko moved to the Business Meeting portion of the agenda, directly to Old Business - Adoption of written findings. Mr. Hugo made a statement reminding the public that the Commission made decisions to recommend all of these items to the City Council for approval. These items are now reviews of draft findings and conclusions in support of those actions. The commission received these facts and conclusions last in an effort to expedite the editorial changes. D. Old Business: PL01-0010 - School District, Adaptive Reuse Policy, Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Hugo read the facts and conclusions directly from the draft Findings and Conclusions Report. He then asked if there were any questions. There was no questions or discussion. Commissioner Moshay made a motion that the Commission adopt the f'mdings and conclusions for PL01-0010 as written. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: abstained; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Amendment adopted. PL01-0011 - School District, Adaptive Reuse, Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Hugo read the facts and conclusions directly from the draft Findings and Conclusions Report. He then asked if there were any questions. There was no questions or discussion. Commissioner Kennedy made a motion that the Commission adopt the f'mdings and conclusions for PL01-0010 as written. Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: abstained; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Amendment adopted. PL01-0008 - Parking Ratio, Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Hugo read the facts and conclusions directly from the draft Findings and Conclusions. He then asked if there were any questions. There was no questions or discussion. Commissioner Moshay made a motion that the Commission adopt the f'mdings and conclusions for PL01- 0010 as written. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: abstained; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Amendment adopted. Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 5 of 7 PC-5 Minutes Special Planning Commission Meeting July 31, 2001 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Cockbum, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, and Commissioner Moshay. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda There was a short discussion regarding item agenda 'T', under Old Business. The related zoning text amendment has not been presented to the Planning Commission yet, so the I will read "PL 01-0024 - Bremerton-Downtown Development Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment." The Findings and Conclusions for the Bremerton Downtown Development Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment are available. A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Moshay that the agenda be approved with changes. Called for a vote: Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved. IV. Approval of Minutes The July 17, 2001, minutes were presented for approval. These minutes were distributed at the meeting and the suggestion was made to table this item until the next, regularly schedule meeting (August 21, 2001). A motion was made by Commissioner Dingfield to table the approval of the minutes for the July 17, 2001 meeting until the next meeting on August 21, 2001. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy:. yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. The mot/on carries - the minutes will be submitted for approval at the August 21 ,. 2001, meeting. V. Public Meeting Chairman Kosusko moved directly to the public meeting portion. He made the observation that there was no public present and stated that the Call to the Public would not be necessary. Further, there is no public hearing in this meeting. Chairman Kosusko then moved directly to the Business Meeting portion. He decided to move to the old business first and then to reports and new business. A. Call to the Publ/c (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). None. Plarming Commission Special Meeting July 31, 2001 Page 1 of 10 PL01-0024 - Bremerton-Downtown Development Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Chairman Kosusko introduced PL00-0024 for discussion. A short discussion regarding revisions followed. Based on the discussion, the Commission sites the following changes: 1. Finding 6-- change "Pacifica Avenue" to "Pacific Avenue." 2. Finding 9 -- eli~rfinated. 3. Finding 10 -- now reads, "Environmental impact checklist identified no significant impact upon the environment, and the Director of Building and Planning has made a Determination of Non-significance as provided by WAC 197-11, dated July 14, 2001 and published on July 17, 2001 ." Conclusion 1 -- now reads, "The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Act and will not result in Plan or regulation conflicts." 5. Conclusion 2 -- now reads, "The proposal will change the development and use potential of areas within the Central Business District (CBD). The Environmental Impact Checklist accomplished for the proposed Goals, Policies and Code revisions did not identify significant adverse impacts on existing sensitive land uses, businesses, or residents." Conclusion 3 -- eliminated. Conclusion 4 -- now reads, "The proposal will help implement the goals and policies of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan." Conclusion 5 -- now reads, "The proposed Downtown Bremerton goals, policies and code revisions have been coordinated with Kitsap County for review and comment. Irdtsap County for review and comment. Kitsap County commissioners, in open public meetings, have encouraged the adoption of the proposed goals, policies and code revisions which are not expected to have a substantive impact beyond the city limits." Additional criteria ~- eliminated. Commissioner Moshay made a motion that the Commission adopt the written f'mdings and conclusions for PL00-0077 as amended. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. 'Amendment adopted. Chairman Kosusko went directly to New Business. New Business. Absent Commissioner -- Commissioner Dingfield stated that she would like the Pla~n{ng Director and the Planning Commission Chairman to look into the status of our "absent commissioner", since there is probably attendance requirements that he is in violation of. Mr. Hugo stated that Mitchelle Honore had done some research and that more will be done. Ms. Honore explained that she checked the roles and by-laws. The only time attendance was addressed was a situation when the both the Chair and Vice-Chair were absent from a Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Dingfield suggested that we check State Law. Mitchelle Honore was tasked to ask the Legal Department to clarify the attendance records. Chairman Kosusko asked if we can terminate him. Commissioner Dingfield expressed concern about taking action to terminate him because of how it would look on three of our actions that we just took. New Attorney for the City -- Commissioner Mosha¥ stated that she had watched the City Council meeting and that she was impressed by the new attorney for the City. Mr. Hugo agreed. The Commission all expressed that they hope he keeps saying the same thing, "It is NOT site-specific." Planning Commission Special Meeting July 31, 2001 Page 9 of 10 BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PL01-0024: Downtown Development Policies and Map Comprehensive Plan Policies and Illustrative Map Amendment Application FINDINGS 1. The Growth Management Act encourages the efficient use of land for urban development. 2. The Central Business District for the City of Bremerton has been designated in the City Comprehensive Plan and within the Bremerton Municipal Code. The Comprehensive Plan discussion of the Central Business districts on pages. 56-58 includes the City's adopted Vision as required by the Growth Management Act. The city's vision for the CBD includes that it will "continue to the heart of the Bremerton" and become a ',more of a people place" and offer culture and entertainment, retail, and other services. o Plan policies on page 57 indicate eight directives as to implementation of the vision including: (g) Revise plans, regulations, and the permitting process, as necessary, to allow and encourage the intended types of uses and get them approved as expeditiously as possible." And (h) promote land uses and development patterns consistent with (an) [the following} Urban Diagram and continue to study and refine the diagram to reflect the best interests of the community. The Central Business distdct urban diagram is larger than the designated Central Business District and .in the area east of the Pacific Avenue (both sides) to the Port Washington narrows it includes the following uses: high density residential, waterfront mixed use, compact intense pedestrian-oriented retail, Service commercial, and Hotel/Historic areas. The City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendment Application PL01-0024, proposes to amend the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy statements by including more specific Goals and polices for the Central Business district (CBD) and adding two new sub-districts which permits uses for the Downtown Core (DC) and Waterfront (WF) which are consistent with the Urban Diagram and prohibits those not listed such as surface parking lots. o The Proposed Downtown core (DC) and Waterfront (WF) Policies are to be implemented with the proposed simplified Code amendment that identifies permitted Floor Area Ratios provided certain performance standards and public amenities are provided. Environmental impact checklist identified no significant impact upon the environment, and the Director of Building and Planning has made a Determination of Non-significance as provided by WAC 197-11, dated July 14, 2001, and published on July 17, 2001. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Act and will not result in Plan or regulation conflicts. J The proposal will change the development and use potential of areas within the Central Business District (CBD). The Environmental Impact Checklist accomplished for the proposed Goals, Polices and Code revisions did not identify significant adverse impacts on existing sensitive land uses, businesses, or residents. 3. The proposal will help implement the goals and policies of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Downtown Bremerton goals, policies and code revisions have been coordinated with Kitsap County for review and comment. Kitsap County Commissioners, in open public meetings, have encouraged the adoption of the proposed goals, policies and code revisions, which are not expected to have a substantive impact beyond the city limits. 5. The proposed rezone satisfies the consistency rule in the GMA. Approved by the Bremerton Planning Commission on July 31, 2001. Attest: A~OfKosL~ko Chair Chri~'t-Tu-go~- Secretary PC-6 Minutes of Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:32 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Buckingham, Commissioner Cockbum, cOmmissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Wood. Quorum certified. HI. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kosusko introduced the agenda. A motioa was made by Commissioner Buckingham and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to approve the agenda as written. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes, and Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved. IV. Approval of Minutes The October 15, 2002, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner Kosusko. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Dingfield to approve the minutes as corrected. Called for a vote:' Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: abstained; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Minutes approved as corrected. V. Public Meeting Chairman Kosusko moved directly to the call to the public portion. Call to the Public (,public comments on any item not on torfight's agenda). Seeing no comments from the public, Commissioner Kosusko moved onto the public meeting portion. ~ B. Public Meeting 1. Public Hearing: Commissioner Kosusko then opened the meeting up for public hearing. PL02-0063 - To perform a text amendment to the Bremerton Municipal Code, Section 21.22.240. The proposal will remove criterion "(a)" from the Extraordinary ' Hardship Test located within the wetlands section of the Critical Lands Ordinance. Ms. Ralph presented on this item. She explained that this is a relatively small text amendment to the extraordinary hardship of our critical area ordinance dealing specifically with wetlands. The idea bekind an extraordinary hardship test in the Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 1 of 20 wetland section of that ordinance is - if someone has a legally established parcel and the requirements of that section deny all reasonable economic use of the parcel, that if they can meet this list of criteria - then they can do something on that parcel to provide some economic use of the property. This is for us to avoid a regulatory taking. Currently there are seven different criteria in the extraordinary hardstfip test. It is our departments position that the first of the criteria under-minds the overall intent of the extraordinary hardship test. The last criterion isn't really a criterion at all, but more a directive statement that should be included in the first paragraph, which is the directive paragraph of the test. So this text amendment simply removes the first criterion which states that "the activity or use is a water dependent project that requires wetland access as an essential element of its function." The'more directive statement that we propose to move to the introductory paragraph is "Diminished value shall not be considered on extraordinary hardship." Ms. Ralph said that was it and asked if the group had any questions. Commissioner Cockburn asked why we are looking at this [making this change]? Ms. Ralph answered that we are looking at this because we have an applicant who has a parcel that is subject to the extraordinary hardship test. It's a complicated code to get through until you actually get to the extraordinary hardship test. You have to go through a number of different places before you "have to pass the extraordinary hardship." At this point you must pass the extraordinary hardship before your project can go forward. Part of what is required is a wetland delineation report, a specialist being hired, going through the whole process. We did that and this applicant got to this point in the process where he has to pass the extraordinary hardship test and as we go through the criterion that make up the extraordinary hardship - this applicant meets all that first criteria. Or could meet all, but the first criteria prohibits that application. It just brought it to our attention. Not to say that this text amendment shouldn't happen regardless - but that is what brought it to our attention. Commissioner Cockburn asked that if we have a certain mount of wetlands, and there is a limited supply - wouldn't we want to have those properties just developed for something that was water-dependent? Not just a parking lot or something. Ms. Ralph said that if you look at the other criteria it would still make it so that you couldn't put a parking lot there. That is probably not the least intrusive thing you could do on that parcel. Our question was - on this small parcel, what could possibly be done that would be water dependent and you NEED a wetland for? This prompted a short discussion about water-dependent uses and economic benefit. Ms. Ralph stated that we are certa'mly not saying that we would encourage development in a wetland or its associated buffer by removing this criterion. This in NO WAY indicates that. We are saying that there is not a lot of water, wetland dependent projects that you can do that provide economic gain. Most parcels in the City are large enough that part of the parcel has upland property. So we would Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 2 of 20 require that the house or proposed project be put in the upland property. But for the very rare occasion that we get an application where that is not possible - then the extraordinary hardship test would kick in. It still has to go through all the different regulations that are applicable in the overall critical area ordinance which include: no net loss of wetland, mitigate on-site and off-site depending on what the proposal is and what it will actually impact. All those things are still applicable, but this extraordinary hardship test would be usable. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there were any other questions (from the commission). Seeing none, he asked if there were any comments from the public on this item. Seeing none, he then closed the public comment portion of the hearing and returned to discussion. Commissioner Wood stated that this proposal makes sense, especially removing criterion (g) because it is not really criterion. It seems pretty straight forward. Commissioner Buckingham stated ~b_at he agrees. It does seem pretty straight forward. He said that having er/teflon (a) as it was makes the test virtually impossible to apply. He says that he can see how it could put us in a position of creating a regulatory "taking." There is no point in having a test that no one can possibly meet. This seems like a reasonable thing to do. Commissioner Cockburn stated that he wasn't sure that in the case of critical lands that are wetlands - that we don't want to make it nearly impossible. And that if we are going to do something that takes this wetland and develops it that we do want to make it as hard as possible. If it is truly a wetland that we do want to make it something that is related to the wetlands. So we don't just have something that could fit and have a better economic fit on some other property that isn't so critical. Commissioner Kosusko asked if would be possible to retain this first element but rewrite it. Instead of saying '%vater dependent project" it's doesn't have to be water related, it just has to be something that is not detrimental. This prompted a lively discussion. Commissioner Dinglield said that it seems that people wanting to develop a piece of property have to go through a number of other hoops before they get to this hoop. She said that she doesn't have any fears about the critical wetlands being threatened by taking that criterion offbecause the standards are pretty high. If they are impacted and mitigation has to occur then you are still going to meet the intent of wetlands. The properties and the intent are going to be protected. Commissioner Nelson concurred.. He said that his concern would be that people wouldn't be able to develop on wetlands if it is determined to be that. Ce~ainly this test won't allow that to happen. It seems to be pretty straight forward as far as he is concerned. The change in language seems to be appropriate. He said that he could not visualize a water dependent project. This again prompted a short discussion of what that would be - but no one could think of one that would provide economic benefit. Mr. Hugo asked Ms. Ralph if there were any examples in the text. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 3 of 20 Ms. Ralph said that there are no examples in the text. She said that she had done some research with other municipalities and this criterion reads a lot like something you would read in the Shoreline Master Program variance process. In that process you can have water dependent uses, such as a marina or boat launch. She said that she couldn't find any municipality that had anything even remotely like this. Aside from conservancy places that have trails and such through wetlands - the only examples of those are pretty large scale, high end wetlands, she could think of no other water dependent uses requiring a wetland. In the case of our applicant, we're talking about a tenth of an acre of wetland. It is a very small site, very little is economically feasible. Even the idea of access, it is true it could be a water dependent use but it wouldn't provide any economic benefit. No, aside from a larger wetland or use as a nature reserve she hasn't found any examples. Commissioner Cockburn asked if the entire tenth of an acre was a wetland. Ms. Ralph answered, "Yes." In fact, more of the site is a wetland but a tenth of an acre is the part that would be disturbed. Commissioner Coekburn stated that some property that is a wetland never will be developed. He then shared that he personally inherited one sixth of a farm along Ebby Sloe. With the change in drainage for generations it had been dyke property. It was allowed to be flooded and became a wetland. We couldn't keep it with its original source and had to sell it to the city as a park. We just couldn't maintain development on that property. It was a wetland - my grandfather destroyed the wetland to put a farm on it. Some property is not developable. Ms. Ralph responded by saying that there are parcels that will still not be developable. Those properties will not pass the rest of the criteria. But this particular parcel is next door to a single family home and is proposed to be a single family home. There is possibility of only one other parcel in that area being developed without being sub-divided and if the others were short platted or long platted we would make the wetland protection a criteria. There are a lot of methods to protect wetlands. This is the desperation measure. When it gets down to this one they can either do nothing on a legally short platted lot'or we allow them to do as lime as possible and seize some economic gain. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there are provisions elsewhere for replacing a wetland that is disturbed. Ms. Ralph said that yes. We have a zero net loss policy, so that should still be the case - whether they are increasing the value and function of a wetland on site or they are doing off-site mitigation. Mr. Hugo asked Ms. Ralph to talk briefly about what the wetlands report suggested could be done ,- even though we don't like to focus on specific projects as we are proposing legislative changes. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002. Page 4 of'20 Ms. Ralph explained that the case we're dealing with is an after-the-fact permitting process. This applicant received a building permit from our office without indicating on his original application that he was building on a wetland. So we started some code enforcement. She went out and walked around and it is definitely a wetland. We sat down with this applicant, and she has talked extensively with his wetland specialist. The specialist has done a lot to reconnect the hydrology of this parcel. It is across the street from the park at Kitsap Lake. It is a very difficult scenario. She said that when she first saw it she could not have guessed that it was a type one wetland. There are four different qualities of wetland and this one is the top of those classifications. It is a type one wetland because it used to be forested. It also has been disturbed already because of what the neighbors have done to it. So this wetland report and some of the mitigations that will be required if we give him the wetland permit would be: reconnecting the hydrology; putting notice to the title so that it will be a permanent deed restrictions and always be a wetland and its associated buffers; and some suggestions of near off-site things that could potentially be done. The report was quite extensive. We are talking to the Department of Fisheries and Tribes about different things that can be done to mitigate this site. The applicant is a relatively young contractor and has had no experience with wetlands before and getting a dramatic crash course. The Army Corp of Engineers has permitted the filling of this tenth of an acre requiring some low impact development things for reducing the impervious surface and footprint of the house. A motion was made by Commissioner Buckingham and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to recommend to the City Council for approval of text amendment PL02-0063. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: no; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Motion carries. Draft Ordinance - Shoreline Master Program Amendments - Proposed Ordinance which would amend Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to downtown waterfront site development standards regarding shoreline setbacks, view corridors, and height restrictions in the Downtown District. Mr. Hugo presented on this draft ordinance. He started with a brief history of downtown regulation changes. Beginning in late summer 2000 the City started looking at new downtown policies and regulations, which the Planning Commission was a part of since last year we were engaged in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan revisions. That package included the downtown development policies and the proposed downtown regulations. The policies and regulations were broken apart mid- year 2001 and the regulations were set aside. The policies went forward and were accompanied by Peter Calthorp's work- policies and Illustrative Plan, which was adopted by Council last November or December. The regulations have been sitting there every since. As we begin looking at adopting the regulations recommended by the Planning Commission, we discovered some linkages - the zoning references to the shoreline environment in the downtown waterfront district went all the way back to the DWURP (Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan). The DWURP was Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 5 of 20 initially adopted in 1989 [pre GMA]. lln 1998, the Council readopted and essentially asserted that the 1989 plan was an "okay" GMA compliant plan. Mr. Hugo stated that he had always had concerns about that and the City Attorney agreed. The planning department and legal staff reviewed these issues and have brought the downtown development regulations before you (Planning Commission) again to affirm them. We took out the DWURP and moved forward the downtown development regulation package, but forgot about the shoreline package. This is the draft ordinance before you now - amendments to the Shoreline regulation, which took some of the things from the DWURP and put them into the Shoreline Master Program where they are easier to access and understand. There was quite a large package of changes. Most of the changes were taking out the reference to the DWURP. Whenever we took out the reference to the DWURP and the substantive provisions of the standards for development, they need to go into the Shoreline Master Program and these are the focus of this draft ordinance. Mr. Hugo directed the commission to page twelve of the draft ordinance. Table 3-2 is the meat of the shoreline programs when it comes to development standards. There is a figure that goes along with Table 3-2, which is the critical piece - Exhibit A, at the end of the draft ordinance. He then directed everyone to look at Exhibit A. About 2/3 the way down the table [Key #1-3], we come to the environment that the DWURP and all these things were intertwined about- the downtown waterfront environment. Within the downtown waterfront environment there are specifications for setback, view corridor, and height. The proposed setback is 25. The view corridor item goes to Key #7. This is probably the most substantive part of this whole proposal. Referring to Key #7, he stated that in the past the downtown waterfront environment had the same view corridor requirements as other places in the city- where there was a relationship between building height and the mount of setback required. As the buildings got higher the setback had to be greater. In that very intensive downtown urban environment where we want to get a lot of development intensity like the Calthorp illustration showed, we don't want much openness. We want residential character development intensity. In the Calthorp plan, all the development sites along Washington had buildings along them on the entire frontage. The only penetration was not on private property - it was on public street ends. That was the only way to get to the water. The prOposal is to devise various ways to enhance public access to the shorelines environment. Not just through that strict band-aid of taking away development opportunity and development intensity by increasing the width of the view corridor as you go higher. Mr. Hugo then read from the draft ordinance the three ways that you can still develop and enhance public access [Exhibit A, Key 7, a., b., and c.]: ~1 view corridor shall be provided and maintained across a minimum of 20% of the average site width regardless of structure height and shall be subject to the provisions of 2 a.-c. above. ' Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 6 of 20 He explained that this is important - that we start out by saying that a view corridor shall be provided and maintained. This is the first thought we establish in a potential developer's mind. We are starting out with the premise of a view corridor. Then "2 a.- c. above, there, is talking about Key 2 on the previous page, which speaks to how to manage that view corridor environment. Then under "b." it is saying "BUT, we're going to give you some outs." The idea of a view corridor is still a primary objective of the public. He then read directly from the draft ordinance [Exhibit A, Key 7. b.] "b. In lieu of providing a view corridor as specified in a., the applicant may choose either of the following means to enhance shoreline view access: provide physical public access on the shoreline side of the site equal in area to the amount of site that otherwise would be set aside for the view corridor in ca; this physical access shall be provided as waterfront open space, terraces, decks, or similar access features open to the public at all times; or Mr. Hugo explained that he believed this to be a big idea. He says that this is really a good thing for any shoreline. Instead of having that view penetration through a site, they can actually occupy that ground provided that they give the public physical access to an equal amount of area on the shoreline - and give them that access, unimpeded, 24 hours a day. It is the same amount of geography and we are giving it to people physically, to occupy the space - not just to look through it, but to actually get closer to the water and occupy the space. pay a public access acquisition fee to any dedicated account established by the City for the sole purpose of acquiring and/or enhancing physical and/or visual shoreline access in the D W Zone through easement or fee simple title, the amount equal to 50% of the assessed value of the site area that otherwise would be set aside for a view corridor in ca above; if this fee is not used to acquire and/or enhance physical and/or visual shoreline access within 10 years, it shall be refunded to the property owner; or" c. ~tny combination of a, b(1) and b(2) may be utilized to satisfy the view corridor requirements set forth herein." Mr. Hugo gave an example of the 50% o£the assessed valuation. EXAMPLE:' If you had a waterfront property and if you could access some surplus land next door, such as a right-of-way [there is a State law that says that you cannot do that - but for the purpose of example] - our way of coming up with a value for that'is to use 50% of the assessed value. This provision speaks to a developer willing to "buy his way out o£this. You can do it for 50% of the assessed value of the property that you want to occupy that otherwise would be a view corr}dor. PlaNning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 7 of 20 We have ten years to figure out how to structure this provision if we do this and buy additional property in the same enviromnent. There are some places that the City is looking at - we just don"t have the money to do it. This option is not operative unless we set up a dedicated fund. That fund has to be based on some deliberate plan that we have. There does need to be an action plan to do this. We can't just set up a fund for the purpose of holding money for ten years and then give it back at the end often years because we didn't have a clue what we were really up to. There has to be a plan in place before we set up the fund. Then the fund becomes the tool that gets us to where our plan says we want to go. Right now we don't have that - so that is not an option today. For that to be a workable option, we have more work to do over the next year or so. However, we are setting up the philosophical framework so that if the community does additional work and sets up that plan in a workable way, that this could be another option. Commissioner Kosusko asked where that requirement was. He stated that the language for it was not here [in the draft ordinance]. Mr. Hugo explained that it is just the way the law works. You cannot just take people's money for no purpose. You must have a stated purpose and action plan. The Council will not set up a dedicated fund for no deliberate purpose. They would ask, "Okay, we're taking people's money. What are we going to use it for?" Therefore, we wouldn't even propose it. We would have to know exactly why we're collecting this money. We would have to have some target sites, which would be in our plan. Our plan is a too general right now. We would have to have an urban design plan - which will probably come out of the work that Terry Records is doing for the City right now with Gary Sexton's office. He is working on a scheme to do some of the urban design refinements that were missed at Peter Calthorp's more global look at downtown. That urban design scheme will come up with some opportunities sites. If we adopt that, then we can set up a fund which would enable us to go after some developer money to add to some City money and acquire some sites or easements. These sites could be along the waterfiront or thrOugh properties. Mr. Hugo asked the commission if there were any questions regarding the view corridors section of the proposal. Commissioner Wood asked why there is a need to set up this kind of a senario - to give developers the opportunity not to provide a view corridor. She wanted to know how this would benefit us (City of Bremerton)? Mr. Hugo explained that if there is a site at a major street end that is already there - it would be better if the public views are already adequate, to get near the site where the street ends. There is a place along the waterfront now where a street end was vacated some time ago. So there is a long stretch where there is no penetration. We could use this money to go back and get an enhanced penetration there. Or there is another place that the administration has its eye on, for a public park along Washington. This would be a fairly large development site between two streets. We would try to buy that whole site and preclude development entirely. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 8 of 20 Commissioner Wood asked if we would do this instead of having additional open space privately, since the City is cash poor. Instead of doing both - having the developer have their own open space and provide this other open space through the City? Mr. Hugo stated that this would be their (Planning Commission) call because this is a policy matter. For Bremerton, the waterfront is our most marketable thing right now to stimulate the economy and get downtown going. If we commit a third of our waterfront to open space, we may be loosing an opportunity. This is a value call - you, as the body to recommend policy and the Council, as the body to adopt policy must decide the short and long term trade-offs here. Some communities allow fairly intensive development all along the waterfront. It is an urban active area with the focus tending to be right at the water's edge. He mentioned a promenade - there is the water's edge and then some formal landscape and some public related uses, such as restaurants. It is a fairly, well-defined area - and this is what constitutes the desired waterfront environment. He went on to say that there are other places where all uses is pushed back a couple hundred feet, maybe even a city block and then expanses of just green. We need to ask ourselves "What's the value system? What's the context? What are we trying to accomplish?" He said that he could not answer that for them (Planning Commission). Commissioner Kennedy had a question about Exhibit A - between the requirement of downtown waterfront and then on Table 3-2 on the height/view corridor. It appears that one applies to downtown and the other one does not - three versus seven. She said that she understood seven, but she doesn't know where three applies. Mr. Hugo explained that seven applies city-wide. He explained that there are three pages. He referred the group to Exhibit A, page one "Site Development Standards - there are "2" and "3" sprinkled throughout the table. Once you find out which environment you are in, you look to the standards and footnotes. Commissioner Kennedy then understood and said that the "Commercial" heading is what confused her. She assumed that commercial applications would also be in the downtown area. There was then a short discussion of the table and maps that define the downtown area, wtfich is from the Shipyard up to 6th Street and from Washington to Pacific. Commissioner Buckingham said that he was concerned about the language being consistent. He read from Table 3-2, 7 a. under View Corridor, which refers to provisions of 2 a-c, "A view corridor shall be provided and maintained across a minimum of 20% of the .... "Then he read from Table 3-2, a.-c. "A view corridor shall be maintained across a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%)... ". He said that it is 25% versus 20%. Mr. Hugo' explained that he was not reading from a, he was reading from two. Two a.-c. doesn't include that first statement. He explained that he had gone over this Planning Conunission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 9 of 20 with the City Attorney and understood the confusion. There was a short discussion about confusing language and how we are getting closer to what we want. Commissioner Buckingham asked about the statement Mr. Hugo made about the administration having their eye on some potential properties that could replace what we might loose under this provision. He asked if those properties were located in the downtown waterfront zone as stated in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Hugo said yes. He explained further that that option says you must apply it "for the sole purpose of acquiring shoreline access in the DW zone." That is where this is. Mr. Hugo said that we have to be real deliberate about this or he could see this mechanism not being used. He explained again that the City doesn't want to be encumbered with setting up a fund to collect money for an undefined purpose - it becomes a management issue. He smd that he doubted that this mechanism would ever be used. It will be there in case we come up with a good plan and there is an oppommity. It is either going to happen in the next five years or it isn't. Commissioner Buckingham asked where the 50 percent of assessed value of the site area that would be lost came.from. If you have a piece of property and you're saying that 20 percent of the property needs to be view corridor, but we will let you get away with using all of that and not dedicating 20 percent as a view corridor if you pay us 50 percent of the assessed value of that 20 percent of the property you otherwise would have provided as a view corridor. Is that going to equitably provide us with the funds and the means to recover what we've lost here? Mr. Hugo said that you could probably do the mathematics of that and say no. There was a short discussion about this and the possible variables. Mr. Hugo explained that under the first two options the property owner is not actually loosing all benefit of their property. The occupants of the property still get to use that space. In the one case - if you can see through it, you could probably still put parking under it. In the other case - you give the public 24 hour access and the residences of the property still have access. In the other case you are taking some value and transferring it somewhere else. You get more use of the site but they don't necessarily get the benefit of the open space. There may be an argument to be made here for the public interest. Commissioner Cockburn asked about Key 12 on Table 3-2, parking in the setback areas, ".... concealed from shoreline view." Does this mean that it has to be underground? Mr. Itugo explained that what has guided us all along is our current development activity. How do we make these things work when we have ambitions that are broadly expressed in the community, as expressed in our plan and reinforced with good attendance and con-nrtents through the last year of public participation? We have a project that needs to handle a lot of parking down there- we're trying to figure out how to allow that project, which has been displayed around in the community and has always shown parking in it. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 10 of 20 He explained further that right in this one location there are two vertical elements of the project. There is a hotel and a conference center/office building. Then there is a opening-fan type feature that draws the public off Washington down to the waterfront. Underneath all of that, and particularly the two low-rise parts, there is three levels of parking. The lowest level is a half a floor of parking and then two floors above that. In one case that parking gets really close to the shoreline edge. So the language that was put in to literally "not kill" the project says that you can park in that setback, but that you have to conceal the parking. What does that mean? This is going to be a big thing. Mr. Hugo explained that in the designs he has seen, he doesn't think that the parking is concealed. I have already brought that to the attention of the project team. Concealed means concealed- you can't tell that it is parking. The other feature is that the parking cannot exist there just for the sake of parking - it has to provide a shoreline access benefit. So, if it is parking - it has to be lidded or something like a terrace or roof. It must be something that people can easily access and have more opportunity to be able to look out over the water. In this case with the marina there, being somewhat closer to the water and terraced out and being up high - being able to look down across the sailboats, etc. will be a nice urban, waterfront experience. He said that he is committed to making sure that we're not looking at cars. There was a short discussion about the meaning of concealed and Mr. Hugo's discussions with the project team. Mr. Hugo said that the mayor support the idea that we need design review standards. In the short term we are relying on all of our expectations for a great project, and great waterfront development. We need to pay attention to everything being shown and reminders of what these words and what the community's expectations are of a finished product. He said that he doesn't believe that anyone in this administration is expecting to see decks of cars. Commissioner Cockburn stated that if we are talking about this "walkable" city, which is a big part of the Comprehensive Plan - do they really need exposed parking down right where they should be walking? Mr. ttugo said that the performa of the project parry relies on that. There is a commitment to various occupants of the site [to provide parking]. The Public Facilities District (PFD) has operational requirements for parking. In fact, some of the money from the PFD is predicated on having parking to support the conference center and some of the money that was given was to pay for part of the parking. Kitsap Transit has parking associated with their commuter alternative transportation functions. The hotel needs parking for overnight guests. The restaurant there, is going to want parking because, right now we'are not a walkable downtown. We also have the burden of being a "ferry city." As good as that is, it also has its own unique demands on our community and our downtown - having to accommodate people who want to park downtown and take the ferry to jobs across the way. He said further that it is absolutely legitimate to be paying very close attention to this issue. It does affect the entrance to our community and the impression that we make. We have to find the balance point. We've tried to do a careful job in crafting Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 11 of 20 and trying to respond to some of the current agenda and the community's interest in moving Bremerton forward, but also putting in language that is very rigid. Having design reviews will help. He further stated that the action he will take - when we are reviewing the project in our office [Planning Department]. We will stick with this and say, "What do you think concealed means? Let's go and look at the dictionary. It will say hidden, that means that I can't see it. I can see this. That doesn't work." After a short silence, Mr. Hugo said that this is the purpose of his report - for the Planning Commission to tell him if they are not confident that the language does that. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was anything more to present. Mr. ltugo said that yes - and he moved on to discuss height. From all of the history, the most constant thing in the downtown waterfront district in terms of height has been that draft downtown development code that said 60 feet in the DW Zone. During all the public review conversations - everything he recalled said that it would be something lower than that, more low-rise. Sixty feet, the way the state shorelines act defines height, would be from the average existing grade of the building site. This means that 60 feet would actually produce a lower height above Washington because as the train fails off and you take the average of a sloping hillside - that midpoint of the footprint of the building is going to be below the grade of Washington, between five to fifteen feet. So 60 feet would really only net a building 55 or maybe only 45 feet above the grade of Washington. He then explained that he has inserted another idea - as the train falls off, under the SMP (Shoreline Master Program), you could go 70 feet, but in no case more than 50 feet above the grade of Washington Avenue at any point. Even this became contentious. Mr. Hugo then tried to clarify what you would see along there if this were adopted. Residential stories of wood frame construction are typically ten feet. Commissioner Kosusko concurred. This is a problem, because as Washingtbn trails offnorth to south and gets lower in elevation, if you said just a plain 50 feet or five stories - as soon as you start to drop away, you are starting to get higher than that. So it says "...five stories and five feet." You can go quite a distance before you have to drop your roof and drop a floor. You try to get enough mn until you gain another five feet of drop along the street and that's when your building would have to drop a floor or you would be headed to six stories. Five stories plus five feet to account for that drop off of Washington as you go along the frontage plus the roof. That is still about 60 feet, expressed in different .ways. Sixty feet is the number that we started with two years ago - so it's back to 60 feet. This is still contentious with some of the waterfront property owners. Commissioner Wood asked if the next time issues like this come before the Planning Commission there could be more graphics to help them visualize. She explained that it is difficult to see this in text and put it to some reality. Mr. Hugo said that he wished there were something that he could draw on now. He didn't think of that because he feels uncertain about the political enviromnent of the Planning Commission Special. Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 12 of 20 whole idea. The only part of this whole proposal that we are going to secure a lot more on is the building .height issue. He said that this is a short-term proposal that the Commission will be revisiting by spring. There was a short discussion about the timing. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was any public input on this item. Rex Allen - 17317 145th Avenue NE, Woodinville, WA. He started with a couple of comments about the view corridor. There was some concern about the trade-off for the view corridor that was lost. How would that be compensated to the City? He said this was an interesting opportunity to see that, not as a loss - but by giving the opportunity for other means of satisfying public access with a deck or an overlook of some sort. That creates an opportunity for the developer to have some alternatives or options. It also, by utihzing that 20% of the lot area creates a city benefit to development like that. There is an increase in the tax base, and gaining the density that you [the City] are trying to achiex, e downtown. There is a greater economic incentive to get development started. There are these unseen benefits that you get from giving more flexibility to the use of that open space or view corridor requirement. He said that he, personally would like to see a couple more alternatives that would allow a little more flexibility. Providing public physical access, on the shoreline side is a great idea. And as was mentioned, it can be a multi-use in that the residence of a property can use that space as well. However, it is open to the public at all times so it creates a security issue for the residents. So you have to weigh those kinds of things from the developer's standpoint. Is it worth doing this if no one will buy these units adjacent to these lovely decks because they are afraid people are going to be looking in their windows all the time? Giving more of those kinds of opportumties to amend - you could select depending on the specific needs of your project. This would be a great benefit. It will have the impact of making those projects more feasible, rather than haxdng to give up 20% of my developable area. That 20% is a hard thing to get past and those kinds of ideas would be a great benefit to making this program happen. On the height issue, he said that he was a little confused. Looking in here (the draft ordinance), he could not find the heights Mr. Hugo was discussing. He asked where he could find this information. Mr. Hugo explained that the height issued is defined in the downtown development regulations. That the definition is five stories plus five feet along Washington. Mr. Allen said that it is a good direction and that the closer you can get to what the building code wilt allow for wood frame construction, the easier it will be to get concurrence on that height. He said that it sounds like we're getting close to that and he agrees it is a good thing. He concluded by asking the Commission if they had any questions for him and availed himself as a consultant. Commissioner Kosusko told Mr. Allen that the group appreciated him coining and participating in the process. Mr. Hugo spoke briefly to the statement Mr. Allen made regarding the building code and being able to build wood frame over concrete and get to a height that the market seems to support and respond well to. We haven't adopted those Planning Commission Special Meethxg November 12, 2002 Page 13 of 20 amendments to the UBC yet. That would be the next thing before we get into some of these residential projects - taking the example of several other cities and adopting their amendments, but they would be our amendments. Commissioner Wood asked how this draft ordinance meshes with our ComprehensiYe Plan and green space. Would the new Comprehensive Plan override this ordinance, or how would they work together? Mr. Hugo explained that when the Plan is adopted, essentially, it is an opportunity to revisit everything. That is why this height issue could very well come up again. Anyone that suggested that it should be higher than these - he has told them that the public record in adopting the Calthorp supported plan doesn't support that. There is no history of anything in any of the public comments over 60 feet. He has said that during the Comprehensive Plan update process there is another chance to come back and make a case for something else. He said he thinks this will be done. It's the same thing for anything else that is adopted in that plan, which will be the new direction of the City. At any level of specificity it is the new direction and we are duty bound to pursue that new direction through code revisions and spending. Commissioner Buckingham expressed concern about the language in Table 3-2, Key 7, 2). He said his concern is that with this language present, even though Mr. Hugo stated that it is ineffective because this account doesn't currently exist - is this going to pose an interpretive problem down the road? If we adopt this ordinance and someone tries to use this provision - would it cause a problem? We have included it as an option for developers. Should we just leave this language out? Mr. Hugo explained that it is very carefully worded language. He read directly from the draft ordinance, "Pay a fee to ANY dedicated account established by the City for the sole purpose .... "It does not say "THE dedicated account...", so it is not suggesting that we have done this. This means that it is recognizing that it's an action that maybe hasn't taken place, but could be done at some future time. It is a very conditional opportunity. He shared an experience with a like situation regarding pedestrian pathways and how the mechanism worked. There was a short discussion about that experience and the delay in implementing and termination of the mechanism. Commissioner Kosusko had a questions regarding Table 3-2, 7 b. 1). He referred to a statement made by Mr. Allen and looked at it from a developer's stand-point. This section says it should be open to the public at all times. City parks are not open to the public at all times - why should a developer be encumbered the same way? He suggested that maybe it should be open to the public as administered by the Parks Department so that it is consistent with other public parks. Mr. Hugo stated that the waterfronts are open all the time. We have no constraints on them. Commissioner Kosusko asked if he could go out on the Boardwalk at 3:00 in the morning. Mr. Hugo said yes. Commissioner Kosusko stated that he cannot go to the little street-end park across the street from him after 10:00 pm. This spurred a discussion of city park hours and security issues; ferry traffic and 24-hour downtown. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 14 of 20 Mr. Hugo said that his mental image of this is that there is enough of a slope there that all of these things will have great separation and there will be some kind of landscaped wall and terraces that allows access. It will be providing a wider expanse of public accessible space. He said he is quite confident that it would be separated from the private use. The private tenants of the site still have a larger space to use right down in front of their place. Commissioner Wood said that it was hard for her to visualize the height restriction [Table 3-2, Key 3 b.] "The increase is offset by maintaining comparable portions of the structure lower..." It almost sounds like we would have these low buildings that are solid and the only openings would be street ends to the waterfront. Or high buildings with little narrow slits of view corridor, the way it's written right now. She said that we need to be really careful. The process with the ferry terminal - people didn't really understand and now citizens complain that they can't really see the ferry going in. Possibly because they have a code restriction to cover up their HVAC on the roof, which made it ttigher, now you cannot see the flow of the ferry and that's a loss ora big amenity to our city. She asked if there was any way to designate the downtown waterfront for a different creative approach to allow case- by-case. She suggested a percentage scheme and tie the creative approach to it. Mr. Hugo said that he doesn't disagree with her comments but stated that we are a little late because we are now faced with a project that is about to come out of the ground. That project is dependent on us making up our minds now. Commissioner Wood said that it's too bad we didn't have more public showings of the process for that project. We could have talked about that earlier. Mr. Hugo explained that the way the Calthorp plan shows it is different that what you were talking about. During the Calthorp process was the planning time to deal with that. That scheme very clearly shows only street ends and all the buildings are full height, full street frontage, "U" shaped buildings and resort style. He said that he doesn't find the scheme to be very responsive to the oppommities, but that is what the public was shown. We can rethink that but this is a difficult time to do that because we have projects that are ready to go forward, including our own - based on that scheme. Commissioner Wood stated that if we don't think about it and do it right we are stuck with it for another eighty years. Mr. Hugo said that he was not suggesting that they (Planning Commission) shouldn't be thinking about it or that between now and when we update the Comprehensive Plan that they cannot bring some of these things back. He said that they are welcomed to do that. He said he didn't want to close off anything. Commissioner Dingfield stated that this is still giving choice. It offers a view corridor or an alternative or a combination. This does give the flexibility and gives the City an ability to work with developers. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 15 of 20 Mr. Hugo agreed with Commissioner Dingfield and said that we suffer from the lack of a r.eal, detailed urban design plan with urban design mechanisms to implement it. Without that, we are doing okay - we could be doing better. Commissioner Cockburn had a question about Table 3-2, Key 7. b. 1). He asked if the developer allows access to the setback, can they build on the whole lot - the whole width of the lot? One would encompass the setback? Mr. Hugo stated that the standard scheme is one of two: 1) Taking part of the lot and saying we want a slice from Washington fight through your lot down to the water; 2) You can occupy the full frontage of Washington, but down on the water side you have to have and equal mount of physically accessible space to the public. Commissioner Cockburn asked if- with the view corridor, the developer would have to give up the setback on the front plus the view corridor. He would not be able to build on the setback anyway. Right? Mr. Hugo explained that the setback is a shoreline setback, not a zoning setback. The zoning setback is zero. They could very well already be back 25 feet from the shoreline with their property line. The shoreline setback and the zoning setback are two different things. So they could develop their whole site. He acknowledged that this was a very good point, but it is okay. Commissioner Nelson stated that in the interest of becoming a better student of development standards, he would like to see more viSUals. He then said that he supports this proposed ordinance as it moves us forward on a very important project for the City and for the downtown area. He acknowledged that the design aspects are going to be a challenge for the developers. Mr. Hugo responded that they (Planning Commission) deserves to have better imagery that supports these ideas and that the department is still under some workload stress. However, on this item - since there is going to be more focus on the height issues, he said.he is trying to hold to the record of what was taken through the public process. He wants to reserve any comments on Whether it was good or bad because it is the pubhc's ideas and public regulations that the department has to stand behind. He has suggested to people that have another idea about these regulations that they get very visual. He has asked them to submit 3-dimensi°nal to the Planrdng Commission and the City Council. He said that the Commission will be able to see the scale-bulk relationships, impact to development schemes on what you experience when you can h01d up the model and twist it and see it from different vantages. He gave several examples of locations where this would be critical. Commissioner Dingfield asked if something can be added. She wanted to introduce an idea so that as the City is working with major or government developers we begin to consider this. She referred the group to page 11 of the draft ordinance. Item number two, "2) Large ships open to the public for tours should be located north of BurweIl Street,... ' Planrdng Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 16 of 20 She wanted the group to consider adding the phrase, "or south of the transportation center." She said that this is a major policy issue and that we, as a community, can be real clear about that. She stated that south of the terminal would be a highly desirable option. This sparked a short discussion of the Turner Joy and connecting it with the purposed museum. Commissioner Kosusko referred to a statement made by Commissioner Wood. He said that the parking is concealed behind a cement wall. Yes, we can have a concrete wall even if there's not parking behind it. A next step we need to take is defining either articulation, mater/als or just design review over what happens facing our shorelines. This same definition should be done for the whole downtown environment - we designate primary pedestrian streets and really talk about things like how much openness there is to a fagade, articulation, fronting the sidewalk, etc. Mr. Hugo stated that in the development policies that are adopted - there are primary pedestrian streets. The policy states those. Right now our regulations try to pursue that but they are weakened by the current economic environment. There is so much desire to see something happen that adhering to the highest expectations is not politically going to happen. Commissioner Nelson asked about the idea of revisiting this. He asked, in Mr. Hugo's opinion, how much developruent will happen between now and that point. Mr. Hugo answered that there would only be one project, the conference center. Rex Allen stated that they wouldn't see any others because there is not enough certainty around these issues. How tall could my building be ifI have to provide a view corridor? He said that he could not decide that. Mr. Hugo said that these regulations d_9_o answer all those questions. But for those six blocks along the waterfront that this applies to, the development interests that are there have various opinions as to whether or not they want to work under these rules. They understand the rules - they're just not so certain that they can get the economic return they need to make a project work under these rules. The variation they are looking for to make their projects work are of such magnitude that he couldn't trace it back to any part of the public record that got these proposals to the commission for hearing. This means that we would be violating the GMA rule about early, open and continuous citizen participation and input based outcomes. At the end you have to be able to show how we got there - it can't just be that someone showed up at the last minute and said, "I don't like it." Other jurisdictions have tried that and found all of their regulations invalidated and have had to go back to square one. We choose to respect the process and then go back to revisit the process if need be. We are doing that now through the Comprehensive Plan process. The Plann/ng Commission can get into that, in as much detail as you wish, at that time. There will be people bringing these issues to the commiSsion as part of that process. Commissioner Dingfield expressed a concern about the foot-ferry passengers and the accessibility to the terminal. She wants to keep ti-tis issue in the forefront. She said that we don't want to make their commute to Seattle more difficult. We need to allow for the kiss-and-ride access and encourage foot-ferry traffic as she believes Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 17 of 20 that this is our future bread-and-butter. This prompted a short discussion about the walk-on foot traffic and routes and po ssible trade-offs. Commissioner Kosusko asked Mr. I-Iugo what action the commission should be considering at this time. Mr. Hugo answered by saying - an action to recommend in some form or another on this proposal to the City Council. Commissioner Kosusko said that he would like to seek in favor of what we see here. The view corridor regulations that we have in place now - yes, they provide a view but it's not a quality access to the shoreline. You can see the shoreline, but if you take into account these two options - a person fi.om the public can get to the shoreline. They can actually occupy and experience the space 'that's being dedicated. Whereas, with the view corridor it's still some part- you look through and you are still that far away from the shoreline. He thinks this is a quality step. It's probably not the final step, but it is definitely a quality step. Now we need to start looking at the rest of the city and this view corridor issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to recommend to the City Council for approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to downtown waterfront site development standards regarding shoreline setbacks, view corridors, and height restrictions in the Downtown District. Called for a vote: Buckingham: no; Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: no; and Kosusko: yes. Motion carries. VI. Business Meeting Chair Report - Andy Kosusko. 1. Planning Commission Elections - Commissioner Kosusko started by saying he was sure everyone had received the e-mail about the passing of the baton. This is scheduled to happen at our next meeting. Everyone should think about who you want to recommend. It is tradition that the vice chair take the chairman position, only a suggestion. Mr. Hugo asked if everyone had received the rules. There was consensus that they had. He mentioned that there are term limits. Commissioner Kosusko verified that there is a two-year term limit and he's been the chair for a year and a half. Editorial in Bremerton Sun regarding the Department - Commissioner Kosusko said he didn't know if everyone had seen the uninformed, stupid article complaining about the Planning Department in the newspaper. It was one of the daily opinion people and he was happy to see the Mayor respond to that very strongly a couple of days later. Director's Report- Chris Hugo. 1. Editorial in Bremerton Sun regarding the Department - Mr. Hugo replied that he was going to mention the same article. He wanted to note that we have a mayor who is very supportive of planning and the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission. Mr. Hugo said that before he could even talk to the mayor about it - the mayor was already all over it. The mayor had called the newspaper and said he wanted column space and that he wasn't going to let it ride. It's very good to have someone 'who is Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 18 of 20 that proactive on these issues. Mr. Hugo smd it was just too bad because we (the department) had no contact with the author of that story at all. We think it was probably motivated by a handful of people that are in that 15 percent that don't get done in a month because they come to the office with issues before they even start. They don't disclose things on their plans; we catch them on inspections, or they are proposing things that we cannot do because the rules don't allow it - no matter how hard we try to resolve issues. Sometimes we cannot find a path to get them where they want to go. Like in the case Ms. Ralph just brought - there was a disclosure issue up front. Now we are trying to fix our codes so that we can at least approve something, and taking that as our obligation. That is taking some time. This house isn't going to get done and permitted in four weeks. Actually it did get permitted in four weeks - it just shouldn't have been. It should have taken three months to get everything fixed that needed to be fixed. We are still having some growing pains that make our life interesting in the department. It is nice to have the support of the mayor and the Council is understanding, even though they get lots of calls. There will probably be some more things this week in the paper about other issues going on with some of our projects. They have personalities behind them that are not happy with the way we do business sometimes, even though it is our job to do thing the way we do it. Personnel Changes - Mr. Hugo reported that we have interviews scheduled next week for the current planner position. It will not be quite as elaborate a process as before. We are trying to find someone quickly to fill our current planning needs. We have a pretty specific idea about what we need, based on our experience this last year with current planning. We need someone who can just come in and start helping immediately, someone with very definite current planning skills. C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: Bremerton Chamber of Commerce - Commissioner Dingtield reported that the Bremerton Chamber is starting to turn its legislative attention to what is going on locally. They are reacting very positively to what they have heard so far of this process (Comprehensive Plan Update). They like the kinds of changes that we're talking about and believe these changes to be "very business friendly" and believe they should create a more positive business climate. She believes they will be more involved all along the process, which should only help us. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for December 17, 2002. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 19 of 20 Respectfully submitted by: Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 20 of 20 TAPE #1789 UNAPPI~OVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES COUNCIL APPROVED SEP 12 2001 August 29, 2001 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4*h Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 5:30 P.M., with Council Vice-President Mike Shepherd presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Eric Younger, Ed Rollman, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council President John Law was absent. Aisc present were Interim City Attorney Loren Combs; Acting Deputy City Clerk Rich Hanna; and Council Assistant Christine Grenier Ellingson. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Wayne Olsen,.followed by the invocation provided by Retired Reverend G.T. Johnson formerly of Brownsville United Methodist Church. President Law made the folloWing announcementS: 1) A Pre-Council session was held to discuss general Council business and an upcoming Sign Ordinance. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting -August 1, 2001 (#AB01-186) B. Minutes of Meeting - August 8, 200.1 (#AB01-187) C. Minutes of Meeting - August 15, 2001 (#AB01-188) D. Minutes of Meeting - August 22, 2001 (#AB01-189) #0030 M/S/C (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Voted in favor of Motion: OIsen, McConnell, Rollman, Arends, Maupin, Reed, and Shepherd Abstained: Younger Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-Abstention CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available tb the Council. #0050 M/S/c/U (Reed/McConnell)'On August 29, 2001, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: Checks 255291; 255297 through 255299; 255304 through 255547; and.EFT 6661 in the amount of $705,871.62. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Jim Reed thanked citizens who attended .the District 9 Neighborhood Meeting held last Thursday.. Will Maupin also thanked those citizens who attended the District 9 meeting, and asked that anyone interested in receiving flyers for future neighborhood meetings should call Council staff at 478-5280. Carol Arends announced that a Memorial Service for Elizabeth Buell will be held on Friday, August 31 at 11:00 A.M. at the Miller Woodlawn Funeral Home; and a Memorial Service for Mary Brunsberg will be held on Thursday, August 30 .at 2:00 P.M. at the Lewis Funeral Chapel. . Ed Rollman recalled Elizabeth Buell's involvement in Council Meetings over the past years; and announced the "Cultural Fest" would be held Saturday, September 15 from 10:30 A.M: to 6:30 P.M. at the President's Hall at the Kitsap County Fairgrounds; and that the Blackberry Festival would be downtown during Labor Day Weekend, which would include a Display of Antique Cars on Sunday, TAPE #1789 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 29, 2001 Page 2 of 5 Wayne Olsen also remembered Elizabeth "Betty" Buell, whom he has known for many years. ~ expressed condolences over the loss of Elizabeth Buell; commented on his trip to Washington D.C; announced that the mural project is progressing; and added that the Next District 5 Meeting will be on September 20 with Dr. Michael Connolly presenting the comprehensive growth plan for Olympic College. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT~ Carol Arends stated that although she is not on the Board, she has been attending the Kitsap Public Facilities District (PFD) meetings to hear discussions regarding the four proposals for Conference Centers in Kitsap Countyl,and announced an upcoming public meeting to discuss this topic On Monday, September 10; Wayne Olsen reported that the Gold Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse is on schedule and within budget, and that he would provide information on the proposed Government Center after upcoming meetings with staff and project architects; ~ was pleased with a recent Smart Growth presentation made by Poulsbo City Council. MAYORS REPORT Mayor Horto~ also expressed condolences to the family of Elizabeth Buell. She was pleased with the progress on the Gold Mountain Clubhouse, and clarified that it was the green fees that paid for the improvements. She concluded her report by stating the Gorst Creek restoration project has been completed and access is now possible by Jarstad Park, and that the Evergreen Park project is progressing. LEGISLATIVE REPORT - There was no report ~his evening. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Carol Atkinson presented a poster with the Blackberry Festival logo to announce the festival would take place over Labor Day weekend (Saturday from 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. and on Sunday from 11:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.), and thanked all of the sponsors for their support. Roy Mclnrlis remembered Elizabeth Buell and gave condolences to her family. He also commented on the increase of loud car stereo noise, and. suggested enforcement of the noise infractions. 10A - APPOINTMENT OF HARRY COMBS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ADVISORY COMMI'I'TEE (#AB01-190): Mayor Lynn Horton discussed the experience of Harry Combs, and therefore recommended that he be appointed to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Advisory Committee in order to fill the current vacancy. She also summarized the duties and purpose of this Committee. There were no comments from the public. ~¢~LJ~[IE~D and Eric.Younger expressed their agreement with the selection of Mr. Combs, and were pleased to support the recommendation. Harry_ Combs introduced himself to the Council, and commented that he was honored to be considered for the. appointment. #0905 M/S/C/U (Younger/Reed) Move to confirm the appointment Harry Combs to tl~e Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee.. TAPE #1789 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 29, 2001 Page 3 of 5 10B - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR GOLD MOUNTAIN CLUBHOUSE (#AB01-191): P~, Golf Operations Director, explained that Change Order No. 2 is an eight (8) part change order for an additive cost of $59,695.71 with Porter Brothers Construction, Inc. The following are the eight parts of the Change Order: 1 ) Field Clarification #2C includes structural steel additions and changes to the upper roof area ($6,030.36); 2) Food Service Extras ($985.95); 3) Contract Change Directive (CCD #2) Building/Cabinetry Revisions and upstairs room addition ($12,641.88); 4) Change Order Proposal (COP #7) changing curbs to extruded with the acceptation of monument area (credit amount $7,500.00); 5) Change Order Proposal (COP #8) exhaust hood design changes ($6,552.08); 6) Change Order Proposal (COP #9) includes the work required to provide wiring due to placement of the transformer by Puget Sound Energy ($15,810.10); 7) Contract Order Proposal (Cop #10) includes windows, framing, and trim to enclose the banquet pavilion ($24,432.57); and 8) Change Order Proposal (COP #11) Framing revisions in basement stairs to meet fire code ($742.77) There were no comments from the public. E~I Rollman asked why the design of the exhaust hood needed to be changed. Mr. Westhoff responded that after careful consideration, it was.determined that if the exhaust hoods were moved to a different location, then twice as much food could be prepared.. Wayne Olsen pointed out that despite the cost for this change order, the project is still within budget; and Mr. Westhoff added that contingency is expected to be left after the completion of the project, which would be returned back to the Golf's Capital Budget. Jim Reed complimented the efforts to remain close to budget on the original project estimate. #1205 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Reed) Move that City Council authorize and direct the'Ma~/or to approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $59,695.71 payable to Porter Brothers Construction, Inc., subject to City Administrative Polices & Procedures. 10C - BID AWARD FOR WEST HILLS COMMERCIAL & WERNER ROAD coRRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS (#AB01-192): Luke Korpi, Senior Engineer, stated that bids were opened for the West Hills Commercial/Werner Road Corridor Improvements contract on August 16, 2001. This contract provides for reconstructing portions of Werner Road, Auto Center Way, Union.Avenue, and Oyster Bay Avenue, and to provide drainage improvements. The Contract work includes reconstructing existing streets, providing new curbs, gutters and sidewalks, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, retaining walls, traffic signals, illumination, and associated other work. Two bids for this project were received, with Ace Paving being the only responsive bidder with a bid of $2,559,455.46.' The Engineer's estimate for the project is $2,864,861:00. There were no comments from the public. Eric Younger asked how the project would be funded. Mr. Korpi answered that the majority of the project is being paid for by federal and state grants, with approximately $1,025,000 from the Federal Highway Administration; $1,000,000 from the State Transportation Improvement Board; $375,000 TAPE #1789 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 29, 2001 Page 4 of 5 from the Economic Development Administration; and $180,000 from private sources. It was further explained that Arterial and Stormwater Funds would cover the difference. Jim Reed pointed out that this project would reduce the potential for dangerous vehicle accidents. #1350 M/S/C/U (Reed/Olsen) Move to approve award of the bid of $2,559,455.46 with Ace Paving for. the West Hills Commercial/Werner Road Corridor Improvements contract and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 10D - PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION; AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENT NO. 5 (#AB01-193): Mayor Lynn Horton mentioned that in order to better serve the community with Park & Recreation programs and facilities, this reorganization is being proposed. The proposed'structure includes three divisions: Aquatics, Athletics & Fitness; Recreation Programs.; and Parks & Facilities Maintenance. Additionally, due to the restructuring, it is envisioned that the Assistant Director position would no longer be necessary. An Administrative Analyst position is additionally proposed to oversee administrative technical processes. Mayor Horton confirmed that she has discussed the proposed changes with Mr. Spencer, who will soon be appointed as the new Parks & Recreation Director, and that he agrees these changes are necessary. There were no comments from the public. Cecil McConnell asked if the Assistant Director Position was eliminated, would the individual currently in that position be moved to the Administrative Analyst position, and would a provision be made to keep pay at the same level. Mayor Horton responded yes. Jim Reed wondered about the unused funds from this Department since there has been no Director in the Parks & Recreation Department for some time. Mayor Horton affirmed that the funds have remained in the Parks & Recreation Department budget. Mike SheDherd questioned how the budget could increase if staffing was decreasing. Rich Hanna replied that the Budget Adjustment was to cover the costs for the reorganization. ~ added that in the future, staff might take on additional duties to eliminate any need to increase staffing, and that this change would save money in the future for the Department. #1.525 M/S/c/U(Olsen/Rollman) Move to approve Budget Adjustment No. 01-15. ~ 11,A - PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE 2000-2001 COMPREHENSlVF PLAN AMENDMENTS (#AB01-194): Chris Hugo, Director of Planning & Building, announced that' the City of Bremerton proposes to amend its Comprehensive Plan and Optimum Land Use Map through the City and public initiated amendment applications that will be applied Citywide as well as to specific properties. The approved amendments will be adopted by ordinance and some amendments are accompanied by related rezones to maintain consistency with the Plan. By the State Growth Management Act, the City can amend its Plan not more than once per year. This docket of proposed amendments is for the 2000-2001 years. There is also a requirement that the City must consider the cumulative effect of the combined proposed amendments. An analysis of the cumulative effect is included in the attached Amendments to SEPA Checklist. This agenda item invites the public to comment on the cumulative effect of the proposed amendments as presented' in the Amendment to the Checklist. The Checklist analysis and hearing record will be in included in the Council's subsequent consideration of the proposed 2000-2001 Amendments, both individually and collectively, for adoption. There is no formal Council action required at this time. Mr. Hugo added that each of the items would include a staff report with pertinent information; that some issues would TAPE #1789 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes August 29, 2001 Page 5 of 5 be addressed by the Growth Management Hearings Board; and that ordinances would be brought before the Council in October of this year. There would be no action required by the Council tonight. Helen Miller read a statement provided by Alan Strange, Chair of Hanford Avenue Neighborhood Association, into the record, requesting a denial of all Bremerton Comprehensive Plan changes; followed by a statement by Helen Miller, which was read into the record by the Council Assistant. Mike Shepherd added his comments on traffic issues, and stated that he looked forward to receiving additional information as the items are individually presented. Mr. Hugo added that as each item is presented, it would include a Staff Report as well as a Findings & Conclusion Report by the Planning Commission, and that public comments would be addressed. Eric Younger referred to'the comments made in the letter by Mr. Strange, and asked that they briefly be addressed. L. oren Combs, Interim City Attorney, clarified that when the Comprehensive-Plan was adopted, there was a certain time period for which an appeal could be made to the Growth Hearings Board, and that appeal period has long since passed. The ComprehenSive Plan before the Council tonight is legal, and has not been challenged, therefore the process to adopt it is also considered legal. #2565 M/S/C/U (Arends/McConnell) Move to accept the Checklist analysis of cumulative effect and public comment on the analysis for consideration as the Council deliberates the 2000-2001 docket o.f proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. With the conclusion of business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 P.M. Prepared and Submitted by:. LOR'r SMITH, Legislative Assistant Attest: /'~ ""¢A"uL,~J~I~(::)'N~, De~)uty City Clerk ,/,~'L,~, City"~ouncil President City of Bremerton JL/PJ/Is/cge c: Normal Distribution File TAPE #1792 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APPROVED SEP 2 6 2001 September 12, 2001 The weekly 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 12, 2001, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Eric Younger, Mike Shepherd,' Ed Rollman, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen, Aisc present were Interim City Attorney Loren Combs; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McOonnell, followed by the invocation provided by Pastor Sam Rachal, Jr. of Mt. Zion Baptist Church. President Law made the following announcements: 1) A Pre-Council session' was held to discuss general Council business; and 2) Prayer and words of condolences were extended to the victims and their families after the 'recent horrific events, and indicated that a Proclamation in their honor would be presented, next week. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - August 29, 2001 (#AB01-201) #0025 M/S/C (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve Consent-Agenda as presented. Voted in favor of Motion: Olsen, McConnell, Rollman; Shepherd, Younger, Arends, Maupin, and Reed Abstained: Law Motion carried: 8-Yes; and 1-Abstention CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS' Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0075 M/S/C/U (Reed/McConnell) On September 12, 2001, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: Checks 255812 through. 255990 in the amount of $1,041,272.41; and Regular Payroll in the amount of $1,010,425.08 for the period ending August 31, 2001. COUNCIL NII~MBER REPORTS Carol Arends discussed the traffic PrOblems in her district caused by the increased security at the PSNS gates, and urged driver's to allow extra time and use altemative routes when possible. Mike Shepherd announced the next District 5 neighborhood meeting on Thursday, September 20, from 6:30 to 8:30 P.M. at the Memorial Luther Church with special guest Dr. Mike Connolly of Olympic College; encouraged the public to attend the State Route 303 Bremerton to'Silverdale Corridor Study Community Meeting on Tuesday, September 25, 2001, from 6:00 to 8:30 P.M. at the Bremerton High' School Auditorium; briefly discussed the Sav-On development at 6th & Naval; and lastly, announced upcoming meetings to discuss a Pocket Park near MCKenzie & Cogean. Ed Rollman discussed 'the on-going mural project on the back of the building at 6th & Park; the history of Donald Rumsfeld and his involvement in the current events of the Nation; the hours of operation for the History of Bremerton Photo Exhibit sponsored by the Bremerton Centennial Historical Committee; and lastly, announced the Cultural Fest this SatUrday, September 15 beginning at 10:30 A.M. TAPE #1792 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 2 of'5 Cecil McConnell added that.prior to the Community Meeting regarding the State Route 303 Bremerton to Silverdale Corridor Study, there would be a stakeholders meeting on Thursday, September 13, from 4:00 to 6:30 P.M. at the Eagles Nest Conference Room. John Law announced a District 3 meeting would be held Tuesday, September 18, 2001 beginning at · 7:00 P.M. at the Senior Center located at East 13th & Nipsic Avenue, which would include an opportunity to hear immediate results from the Primary Election directly from the Elections Office. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Carol Arends reported that the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council's Transportation Policy Board meeting was cancelled yesterday, but the Puget Sound Regional Coordinating Council's Transportation Policy Boai-d in Seattle is scheduled to meet tomorrow, and she plans to attend. MAYORS REPORT Mayor Horton discussed how the terrorism acts, that.occurred on the East Coast have affected the City of Bremerton and the Shipyard, and assured the public that she has been working diligently with top officials to deal with parking and traffic concerns, higher security, and ferry issues; It was announced that the Puget Sound Blood Center would be sponsoring numerous blood drives in the area, and citizens may call 1-800-398-7888 for more information; A summary of the recent meeting with the Kitsap Public Facilities Board to discuss the City of Bremerton's proposal for funding for a Conference Center on the waterfront was provided; Officer Gre_a Rawlins was brought forward to discuss the ability by the Police Departmentto purchase two new dogs for the K-9 Program with donations received by local businesses such as Pepsi Cola' Company, and Haselwood Auto Dealers. q'he Garguile family was thanked by the. City for their efforts in organizing the collection of the donations; and A Proclamation was read to proclaim September 1 - October 15, 2001 as Wasi~ington Water- Weeks, which was accepted by Don Larson, President of the Kits~p. Diving Association. He invited the public to attend the Sinclair Inlet Clean-Up and Marine Fair on Saturday, September 15, 2001, from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. LEGISLATIVE REPORT - There was no report this evening. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Ja(Tk Lefcoski announced the Kitsap Lake Neighborhood Association was going to meet at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, September 17, 2001 .and Tuesday, September 25, 2001 at Camp McKean; asked the City to consider a walkway around Kitsap Lake; and lastly, to provide information on how the Port Blakely project will affect the residents around Kitsap Lake. Don Larson called for volunteers for the next Sinclair Inlet Clean-Up Event and Marine Fair to be held on Saturday, September 15, 2001, from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. at the Waterfront Boardwalk~ Carlos Mont_aomery suggested that the City Council televise all their Study Sessions, as they did on September 5, to assist in keeping their citizens informed. 10A - APPOINTMENT OF ANGELA STANFEL WOOD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION (#AB01-202): Mayor Lynn Horton discussed the qualifications, and experience of Angela Stanfel Wood to recommend that she be appointed to the Planning Commission in order to fill a vacancy. TAPE #1792 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 3 of 5 There were no questions or comments from the pubfic. #1245 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Reed) Move to confirm the appointment of Angela Stanfel Wood to the Planning Commission. 1 OB - CONFIRMATION OF JIM SPENCER TO THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION (#AB01-203): Mayor Lynn Horton discussed the qualifications of Jim Spencer, including his prior experience as Interim Director for four years with the City, to recommend that the Council confirm his appointment to fill the vacancy created by Cris Gear's resignation as Director of Parks & Recreation on January 31,200t. There were no questions 'or comments from the public. #1377 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Reed) Move to confirm the appointment of Jim Spencer'to the position of Director of Parks & Recreation effective as of September 24, 2001. 1 lA- PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE NO. 4774 (sECOND READING), REGARDING SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AND AMENDING BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE 21.02.330(e)(9) AND TITLE 21. APPENDIX FIGURE 3-30 {#AB01-200): First Reading of this ordinance was heard at the Council meeting on September 5, 2001. There were no questions or comments from the public. #1440 M/S/C/U (MCConnell/Reed) Move to postpone the second reading of Ordinance No. 4774 to September 19, 2001. 1 lB -CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (#AB01-198): Chris Hugo established that extensive staff reports for each of the items were presented at the last Council meeting on September 5, 2001, however due to confusion regarding the Agenda from last week mistakenly announcing this as a NEW BUSINESS" item Setting a Public Hearing Date", this item was continued to this week to allow an opportunity for any additional testimony. (1) PLO0-O054 KITSAP WAY COMPREHEN~fVE P~,ANAMENDMENT & ZONING (NANCE.) Mr. Hugo showed visuals while summarizing the Staff Report and Findings & Conclusions for this item. Carlos Montgomery referred to past items PL01-0001, PL00-0061, and PL00-0062 to support his opinion that it was inconceivable to him how this current amendment to item PL00-0054 could be approved for the same identical reasons. He further stated his belief that past staff members of the Planning Department were arbitrary in their.recommendations, and that all four items should be ' remanded back to the Planning Department for reconsideration applying the same rules to each of the requests. (2) PLO0-O073 6TM STREET A T CHESTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONING (WESLAR) Mr. Hugo showed visuals while summarizing the Staff Report and Findings & .Conclusions for this item. Chuck Dodge of Art Anderson & Associates and Agent to Wes Larson, urged positive consideration for this item, and explained that neither he nor the owner received notice for the meeting last week, so apologized for not being here at the prior meeting. Carlos Montgomery_ stated that although he has no objections to this item, he was concerned that it appeared to be more "spot zoning", and cautioned that the City should not "piece meal" the Comprehensive Plan. TAPE #1792 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 4 of 5 (3) PLO0-O077 WARREN AVENUE AT CLARE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONING (MENTOR.) Mr. Hugo showed visuals while summarizing the Staff Report and Findings & Conclusions. Carlos Montgomery commented that this change was appropriate for this area. It was again reiterated that no action is required at this time - The City Planning Commission has forwarded all three proposed amendments to the Council with a recommendation for approval. However, the Council will not make any final decisions on these individual proposals until the entire 2000-2001 Docket of Proposed Amendments has been heard, in order to maintain consideration of their cumulative effect throughout the process. 11C - PUBI, IC HEARING FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (#AB01-' 204): Chris Hugo, Plannihg & Building Director, stated that the City of Bremerton proposes to amend its Comprehensive Plan and Optimum Land Use Map through City and public initiated amendment applications that will be applied citywide as well as to specific properties. The approved amendments would be adopted by ordinance and some amendments are accompanied by related rezones to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are among a total of eleven in the 2000-2001 Docket of amendments for City Council. consideration. This agenda bill *sets public hearing on each of the following proposals separately: (1) PLO0-O065, WERNER ROAD INDUSTRIAl, PARK COMP PI,AN AMENDMENT & ZONING (HANCOCK) Mr. Hugo showed visuals while summarizing the Staff Report and Findings & Conclusions. The proposed result would be to change both maps to re-designate the properties specified in the amendment requests. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan Map would be amended from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Industrial Park (IP) designations; and the Official Zoning Map would be amended from Residential Low Density (SF-1, SF-3) and Residential Medium Density (MF) to Industrial Park (IP). Mike Hancock announced that he was the applicant for this item, and was available if there were any questions. Carlos Montgomery_ stated that now that this property is annexed in the City, it fits right into the intentions of the or. iginally adopted Comp Plan. Mr..Hugo discussed "population allocations" at the'request of Mr. Shepherd. '- (2) PLO0-OO¢i3, SYL VAN WA Y COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONING (TRANSERV. J Mr. Hugo showed visuals while summarizing the Staff Report and Findings & Conclusions. The '~ proposed result would be to change both maps to re-designate the properties specified in the amendment requests: Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan Map would be amended from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to General & Professional Office (C-P) designations; and the Official Zoning Map would be amended from Residential Medium Density (MF) to Professional Office (PO). Mike SDence, Land Use Attorney, discussed a number of problems he felt this issue Contained, and believed it was enough cause for this item to be removed from the Agenda until the prOper zoning is in place due to the violations of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Combs stated that .he would provide Mr. Spence with a copy of the revised Comprehensive Plan & Rezone Amendments as he offered to meet with him to go over his concerns prior to the Council making a final decision on this issue. Paul Mazzuchi, Vice Chairman of Transportation Management Services, along with Gene Lobe, Chairman of Transportation Management Services, refereed to the prev_ious comments of Mr. Spence and agreed that this has been a confusing issue.' He further discussed the history of the specific problems they have had with the interpretation of the zoning ordinance regarding the construction of a parking lot, and issues with their request for a C'omprehensive Plan Amendment. However, he TAPE #1792 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes 'September 12, 2001 Page 5 of 5 believes that one issue has nothing to do with the other, and so did not agree that this issue should be removed from the Agenda. Mr. Hugo responded that his staff has worked cooperatively with Mr. Spence, and even though the Department was short staffed at the time, they still worked diligently to get the requested information to him. He did agree there was confusion throughout the application process because some people had trouble keeping the two applications separate. He offered to work with the City Attorney to review the file. Carlos MQntgomery again expressed his concern that this appeared to be more "spot zoning" to accommodate General Business in a strictly residential area. He again cautioned the City not to "piece meal" the Comprehensive Plan. (3) PLO0-O024, DOWNTOwN DEVELOPMENT POLICY ADDITIONS TO CMO ELEMENT OF'COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CITY OF BREMERTON) Mr. Hugo showed visuals while summarizing the Staff Report and Findings & Conclusions. The Downtown Development Goals and Polices are proposed additions to the Central Business District Sub-area Plan of the Central Bremerton Sector of the Land use Element of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The associated draft _Illustrative Plan map is als° proposed for adoption as a guide to downtown development. There were no questions or comments from the public. Mr. She.oherd requested a copy of the "Downtown Bremer~on Goals & Policies" and the map. No action is required at this time- The City Planning Commission has forwarded all three proposed amendments to the Council with a recommendation for approval However, the Council will not make any final decisions on these individual proposals'until the entire 2000-2001 Docket of Proposed Amendments has been heard, in order to maintain consideration of their cumulative effect throughout the process. With the c(~nclusion of regular Council business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 7:10 P.M. Attes,~,~~, ~ . _~N .LAW,"~It~' Council President City of Bremerton JL/PJ/Is/cge c: Normal Distribution; File Prepared and Submitted by: LORI SMITH, Legislative Assistant TAPE #1806 7.~ ~'~' ~ ~i ~ ~ :~ .;.'..~ UNAPPROVED DRAFT '~'~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, November 20, 2001 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4'h Street, Bremerton, Washington, Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Eric Younger, Ed Rollman, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member Jim Reed. was absent. Aisc present were Interim City Attorney Loren Combs; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed by the invocation provided by Major Jim Baker of the Salvation Army. President Law made the.following announcements: 1) The regular Pre-Council Session was held to discuss general Council business; and 2) A Study Session is scheduled to take place immediately following the Council meeting to hear an update on the "OLYMPIC SOCCER AND SPORTS CENTER OPERATIONS". CONSENT AGENDA- There are no Consent Agenda Items this week. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0054 M/S/C/U (Olsen/McConnell) On November 20, 2001, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: Checks 258013 through 258173 in the amount of $964,116.39; and Regular Payroll in the amount of $803,739.93 for period ending November 15, 2001. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mike She.uherd reported on the well-attended "Rally Kitsap - Community Unity" event held last Wednesday, which he described as very "moving". Ed Rollman announced that DECA students from Olympic High School were sponsoring a free community dinner for those in need today from 11:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. at the F.O.E. Eagles Club in downtown Bremerton. He was also pleased to report on a number of City projects that were completed this year, such as the new Gold Mountain Clubhouse, the new Olympic Indoor Soccer & Sports Center, Rotary Park - and was 'particularly proud that the City Council approved these projects, without having to raise any taxes. Carol Arends thanked residents and businesses owners for taking the responsibility to clean their gutters and storm drains during these days of heavy rain. Will Maupin encouraged the public to attend a meeting planned next Tuesday, November 27, 2001 beginning at 7:00 P.M. at the Admiral Theater to discuss plans for Downtown Bremerton Revitalization. Topics would include the Government Center, the Marina Expansion, the Conference Center, Housing, Downtown Parking, the Maritime Museum & Park, and the PSNS Expansion Plans. John Law announced that he would be leaving the meeting early tonight to host.his District 3 meeting that is scheduled to_begin at 7:00 P.M. at the Senior Center to continue discussions on the new Manette Bridge. TAPE #18O6 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2001 Page 2 of 4 COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mrs. Arends provided a brief description of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSI{C), then reported that after participating in a recent conference-call meeting regarding representation on the Ad Hoc Committee, it was determined that Kitsap County would have no change. She also reported on her plans to attend the Board of Health Budget Committee meeting next week; Mr. Shepherd reported on his attendance at a recent meeting of the PSRC Growth Management Board, to discuss a "plan of action" for improving implementation of the Growth Management Act; Mr. Rollman briefly discussed his participation with the Fireman I{etirement Committee, which meets monthly; and Mr. Law discussed information he obtained at a meeting of the Puget Regional Transportation Organization. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Horton reiterated information about the Public Meeting to discuss Downtown Revitalization would be held Tuesday, November 27, 2001 at the Admiral Theater, and encouraged members of the public to attend. She noted that the Marketing Feasibility Study was also due that same evening. LEGISLATIVE REPORT - There was no report this evening. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Gordy Byrd reported on his plans to visit local nursing homes to provide socks to residents to'aid in keeping them warm during the cold months of the year. Jack Lefcoski addressed Mayor-elect Caw Bozeman, and pleaded with him not to follow through on his plans to tear down the old JC Penney building to build condominiums. At approximately 6:05 P.M., President Law turned over the gavel to Vice-President Shepherd to chair the remainder of the meeting, due to his required attendance at the District 3 Neighborhood meeting.' 11A - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) REGARDING DOCKET OF 2000- 2001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (#AB01-265): Chris Hugo, planning & Building Director, reported that the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan provides an annual process to amend the Plan, and specifies that proposed amendments be considered concurrently to assess their cumulative effect. The draft ordinance proposes to enact selected proposals from the 2000-2001 Docket of proposed amendments. The selected proposals are consistent with the Council's consideration of their cumulative effect that was presented in Public Hearing on August 29, 2001; the recommendations of the Planning Commission on the 2000-2001 Docket of proposed amendments; and City Council findings in open, deliberative session on October 24, 2001. Five of the proposed amendments (PL00-0054, PL00-0063, PL00-0065, PL00-0073, and PL00-00'~7) in the ordinance would effect changes to the Land Use Plan map and the Official Zoning Map. One of the amendments (PL01-0024) adds supplemental policy language and an "illustrative map" to the Plan. In August 2001, the Council adopted two non-quantitative policy additions (PL01-0010 and PL01-0016) to the Plan from the 2000-2001 Docket, and these additions were included in the analysis of cumulative effect and the Council's deliberations on the full Docket. Mr. Hugo reiterated that the items included in this Agenda Bill before the Council tonight, are those that the Council directed staff to include in the ordinance at the conclusion of the Council Work Session held October 24, 2001. Amendments to the. Agenda Bill include FindingS & Conclusions, which were discussed during the Council Work Session. It was also pointed out that the full set of proposed Goals & Policies that would add supplemental direction to the growth and development additions to the Land Use Plan were included in' the body of the ordinance. TAPE #1806 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2001 Page 3 of 4 Loren Combs, Interim City Attorney, clarified that the issue before Council was a Public Hearing on the ordinance, which is a policy issue. Therefore, any testimony should be restricted to the contents of the ordinance only. Carlos ,Montgomery read an e-mail message from George & Helen Miller, dated November 18, 2001 into the record to express their concern over what they deemed "...a breakdown in the executive and judicial process which citizens have a right under law to expect from our elected and appointed City officials..." Secondly, Mr. Montgomery attempted to express his own frustration of the entire process for the proposed Comp Plan and Zoning Map Amendments conducted by the Planning & Building Department, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, which he'felt was "unprotessionaland unfair". He was particularly concerned with the Deliberation Session held by the Council on October 24, 2001 to deliberate the proposed changes, where he was "dismayed that the public was excluded from participating". During this testimony, several "point of orders" were called by different Council members due to "personal attacks" made by Mr. Montgomery. He was then asked to leave the meeting at apprmdmately 6:15 P.M. by Vice-President Shepherd. Elizabeth Wilson representing Port Blakely Communities, provided comments on Comp Plan. Amendment #PL01-0024 regarding Downtown Development Policy Additions, and the Calthorp Plan for Downtown Revitalization, which she thinks will go a long way to give current and future downtown properties owners some security in what development will be coming downtown. James C. Tracy, Land Use AttorneY, referred to the Work Session held by the Council on October 24, 2001 to deliberate the proposed Comp Plan and Rezone Map Amendments; and requested a copy of the audio tape from that meeting. Secondly, he asked the Council to provide some written objective basis for the decision not to include certain proposed amendments in the final draft of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Rezone Map and ordinance. Loren Combs responded that regarding the first request, Mr. Tracy was making a "Public Records" request, which under state law requires a response within 5 days. Regarding the second request, it was established that because this was legislative action, the Council was not required to specify findings as to why items were excluded. Ed Rollman expressed his disappointment that the Council was accused of "muzzling" the public while trying to create solid policy .with these Comprehensive Amendments. Carol Arends referred to the Weslon Place Rezone, and clarified that the change would only include the section along Kitsap Way, and not.the portion along the shoreline. Mr. Hugo pointed out that Exhibit "C", the Illustrative Plan Map; and a letter dated August 29, 2001 from Rick Kimball, SEPA Administrator with the Kitsap County Department of Community Development were inadvertently left out of the packet of information, and therefore were distributed prior to the meeting. He noted that any questions regarding these items could be discussed at second reading. Will Maupin stated that Council determined their actions were in accordance with the current Comprehensive Plan; and that Council agreed with the findings of the Planning Commissions. He asked Mr. Hugo to elaborate on the planned "update" to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr.' Hugo confirmed that the Council discussed these issues during their deliberations at the Work Session on October 24, 2001; and that the update of the Comprehensive Plan was mandated by State law. He announced the process would begin this winter,.and conclude next September. He encouraged the community to be involved with this process. TAPE #1806 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2001 Page 4 of 4 Mr. Combs clarified that Mr. Shepherd was properly conducting this Public Hearing in accordance with the Rules & Procedures; and further established that the Council has held numerous public hearings on the various proposed Comprehensive Plan and Rezone Map Amendments where the public was allowed to address the Council. The Council then held a Work Session on October 24 to work among them selves to discuss these issues. Although the public was not allowed to speak at this particular meeting, it was open, and they were allowed to attend and view the Council at work. #1655 M/S/C/U (Maupin/Arends) Move to approve the 2000-2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments with Concurrent Rezone ordinance on first reading. 11B - PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE CITY'S' OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (#AB01-266): Chris Hugo, Planning & Building Director, reported that the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan provides an annual process to amend the Plan, and specifies that proposed amendments be considered concurrently to assess their cumulative effect. The draft ordinance proposes to enact selected proposals from the 2000-2001 Docket of proposed amendments. The selected proposals are consistent with the Council's consideration of their cumulative effect that was presented in Public Hearing on August 29, 2001; the recommendatior~s of the Planning Commission on the 2000-2001 Docket of proposed amendments; and City Council findings in open, deliberative session on October 24, 2001. He added that in the future, the Comp Plan Map would be changed in one process; and the Rezones would be done by the applicants at their own timing, which may help alleviate some of the complications experienced year. #1742 M/S/C/U (Arends/Olsen) Move to approve ordinance on first reading, amending the City's Official Zoning Map. At the conclusion of regular Council business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:30 P.M. and a Study Session was held immediately following the Council Meeting in the Council Conference Room to hear an "OLYMPIC SOCCER & SPORTS CENTER-OPERATIONS UPDATE". .~¢.--3oH~L.A,W~, C~'"'C'~uncil President Cit..y.~rf~Breme rton Prepared and Submitted by: JL/PJ/Is/cge c: Normal Distribution; File TAPE #1807 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APPROVED November 28, 2001 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the .City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Mike Shepherd, Ed Rollman, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member Eric Younger was absent. Aisc present were Interim City Attorney Loren Combs; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConne#, followed by the invocation provided by Reverend Ron Whitney of the Neighborhood Christian Center. President Law made the-following announcements: (1) City CounCil held a Pre-Council Session to discuss general Council business in the Council Conference Room; and (2) The Study Session scheduled to immediately follow the Council Meeting tonight to discuss "ELIMINATING REGULATORY LICENSES" has been cancelled. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - November 7, 2001 (#AB01-267) B. Pay Band Adjustment for Assistant City Attorney ~f Position (#AB01-268) #0035 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Motion to approve Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 'have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council· #0055 M/S/C/U (Reed/Arends) On November 28, 2001, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: EFT 6814, and checks 258210 through 258338 in the amount of $242,280.01. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Will MauPin reported on his attendance at the Bremerton Housing Authority Task Force meeting, where discussions were held regarding the future of Iow-income housing in Bremerton. Carol Arends attended the meeting at the Admiral Theater last night at 7:00 P.M. to discuss Downtown Revitalization". She also discussed the power outages after the snowstorm last night. Mike She.oherd discussed tree planting event taking place at Gorst Creek this Saturday; the meeting on Downtown Revitalization, which he also attended. He encouraged shoppers to remember downtown Bremerton, particularly in light of the current economic downtown; and lastly, he announced that Charleston Theater would be having a special showing of "Pearl Harbor" on December 6, 7, & 8. Ed Rollman also attended the meeting regarding Downtown Revitalization,' and reminded the public that they have the "final say", because this was their town, and should ultimately decide .its direction. Opinions can' be expressed by logging onto www.kitsapgov.com or by Calling 478-5280. TAPE #18O7 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 28, 2001 Page 2 of 3 Wayne Olsen thanked all the citizens who attended the meeting on Downtown Revitalization. John Law was also pleased that so many citizens were interested in the future of this City, and showed their support by attending the meeting last night. He also reported on the District 3 meeting held last week, and noted that it would be the last meeting he would host, since his term will come to. an end on December 31, 2001. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Carol Arends reported on her attendance at the Kitsap County Health Board Budget Committee meeting yesterday morning, and warned that public health was going to take a hit with the current tax situation. She planned to.attend the Puget Sound Regional Council meeting in Seattle tomorrow. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Horton discussed the inaccuracies printed in a recent news article of the Bremerton Patriot regarding the land swap between the City, the Bremerton School District, and Kitsap Consolidated Housing Authority; and especially noted there is a lot o¢ work still to be done, and nothing has been determined yet. She additionally announced that all of 'the pedestrian gates at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard that have been closed since September 11 would now be open beginning tomorrow. · LE(~ISLATIVE REPORT - There was no report this evening. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - There were no questions or comments this evening 1 lA- PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE 2001-~002 BIENNIAL BUDGET MID-BIENNIUM REVIEW (#AB01-269): Rich Hanna, City Treasurer stated that State law requires that the City hold a public hearing regarding the mid-biennium review of the 2001-2002 budget. He announced that an ordinance would soon be drafted to incorporate the changes, which will be brought for Council approval on December 12th and 19th. There were no comments from the public. No action is required by City Council. 11B - ORDINANCE NO. 4782 (SECOND READIN(~) REDUCING THE TAX ON GARBAGI~ COLLECTION (#AB01-264): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on November 14, 2001. There were no comments from the public. #0690 M/S/C/U (Reed/McConnell) Move t.o pass Ordinance No. 4782 on second reading, relating to occupation tax for the garbage/refuse business. 1 lC - ORDINANCE NO. 4783 (SECOND READING) REGARDING THE 2000-2001 DOCKET OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (#AB01-265): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on November 20, 2001. A letter dated November 28, 200~ from Larry & Judy Settedand was read into the record. #0860 M/S/C/U (Reed/Olsen) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4783 on second reading, amending the 2000-2001 Comprehensive Plan with Concurrent Rezones. TAPE #1807 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 28, 2001 Page 3 of 3 11D - ORDINANCE NO. 4784 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (#AB01-266): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on November 20, 2001. There were no comments from the public. #0941 M/S/C/U (Arends/Reed) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4784 on second reading, amending the City's Official Zoning Map. At the conclusion of regular Council business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P.M. It was reiterated that the Study Session scheduled to discuss "ELIMINATING REGULATORY LICENSES" was postponed until next week. P...A'U~.~ON, Deput~ City Clerk J~ LAW, Ci~"Council President City of Bremerton Prepared and Submitted by: LORI SMITH, Legislative Assistant JL/PJ/Is/cge c: Normal Distribution File TAPES #1861 & #1862 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 1 3, 2002 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4"~ Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Eric Younger, Ed Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member Mike Shepherd was absent. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed by the invocation provided by Council President Carol Arends, President Arend$ made the following announcements: 1. A Pre-Council session was held in the Council Conference Room to discuss general Council business; followed by a 15-minute Executive Session to discuss a "REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION". 2. Under NEW BUSINESS, Item 8(A) was pulled from the Agenda; and Item 8(B) will be heard immediately following action on the CLAIMS & CHECK REGISTERS. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting - October 23, 2002 (#AB02-215) #0025 M/S/C (McConnell/Olsen) Move to approve Consent Agenda as presented. Voted in favor of Motion: Olsen, McConnell, Nygren, Rollman, Maupin, Short, and Arends Abstained: Younger Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-Abstention CLAIMS & CHEi;:K REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. 80045 M/S/C/U (Younger/McConnell) On November 13, 2002 the Council approved payment for Check Numbers 276083 through 276253; 276254 through 276257; and 276286 through 276413 in the amount of $661,573.19 on the Master Check Register; and Regular Payroll for the pay period ending October 31, 2002 in the amount of $1,127,598.09. The following item was moved up on the Agenda... 8B - APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN AND BUILD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND OPUS NORTHWEST LLC (#AB02-217): Gary Sexton, Director of Economic Development, explained that this contract is for the project work through the construction phase of the downtown conference center. Mayor Bozeman announced that this may be the most important contract that the City Council will take action on, and that it is probably the most money brought to Council in the last 20 year. Don Larson raised the possibility of accommodating scuba divers and charter businesses. Carol Arends noted that this was an issue for the Port of Bremerton to address. Allen Shute asked if the Conference facility would be ADA (American Disabilities Act) compliant. Mr. Sexton stated most certainly "yes". ' Mr. Ny~_ren referred to the memo from the Legal Department dated October 29, 2002, and asked if the concerns were addressed, particularly the concern regarding the lack of a 5% contingency fund. Mr. Lubovich assured the Council that all issues had been addressed. TAPES #1861 & #1862 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 2 of 5 //0750 M/S/C/U (Rollman/Maupin) Move to approve and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the Design/Build Construction Contract between the City of Bremerton and OPUS Northwest LLC with substantially the same terms and conditions as contained in the proposed agreement and further to finalize and execute the air rights sale documents for the hotel and restaurant pads as a negotiated sale pursuant to Chapter 2.78 of the Bremerton Municipal Code subject to the approval of the City Attorney. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Will Maupin discussed several meetings he recently attended. Ed Rollman encouraged the public to comment on the 2003 Budget during the Public Hearing scheduled next week on November 20, 2002. He also discussed an event he attended in honor of Veterans Day, and other veteran issues. Daren Nvqren invited the public to the District 3 Neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, November 26 to discuss the "2003 Budget". He also thanked all those who attended the Manette Business Open House held last Friday. Carol Arend$ discussed several meetings she recently attended. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Bozeman... · Provided The latest figures from the "REVENUE AND PLAYER COMPARISON REPORT" from Gold Mountain Golf Complex, which showed in part that year-to-date, 94,231 players have visited both courses, generating $2,324,411.50 in Green Fees; · Announced the formation of "TEAM BREMERTON" to discuss such issues as how to attract a leading edge company to Bremerton; · Discussed his plan to appointment Kathy McCluskey to Administrative Project Manager for the Public Safety Bond Issue, and Michael Wilson as Interim Finance Director; and lastly · Accepted the 2002 Award of Excellence on behalf of the City from Mike Horton of the Washington State Department of Transportation. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Allen Shute asked for a response from the City to his question regarding Handicap Parking decals; thanked citizens for their e-mails; and encouraged more citizens to attend Council meetings. Earle M. Sears of the American Bowling Association, asked the City for their support for a commercial bowling alley in Bremerton. Don Larson inquired about a Marine Protected Area for the City of Bremerton and a program to provide incentives for citizens who plant trees; and lastly, announced that trees will be planted on December 14 near the Warren Avenue Bridge at 10:00 A.M. °^ CONF'RMAT~ON ~" ,,,~-u^=, R u~,,, cna ^e n,~,,-~-~'n,- nc elS,^,,,CE (#^502 2"~) Ite waspos~oned... 8C - QUITCLAIM DEED BETWEEN THE U.S.A. AND THE CITY OF BREMERTON FOR THF ACQUISITION OF EASTPARK (#AB02-218): Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, summarized that federal legislation was passed authorizing the U.S.A. to transfer the property commonly known as Eastpark to the City of Bremerton pursuant to Section 2857 of Public Law 106-398. The proposed quitclaim deed transfers the property to the City. TAPES #1861 & #1862 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 3 of 5 There were no COmments from the public. Mr. Ny_oren asked if by inheriting this property will there be any problems with infrastructure that will need to be resolved in order to develop the property; and asked for a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement from SEPA. Mr. Lubovich responded that it was his understanding that infrastructure would need to be replaced in its entirety; and that the issue of the Environmental Impact Statement would best be answered by Mr. Sexton who is currently not present to answer that question. Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works & Utilities, concurred that the infrastructure would not be of value to a developer and would need to be replaced. Mr. Maupin thanked the U.S. Navy for all their hard work in making this property available to the City; and Mr. Olsen specifically thanked Congressman Norm Dicks. #2080 M/S/C/U (Younger/Short) Move to authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute a Quitclaim Deed in substantially the same form as presented between the U.S.A. and the City of Bremerton relating to the City's acquisition of Eastpark. 9A- ORDINANCE NO. 4826 [SECOND READING] LEVYING PROPERTY TAXES FOR COLI ~=CTION IN 2003 (#AB02-212): First reading of this ordinance was heard on October 30, 2002. Cathy Johnson, Assistant City Treasurer, elaborated further on this ordinance, and offered to answer any questions. There were no comments from the public. //2198 M/S/C/U (Short/Maupin) Move to pass on second reading Ordinance No. 4826 levying property taxes for collection in 2003. 9B- ORDINANCE NO. 4827 [SECOND READING] SETTING RATES AND FEES FOR WATER FUND 401, WASTEWATER FUND 451, AND STORMWATER FUND 481 FOR 2003 (#AB20-213): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on October 30, 2002. Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works & Utilities, elaborated further on this ordinance, and offered to answer any questions. There were no comments from the public. //2281 M/S/C (Maupin/Short) move to pass Ordinance No. 4827, setting assessments, rates, fees, and charges. Voted in favor of this Motion: Maupin, Short, Olsen, McConnell, Nygren, Younger, and Arends Voted opposed to this Motion: Rollman Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-No 9C - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] REPEALING THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT URBAN RENEWAL PLAN; AND AMENDING THE ZONING CODE ESTABLISHING THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (#AB{)2-219): Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, said that the current provisions of the Zoning Code set forth in Chapter 21.02 BMC provide that downtown development standards be regulated .by the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP), which is outdated and not conducive to development of the Downtown District. The proposed ordinance repeals DWURP and adds a new section to the Zoning Code relating to the Downtown District. Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development, clarified that the ordinances brought to Council are to be considered as a program and the first two ordinances must both be passed for the program to be effective. There were no comments from the public. TAPES #1861 & #1862 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Hugo elaborated on "Prohibited Uses" at the request of Mr. Rollman. Mr. Hugo also addressed various issues brought up by Mr. Olsen, Mr. Maupin, and Mr. Younger. #3055 M/S/C (Younger/Maupin) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. Voted in favor of this Motion: Short, McConnell, Nygren, Rollman, Younger, Maupin, and Arends Voted opposed to this Motion: Olsen Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-No 9D - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] AMENDING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM RELATING TO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (#AB0-220): Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, pointed out that current provisions of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program provide that downtown waterfront site development standards be regulated by the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. The proposed ordinance amends the Shoreline Master Program to allow development of the downtown waterfront in accordance with new development standards and regulations. Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk, read a letter into the record from Paul A. Schmidt, expressing his concerns regarding this proposed action. Chris Hugo responded that downtown corridor issues must be addressed due to imminent project activity and that view corridor issues would be considered next. Mr. Maupin and Mr. Rollman provided their support for the plan since it will provide a footprint for downtown for the next fifty years. TAP E #1862 /K)045 M/S/C (Short/Maupin) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. Voted in favor of this Motion: McConnell, Nygren, Rollman, Younger, Maupin, Short, and Arends Voted opposed to this Motion: Olsen Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-No 9E - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] REAFFIRMING DESIGNATED BLIGHTED AREAS; RE- DESIGNATING THE PROJECT AREA; AND CREATING A NEW COMMUNITY RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE PROJECT AREA (#AB02-221): Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, emphasized that the proposed ordinance reaffirms the blighted areas as designated and reaffirmed in Resolution Nos. 1730 and 2117, creates a new Community Renewal Area for Community Renewal Projects re-designating the same as the "Project Area", and creates a new Community Renewal Plan for the Project Area. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Lubovich clarified for Mr. Rollman that the range of the designated blighted area will extend to 6th Street and Park Avenue. #0200 M/S/C/U (Maupin/Rollman) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. 9F - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO FINANCE THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES (#AB02-222): Cathy Johnson, Assistant City Treasurer, pointed out that this ordinance will authorize the financing necessary to acquire additional police vehicles, fire trucks, apparatus and equipment; and to acquire land, construct, remodel, and equip new fire, police and court facilities. This project has been reviewed by Council in the context of the 2002-2007 CIP and is included in the 2003 preliminary budget. The bond issue proposed is a 25 year, Unlimited Tax General Obligation with level debt service. While the debt will be a general obligation of the City, it is expected that repayment will be made from annual property tax levies upon property in the City as approved by the voters' on September 17, 2002. It was noted that the Bond pricing would take place Tuesday, November 19; and would be presented at Second Reading on TAPES #1861 & #1862 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 13, 2002 Page 5 of 5 Wednesday, November 20; with closing expecting to take place on December 3. Dan Gothrig with the Bond Council, provided additional comments regarding the Obligation Bonds. There were no comments from the public. #0525 M/S/C/U (Maupin/Olsen) Move to approve on first reading the ordinance authorizing the bond issue for the acquisition of Public Safety Equipment and Facilities. 9G - RESOLUTION NO. 2878, AUTHORIZING THE USE OF GLASS CULLET (#AB02-223): Gene Sam_Dley, Director of Public Works & Utilities, noted that RCW 42.19A.020 encourages local jurisdictions to set goals and standards for buying products made from recycled materials. Currently, there is more glass being recycled than can be remanufactured back into glass containers resulting in an oversupply in the Puget Sound region. To address this problem new uses for recycled glass cullet as construction aggregate have been developed and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has approved specifications for glass cullet to be used for a variety of construction aggregate applications. The attached resolution authorized the Public Works and Utilities Department to preferentially use glass cullet, processed from materials collected in Kitsap County which meets WSDOT specifications for construction aggregate, as long as the glass cullet is used in appropriate construction application, readily available and cost-competitive with natural aggregate materials. Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Rollman asked if other recycled materials would be considered for use in the future. Mr. Sarnpley answered that this product will be used anywhere that there is an appropriate use and following research, there may be a variety of applications available for uses of this material. 80623 M/S/C/U (Nygren/Olsen) Move to adopt Resolution No. 2878 approving the preferential use of glass cullet as set forth therein. With no further regular business, the meeting adjourned at 7:31 P.M. ~:~A'0E~A-JOF:I/N~T'(~I~, DepUty City Clerk CAROL ARENDS, City Council President City of Bremerton CA/PJ/Is/cge c: Normal Distribution; File Prepared and Submitted by: Council Liaison TAPES #1863 & #1864 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 20, 2002 DEC 1 i ZO0~ The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Carol Arends presiding. Council members present were Mike Short, Will Maupin, Eric Younger, Ed Rollman, Daren Nygren, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council member Mike Shepherd was absent. Aisc present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Council Liaison Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed by the invocation provided by Reverend Debbie Little of First Christian Church. CONSENT AGENDA- There were no Consent Agenda Items this week. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0024 M/S/C/U (Younger/McConnell) On November 20, 2002 the Council approved payment for Check Numbers 276424 through 276582 in the amount of $776,113.03 on the Master Check Register. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Wayne Olsen referred to the letters and e-mails received by citizens regarding Bremerton Bowl, and asked the City Attorney to address the issue. Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, provided an update on the City's position. Cecil McConnell reported on his visit to the project-site at the Gold Mountain Golf Course to see how construction of the snack bar, restrooms, and storage area was proceeding. Daren Nygren announced the next District 3 Manette Neighborhood meeting would be held Tuesday, November 26, 2002 at the Manette Senior Center from 7:00 to 8:30 P.M. to provide citizens an opportunity to provide input and comments on the City's 2003 Budget. Ed Rollman was pleased to report that permit activity for building in Bremerton was up; and welcomed citizens who came out to comment on the 2003 Budget. Lastly, on behalf of fellow Council member Mike Shepherd, he announced the next District 5 Neighborhood meeting would be held on Thursday, November 2'l, 2002 from 6:30 to 8:30 P.M. at Memorial Lutheran Church located at '10th'& Veneta allowing citizens to hear updates on "Nuisance Properties" and "Chester Terrace". Will Maupin mentioned several meetings he has attended since last week, including the Puget Sound Regional Council meeting in Seattle, and the Bremerton Housing Authority Board meeting. Mike Short also reported on several meetings he recently attended, including a meeting of the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization. Carol Arends also attended the Transportation Policy Board Meeting which she found very informative and also reminded citizens about the First Friday Art Walk events. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Bozeman... · Summarized the position of the City regarding the Bremerton Bowl project; · Small Business Administration TAPES #1863 & #1864 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 2002 Page 2 of'6 Thanked Bremerton Rotary for providing the second installment on their donation of $100,000 for Evergreen Park Was pleased to report that Seattle, with five surrounding areas, including the City of Bremerton, was mentioned in an article about Seattle chosen as one of the "Best Places to Live" in CNN Money Magazine. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Don Larson read the Vision Statement drafted by the Environment Committee from the "Shaping Bremerton" workshops; and encouraged the City to plant more trees. Jim Trainer announced a tree planting event on Saturday, December 14 at 10:00 A.M. at the end of the Warren Avenue Bridge. Everett D. Clark read a-statement into the record asking for information on rezoning his property located at 615 & 619 4th Street as "Residential-Arts District"; and/or VA lenders who can assist him in securing the property on or before December 5 when the earnest Agreement on the property expires. Carol Atkinson announced that "Santa Clause was corning to town!" by fire truck on Friday, December 6, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. Becky Lorber announced "It's a Wonderful Life" would be performed on Sunday, December 8 starting at 6:00 P.M. at the C-Stock Theater located at 9729 Silverdale Way NW in Silverdale. Larry Meyers commented on, and encouraged the City to support the Bremerton Bowl project. Pamela Buckingham announced a meeting on Thursday, December 5 at the Kitsap Historical Museum to discuss "Historical Preservation". 8A - CONFIRMATION OF MICHAEL R. WILSON AS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE (#AB02-224): Mayor Bozeman summarized in Bremerton Municipal Code Section 2.05.020, Mayoral appointments of department directors are subject to confirmation by the City Council. The Mayor wishes to formally appoint Mr. Michael R. Wilson as Director of Finance with an employment start date of December 2, 2002. An "Organizational Proposal" was distributed to the Council. Mr. Lubovich clarified that the item before Council was specifically the confirmation of. Michael R. Wilson. There were no comments from the public. Mr. McConnell and Eric Younfler expressed their concern at not receiving the "Organizational Proposal" at an earlier time to allow for a thorough review. #1325 M/S/C (Maupin/Olsen) Move to approve the appointment of Michael R. Wilson as Director of Finance for the City of Bremerton effective as of December 2, 2002, and authorize the Mayor to execute an employment contract in substantially the same and conditions as the proposed contract. Voted in favor of Motion: Nygren, Rollman, Maupin, Short, Olsen, and Arends Opposed to Motion: McConnell, Younger Motion carried: 6-Yes; 2-No 8B -APPOINTMENT OF LYNN HORTON TO THE BREMERTON HOUSING AUTHORITY (#AB02- 225): Mayor Bozeman announced that the term of a current board member expires November 30, 2002. The Mayor recommends the vacancy be filled by Lynn Horton. Butch Dunap, Chair for the Bremerton Housing Authority Board, urged the Council to confirm this appointment. There were no comments from the public. TAPES #1863 & #1864 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 2002 Page 3 of 6 Lynn Horton expressed her willingness to serve on this Committee. #1645 M/S/C/U (Maupin/Younger) Move to confirm the appointment of Lynn Horton to the Bremerton Housing Authority Board effective November 30, 2002. 8C - WASHINGTON STATE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION GRANT FOR MOTORCYCLER (#AB02-226): it was summarized that the Traffic Safety Commission grant provides funding ($8;248.44) to lease two motorcycles that would be used to reduce traffic-related cOllisions, injuries and deaths. The Department provides 516 officer hours which will be directed in school zone enforcement and the Gateway Corridor Project to meet in-kind match requirements. There were no comments from the public. #1735 MISlCIU (ShortJOlsen) Move to approve acceptance of this Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for $8,248.44, and comply with the special conditions according to grant administration. 8D - LEASE AGREEMENT RENEWAL WITH BREMERTON COMMUNITY THEATER (#AB02-227): Becky Lorber, of Parks & Recreation, pointed out that although the current ten-year lease with Bremerton Community Theater expires on December 31, 2002, the existing lease has been reviewed and updated. The new lease would run through 2012 and allows the City of Bremerton use of the facility, on a non-interference basis, with adequate notice. Bremerton Community Theater assumes full responsibility for facility expenses and is required to carry a two million dollar liability insurance policy. There were no comments from the public. #18'15 (Olsen/McConnell) Move to approve a ten-year renewal of the Bremerton Community Theater lease with the Bremerton Parks & Recreation Department. 8E - CONTRACT AWARD FOR SEWAGE PUMP STATION EB-2 {#AB02-228): Michael Mecham, City Engineer, summarized that modifications to Sewage Pump Station EB-2 are required for the Trenton/Cherry Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) reduction improvements set forth in the City's CSO Reduction Plan and required for compliance with the PSA Consent Decree. Bids were opened for the Sewage Pump Station EB-2 2002 Modifications project on November 8, 2002. There were two bids received for this project. Stan Palmer Construction was the lowest responsive bidder with a bid of $1,674,242.50. The Engineer's estimate for the project ranged from $1,600,000 to $1,900,000, including applicable taxes. The requested action before the City Council is approval of the contract with Stan Palmer Construction for construction of the Sewage Pump Station EB-2 2002 Modifications project. There were no comments from the public. #1995 M/S/C/U (Younger/Short) Move to approve award of the Sewage Pump Station EB-2 2002 Modifications project to Stan Palmer Construction, for the amount of $1,674,242.50, including applicable taxes and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 8F - AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT W!TH PARAMETRIX, INC (#AB02-229): Michael Mecham,. City Engineer, said that the Department of Public Works and Utilities has negotiated an amendment t° the Transportation Comprehensive Plan Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. The amendment scope of work consists of a study of traffic Circulation options in downtown Bremerton. This study will consider the effects of relocating exiting ferry traffic from Washington Avenue to Pacific Avenue and without the Bremerton tunnel project. The amendment adds $58,183 to the existing $98,935 contract for a revised TAPES #1863 & #1864 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 2002 Page 4 of 6 contract amount of $157,118. The request before the City Council is approval of an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Nwren reiterated his request that caution be used to not duplicate studies. Mr. Rollman further requested that the study also consider the effects of traffic on the Manette area and downtown corridor. #2175 MISICIU (Short/Maupin) Move to approve an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. to conduct a traffic circulation study of downtown Bremerton in an amount of $58,183, for a total contract amount of $157,118, and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 9A - RESOLUTION N©. 2879. SETTING A HEARING DATE FOR DECEMBER 11~ 2002 FOR VACATING A PORTION OF 2~D STREET, EAST OF WASHINGTON AVENUE (#AB02-230): Michael Mecham, City Engineer, affirmed that the City initiated the vacation of a portion of 2"~ Street east of Washington Avenue. The vacated area will be incorporated into the abutting City owned property to provide a site compatible with usage for downtown redevelopment. Functionality of 2nd Street as a transportation facility will not be significantly affected. Access to the waterfront will not be impeded with this vacation. The City Council is being requested to establish a hearing date of December 11, 2002, to consider the proposed vacation. Staff recommends passage of the proposed resolution. There were no comments from the public. #2320 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Olsen) Move to pass Resolution No. 2879, setting a hearing date of December 11, 2002, for vacating a portion of 2nd Street east of Washington Avenue. 9B - ORDINANCE NO. 4828 [SECOND READING] REPEALING THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT URBAN RENEWAL PLAN; AND AMENDING THE ZONING CODE ESTABLISHING THE DOWN- TOWN DISTRICT (#AB02-219): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on November 13, 2002. Ro_~3er Lubovich, City Attorney and Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development, provided an amended copy of this ordinance and offered additional clarification on the intent of the proposed language. Helen Miller read a statement into the record expressing her concerns on this ordinance. #2725 MISIC/U (Rollman/McConnell) Move to continue the Second Reading to December 30, 2002. 9C - ORDINANCE NO. 4829 [SECOND READING] AMENDING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM RELATING TO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (#AB0-220): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on November 13, 2002. Ro_~er Lubovich, City Attorney, provided additional comment regarding this ordinance. Helen Miller stated that the previous statement she read into the record expressing her concerns also applied to this ordinance. #2825 M/S/C/U (Rollman/McConnell) Move to continue the Second Reading to December 30, 2002: 9D - ORDINANCE NO. 4830 [SECOND READING1 REAFFIRMING DESIGNATED BLIGHTED AREAS; RE-DESIGNATING THE PROJECT AREA; AND CREATING A NEW COMMUNITY RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE PROJECT AREA (#AB02-221): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on November 13, 2002. Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, provided additional comment regarding this ordinance. TAPES #1863 & #1864 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 2002 Page 5 of 6 Helen Miller again stated that the previous statement she read into the record expressing her concerns also applied to this ordinance. #2985 MISICIU (Rollman/McConnell) Move to continue the Second Reading to December 30, 2002. 9E - ORDINANCE NO. 4831 [SECOND READING] AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF GENERAl OBLIGATION BONDS TO FINANCE THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES {#AB02-222): The first reading of this ordinance was heard on November 13, 2002. Richard Saunders, Interim Director of Finance Director, summarized the update of the bond sale. Jane Towery Managing Director of Banc of America Securities, LLC and with the Bond Council, provided further clarification on the bond sale, and how the rating was obtained. TAPE #1864 There were no comments from the public. #0105 MISICIU (Younger/Maupin) Move to pass on second reading Ordinance No. 4831 authorizing the bond issue for the acquisition of Public Safety Equipment and Facilities. 9F - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECTS FUND (#AB02-231): Richard Saunders, Interim Director of Finance, announced the proposed ordinance would create a new fund to be called the Public Safety Projects Fund. This fund is intended to provide for the budge and accounting associated with acquisition of the Public Safety equipment and facilities approved by the voters on September 17, 2002. There were no comments from the public. #0155 MIS/C/U (Short/McConnell) Move to approve on first reading the ordinance creating the Public Safety Projects Fund. 9G - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING] ESTABLISHING THE DISCRETIONARY RESERVE FUN[') (#AB02-232): Richard Saunders, Interim Director of Finance, summarized that this proposed ordinance adds a new Chapter 3.38 to the Bremerton Municipal Code, entitled "DISCRETIONARY RESERVE FUND", which establishes the discretionary reserve as previously approve by City Council on August 14, 2002. There were no comments from the public. Mr. McConnell requested that the Council receive a periodic report regarding the funds in this account. #0245 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Short) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. 9H - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING1 RELATING TO LID ASSESSMENTS (#AB02-233): Ro~er Lubovich, City Attorney, emphasized that the proposed ordinance amends Section 11.04.040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to clarify the definition of local improvement districts and adds a new section, Section 11.04.050, entitled "DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS" to provide for the acceleration of the entire assessment for purposes of collection and foreclosure when installment payments become delinquent. There were no comments from the public. #1)375 M/S/C/U (Short/Maupin) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. Item 9([) was moved to the end of the Agenda .... TAPES #1863 & #1864 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes November 20, 2002 Page 6 of 6 9J - ORDINANC,E [FIRST READING] RELATING TO HEARING EXAMINER APPLICATIONS ANn APPEALS (#~AB02-236): Roaer Lubovich, City Attorney, clarified that this proposed ordinance amends Chapters 2.13, 17.04, 18.02, and 18.03 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to the filing of Hearing Examiner applications and appeals, and correcting code provisions relating to appeals to be heard by the Administrative Hearing Examiner. There were no comments from the public. #0455 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Short) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. 9K - PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE 2003 BUDGET (#AB02-236): Richard Saunders, Interim Director of Finance, announced that state statute requires that the City hold a public hearing regarding the 2003 budget prior to adoption. He presented a Power Point presentation on an "Overview of the 2003 Budget". Sylvia Klatman Executive Director of the Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce (BACC), thanked the Council for supporting the recommendations of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee; and also provided information on how the money allocated to BACC was spent last year. No Council Action was required at this time. 9I - ORDINANCE [FIRST READING1 AMENDING BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.01 "RATES & FEES" TABLE FOR 2003 (#AB02-234): Ro,qer Lubovich, City Attorney, said that the proposed ordinance updates the rates and fees for certain City Departments for 2003. There were no comments from the public. #1175 M/S/C/U (Younger/Olsen) Move to approve the proposed ordinance on first reading. With no further regular business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. CAROL ARENDS, City Council President City of Bremerton Prepaid and Submitted by: L(~RI SMITH Council Liaison CNPJllslcge c: Normal Distribution; File R-1 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL NAME: Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to Add Supplemental Downtown Development Policies a~nd:a~_ ~ associated Illustrative Plan map to the Central Business District Sub-area Plan. REPORT DATE:'i:! June 5;'2001 APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBER): City of Bremerton (PL01-0024) CONTACT: Chris Hugo, Director- Planning and Building Department; Phone: 360/478-5243 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal applies to downtown Bremerton. BACKGROUND: The revitalization of downtown Bremerton has been a high community priority for over a decade. When the city embarked on a new comprehensive plan in the early 1990s, it is not surprising that downtown was one of the featured areas of the planning process. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995, the development of downtown was individually addressed in the Land Use Element. The Central Business District Sub-area Plan is part of the Central Bremerton Sector of the Land Use Element. This policy structure provides a hierarchy of increasingly explicit direction for the improvement of downtown. At the most explicit, sub-area level, however, the Plan's direction consists mostly of short-term projects and the need for additional planning work rather than a prescription for the overall function and character of downtown. A helpful Central Business District Urban Diagram provides a framework of desired land uses, but over 50% of the covered District is residential, undermining the focus on the area most in need of attention. On page 58 of the Land Use Element, paragraph C. Studies provides a discussion of the many planning studies for downtown revitalization that had occurred in years just prior to the Plan's adoption. Since that time, even more proposals have been put forward. Just as the Twentieth Century closed, the community faced another disappointment with the 'withdrawal of the Sinclair Landing redevelopment project, marking another plan that failed to materialize. In the summer of 2000 a new City initiative was started to establish a more incremental approach to redevelopment. A Planning Advisory Committee was formed to assist in the preparation of more specific development policies to supplement those in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. The committee's product includes policies for the function and character of the Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront sub-districts as well as implementing development codes for each. The proposal also includes a set of Goals and General Policies that apply to the entire downtown. PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT: The Downtown Development Goals and Policies (attached) are proposed additions to the Central Business District Sub-area Plan of the Central Bremerton Sector of the Land USe Element of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The associated draft illustrative Plan map is also proposed for adoption as a guide to downtown development. COMPLIANCE WITH GMA GOALS: The proposed policy has relevance to the following GMA goals: Goal 1. Urban Growth;' Goal 2. Reduce Sprawl: The proposed policies encourage infill development in the serviced urban area by promoting new housing, employment, and services in the heart of the region's major urban area. This reduces the need for new land on the urban edge to accommodate planned growth. Goal 3. Transportation: Measures to promote infill development and land use efficiency also help promote efficient transportation systems. Increasing housing downtown provides residents access to a broader range of transportation choices, consistent with the goal's focus on enhancing access to multi-modal transportation. Goal 4. Housinq: Downtown housing will afford convenience and choice for segments of the population that are overlooked in the current marketplace. Goal 5. Economic Development: Increasing the city's residential base by attracting infill development creates market opportunity for new economic enterprise. These policies promote a healthy mix of urban activity in the city's core to stimulate new retail, service, office, and entertainment activities where they are accessible to a workforce that needs access to new employment. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this non-proiect action in accordance with WAC 197-11 on July 14, 2001. DECISION CRITERIA: The Comprehensive Plan specifies the procedures and conditions under which amendments to the Plan may be approved. Section 2.D. of Plan Element K. states that "Each component of a Plan amendment package shall be reviewed and approved only if it meets the [following] criteria:" (- the five criteria are listed on page 2. of Element K. -). The criteria as presented are primarily relevant to map amendments, not policy amendments - only the first criterion seems to apply to this policy amendment. Part of that criterion is addressed in the discussion of OMA compliance above. The other part, relating to Plan and regulatory consistency, requires an examination of the Comprehensive Plan's existing development policies for downtown to insure that the proposal supplements and does not conflict with them. The most specific of these are presented in section C-1: Central Business District (Land Use chapter, pp. 56-9). CONSISTENCY WITH C-1: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SUB-AREA PLAN: The prescriptive part of the sub-area plan is presented in D. Downtown Visions and Poficies on page 57. The proposed amendment must be found to be consistent with this vision for a place of diverse economic, residential, recreational and cultural activities that will a~tract new growth and visitors to the area. The policies that follow are largely a listing of desired projects or programs to improve downtown rather than a set of directions for the function and character of downtown. Policies 1. (e), (g) and (h) are directly relevant to the proposed amendment. Policy 1. (e) identifies a work task to develop guidelines for the various sub-districts of downtown. The proposed amendment provides the foundation for those guidelines for the two major sub-districts, the Downtown Core and the Downtown Waterfront. Policy (g) directs that plans and regulations be revisited to allow and encourage the intended types of uses. Policy (h) relates to the Urban Diagram map on page 58 and directs continued study and refinement to reflect the best interests of the community. These policies suggest that the proposed amendment was anticipated, even encouraged, as the 1995 Plan was pursued over time. REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Huqo, Director DATE OF REPORT: June 5, 2001 Downtown Bremerton Goals and Policies Overall Goals 1. Downtown Bremerton will be an urban center within the Puget Sound region. 2. Downtown Bremerton will be the major urban center and inter-modal transportation hub for Kitsap County. 3. Downtown Bremerton will offer a compact concentration of employment, local shopping, entertainment, cultural attractions government services, and housing. Downtown Bremerton will be served by a variety of choices in transportation, including vehicle and passenger ferries, bus transit, automobiles, walking, and bicycles. 5. Downtown Bremerton will be a safe, convenient, lively and attractive environment. 6. Downtown Bremerton will provide places to live for various types of households with widely varying income levels. 7. Downtown Bremerton will have many forms of publicly accessible open space, such as parks, plazas, waterfront esplanades, and tree-lined streets. 8. Downtown Bremerton will build upon its intimate scale, street grid, and historic buildings to create an environment having a distinctive character and quality. 9. Downtown Bremerton will accommodate parking for commuters, visitors and shoppers but in locations and configurations that allow for in-fill development. 10. Downtown Bremerton will be a business-friendly setting with support from the City, County and active downtown organizations. o Gert eral Policies 1. New development shall reinforce pedestrian activity at the street level, present an attractive profile on the skyline, and provide opportunities for artistic expression. 2. On-going programs and funding priorities should ensure that downtown streets and sidewalks are clean, safe, well lighted and attractive. 3. Parking supply, including both on-street and off-street facilities, should be managed to emphasize short-term use over long term use, ensuring an adequate supply for shoppers and visitors. 4. Parking facilities should be designed to contribute to an attractive appearance of the streetscape and overall image of the downtown. 5. The city shall ensure high quality design in both public and private development through a design review process. 6. Regulations should reward new development with intensity and/or height in return for incorporating features such as public spaces, housing, and underground parking. 7. The city should employ a variety of techniques, including upgraded and expanded infrastructure (including streets and sidewalks), public/private partnerships, the development and management of parking, and property disposition to encourage desired development. 8. Downtown should be linked to surrounding neighborhoods by landscaped streets, open spaces, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and transit. 9. Development along the northern edge of downtown should step down in height and include substantial landscaping in recognition of the adjacent, low-scale residential neighborhood. 10. Interim and temporary retail uses should be encouraged in order to stimulate small business activity and to attract new investment and customers to downtown. Downtown Core (DC) 1. The Downtown Core should contain building s having sufficient height and intensity to create a high concentration of employment, retail, and residential. This district should be served both bus and ferry transportation, with sidewalk and walkway connections that are lighted and landscaped to encourage the use of transit. A variety of public spaces should be provided through this district, including landscaped plazas, squares, overlooks, pocket parks and larger civic spaces that incorporate public art. Certain streets within this district should be particularly pedestrian oriented, with wider sidewalks, furnishings, and on-street parking. Streetscape enhancements, uses and architectural features should make walking safe, comfortable and aPpealing. Fast-moving, through traffic should be separated from local traffic and pedestrian movement that are oriented to the downtown core. While the commercial core will have a predominance Of office, local-serving retail, tourism, entertainment and cultural uses, residential development, including live/work spaces for artists, shall also be encouraged to provide a population that brings vitality into evening hours. The availability of parking should be evident without having parking structures interrupt the continuity of street level uses or overwhelm the scale of their surroundings. Given the steep topography north of 4th Street, new development should include internal corridors or terraced walkways that can make.the slope easier to traverse on foot. Over time, there should be a landscaped, pedestrian-oriented corridor connecting the uplands portion of the Core with the waterfront. 10. Design standards should ensure the continuity of storefronts and a pedestrian-oriented scale and features along all streets within the Core. o o o Downtown Waterfront (D W) 1. The Downtown Waterfront District should consist of a mixture of transportation facilities, marina and support services, specialty shops and restaurants, and low-rise, high density residential. 2. There should be clear, attractive pedestrian routes, public places, and connections between the Downtown Waterfront district and the Downtown Core. 3. New development within the Downtown Waterfront district should include parking to meet its own demand. Freestanding parking to serve commuters only is not an appropriate use in this d/strict. While some parking facilities may serve both local businesses and regional needs, commuters should generally be encouraged to use transit and park-and-ride lots. 4. Structures should be terraced down toward the water in. order to maximize views and reinforce the stepped form of downtown. View corridors in alignment with east/west upland streets should be preserved. 5. The marina should be expanded and converted to both short stay and long term moorage, with public access provided to any breakwater structures. Draft #3 11/22/00 Downtown Bremerton Land Use Code I. Districts A. Downtown Core (DC) Purpose: To focus commercial, entertainment, cultural, civic uses and urban residential into an intense, compact, walkable area served by public transit. Allowable Uses: commercial, financial, retail eating and drinking establishments professional and medical offices entertainment, museum, and cultural government and education residential and hotel. religious institutions parks and open space structured parking Prohibited Uses: industrial uses drive-through uses motor vehicle sales, service, repair or washing storage of equipment and materials adult entertainment work release facilities commercial surface parking lots, not serving a permitted use B. Downtown Waterfront (DW) Purpose: To provide for an array of uses related to the water, multi-modal transportation facilities, view corridors, public access and residential. Allowable Uses: retail, including marine retail eating and drinking establishments hotel residential transportation facilities parks and open spaces structured commercial parking with other permitted use Prohibited Uses: same as downtown core, plus boat sales, storage and repair stand alone commercial parking not serving a perrrfitted use H. Development Standards District Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = (Floor area/Lot area ) Base W/Amenities Maximum Parking Non- Res Non- Res Building (stalls/k gsf) Res Res Height Min Max DC 1 2 3 6 120' 1 4 DW .5 1 1 2 60' 1 3 Notes: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the amount of floor area within a building as a multiple of the lot area. Floor area is measured to the inside face of the exterior building wails. Calculation of FAR can exclude the following: - spaces below grade - space devoted to parking - mechanical spaces - elevator and stair shafts - space used for retail uses or restaurants that front the sidewalk - space devoted to Special Amenities - exterior decks open to the ak. The FAR for non-residential uses and residential uses within a given development are individually calculated for each use and may be added together for a combined maximum, provided that the maximum allowable FAR for each use is not exceeded. (Example: A project that includes Special Amenities may have a total FAR of 6, with 2 in commercial use and 4 in residential use.) 3. For the Downtown Core district, new development shall have a rrdnimum FAR of t. Maximum Building Height excludes: - parapets - mechanical penthouses and elevator overruns and machine rooms - roof forms and decorative elements not intended for occupancy 5. The first 3,000 sf of ground floor retail uses are exempted froTM parking requirements. 6. For residential uses, the minimum parking requirement is .5 per 1000 sr. 7. For purposes of this code, hotels shall be considered residential uses. III. Design Standards Applicable to All Development Within Downtown All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened by either a high parapet or a stepped or sloped roof form that is a part of the architecture of the building and is at least as high as the equipment being screened. Fencing is not acceptable. Street trees shall be provided with no fewer than 4 trees per 100 If of frontage. Tree grates shall be used to cover the planting pits. Where existing areaways or vaults prevent this form of planting, trees shall be planted in planters equipped with irrigation. All trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 V2" at the time of planting. Surface parking lots, if they abut public sidewalks, shall provide a perimeter landscaping strip containing a combination of trees (with no fewer than 3 trees per 100 If feet of frontage), and shrubs. Masonry walls no lower than 15" and no higher than 30"may be substituted for shrubs. For parking lots containing more than 20 stalls, at least 15% of the interior area shall be planted with trees and shrubs. All trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 V2" at the time of planting. Pedestrian walkways from adjacent sidewalks shall be provided. The street-facing, ground-level facades of parking garages shall be designed to screen the view of parked cars. Where commercial or residential space is not provided to accomplish this, features such as planters, decorative grilles, or works of art shall be used. Any sidewalk level faCade that faces any downtown street shall have at least 35% of the faoade area in transparent glass windows. Any fagade facing a public sidewalk shall incorporate more refined materials such as stone or brick and details such as pilasters, plinths, brackets, or belt courses on at least the first floor. BUildings taller than four stories shall display a visually distinctive roof design with features such as a sloping or peaked form, projecting cornice, or upper level stepback,. All development along any Primary Pedestrian Street (First, Second, Burwell, Fourth, Fifth, Pacific, and Park shall meet the fOllowing standards: Building facades shall abut the sidewalk. However, entrance areas may be recessed. Furthermore, buildings may be set back to accommodate Exterior Public Spaces conforming to the provisions in Section IV. At least 50% of the linear, sidewalk level frontage of any structure shall consist of retail, restaurants, cultural or entertainment uses, interior civic spaces, or art galleries. At least 75 % of the frontage shall include weather protection in the form of a flat or sloped canopy, projecting at least 5 feet over the sidewalk. IV. Amenities Required to Achieve the Maximum Floor Area Ratio In order for a development to achieve the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratios for indicated in the Development Standards table, Special Amenities must be provided. In return for incorporating any feature on the following list, the maximum FAR shall be allowed. The design of each feature will be reviewed to ensur6 that it is appropriate for the proposed location and provides for a public benefit. 1. Exterior Public Space that is at least 10% of the site area and includes the following features: - seating in the amount of one sitting space for each 100 sf of area. - trees and other plantings - art or water feature - solar exposure during the summer - access and visibility from the nearest sidewalk 2. Public Benefit Use consisting of at least one of the following: - meeting room(s) available to the public - day care - museum - performing arts theatre 3. Work of Art or Water Feature in a location that is visible to the public at all times. A work of art consists of an original, artist-produced creation such as: - murals - sculptures - paintings - inlays - friezes - mosaics - tile work. There may be more that one artwork or water feature, so long as the cost of the item(s) is equivalent to at least 1% of the construct/on cost of the building. 4/11/2001 Staff meet with a number of community groups since the presentation and has received the following suggestions since PAC recommendations 11/22/00 to date. RE: Goals and Policies suggestions The commercial realtor reaction was that the parking requirement~ would stall any redevelopment of existing buildings and that it is most desirable that a program for parking such as a BIA or Public/Private partnerships should be in place when policy is to be implemented in order for these policies to effectively be implemented. (specifically addressed to #3 ) Otherwise Goals have been generally well received Goal gl 0 identifies "interim and temporary" uses but these are not defined and need to be. o Downtown core goals #1 may include the phrase "Mix of Uses" as consistent with the concept For Goal #8 it is suggested to add from Pacific to Washington" to the policy such that it would read as follows: Given steep topography north of 4th Street from Pacific to Washington new development should include internal corridors or terraced walkways that can make the slope easier to traverse on foot. o In the DowntOwn Waterfront Goals#1 "office use on upper floors" should be added to the list of uses encouraged. There was no clear consensus of the desirability of having or limiting parking in the downtown core but there was consensus that parking on the water front should not be a primary use and that uses may be (" limited "or authorized or even encouraged) to provide less than required parking onsite and thus encouraging use of transit or other out of area parking facilities. Staff received suggestions since PAC recommendations 11/22/00 to date. 4/11/2001 RE: Code suggestions Downtown Core suggestions 1. In the Downtown Core Either define "Commercial" or delete as un-necessary since retail and financial are listed. 2 Add" Art gallery, lofts and facilities that mix artist living, production and sale" to allowable uses. Under prohibited uses it should say "open storage" since all companies have and need "storage" of some type.' Downtown Waterfront suggestions 1. In the Down Town Waterfront allowable uses should include" office use on upper floors","marina with fuel sales" as anecessary accessory use and "Structured parking serving a permitted use" would be consistent language rather than "with other" Development Standards suggestions 1. In the Development Standards for ease of interpretation and clarity height should be defined as from WaShington Street since spaces below grade are excluded any way it would be easier. Currently height is the average from 10 feet above the lowest grade on these sloped sites which would be sigrfificantly lower and difficult to deterrrdne on each site. Design 1. Standards suggestions In the Design Standards additional flexibility would be consistent with the intent of the code For Design standard #2 re; street trees add an allowance for" and acceptable Design Alternative" For street Design standard.#9 add "Washington Street" as primary pedestrian. Revise Design Standard #9 subparagraph 1 such that" building facades shall may be set back to accommodate ( light and ak for) exterior public spaces provided as amenities (section IV). 5. Revise Design Standard #9 subparagraph to also include "serv/ces." Other suggestions (but no clear consensus) 1. The Floor Area Ratio for water front may not permit enough development to make development happen consider doubling standard.( some yes, some no) 2. Possibility of considering redevelopment dif£erently from new construction specifically in regards to parking standards? (As in New Jersey, Development Code) 3. Consider alley grades which may make parking access difficult or impossible?(Possible) 4. It may be desirable for public agencies providing park/rig to bc exempt from parking maximums in development standards. 5. Parking plan needs to be in place such that parking can be bought at the time of development otherwise development may stop. 5. A real life analysis and or example would be illustrative especially for Floor Area Ratio. 6. Need to be more clear as to how new code is to be codified and the relationship to existing portions. General Policies ~lNew development shall reinforce pedestrian actiMty at the street level, present an attractive on the skyline, and for artistic 2. On-going programs and funding priorities should ensure that downtown streets and sidewalks are clean, safe, well lighted and attractive. 3. Parking supply, including both on-street and off-street facilities, should be managed to emphasize short-term use over long term use, ensuring an adequate supply for shoppers and visitors. 4. Parking facilities should be designed to contribute to an attractive appearance of the streetscape and overall image of the downtown. 5. The city shall ensure high quality design in both public and private development through a design review process. 6. Regulations should reward new development with intensity and/or height in remm for incorporating features such as public spaces, housing, and underground parking. 7. The city should employ a variety of techniques, including upgraded and expanded infrastructure (including streets and sidewalks), public/private partnerships, the development and management of parking, and property disposition to encourage desired development. 8. Downtown should be linked to surrounding neighborhoods by landscaped streets, open spaces, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and transit. 9. Development along the northern edge of downtown should step down in height and include substantial landscaping in recognition of the adjacent, low-scale residential neighborhood. 10. Interim and temporary retail uses should be encouraged in order to stimulate small business activity and to attract new invesmaent and customers to downtown. Action: Adopt Draft Downtown Bremerton Land Use Code Pursuant to the completion of the Isley Concept Plan, Clyde Stricklin of Ferguson Stricklin, Port Orchard, was retained to draft a Downtown Land Use Code. Stricklin has been working with a committee of City Planning Commissioners, property owners and businessmen to formulate a draft Code for public hearing. Sticklin also worked closely with LMN Architects, who in addition to preparing the preliminary designs for the proposed Government Center, have extensive experience in the revised land use codes for Downtown Tacoma. The goal is to adopt a code that provides certainty, for both public and private developers concerning the land uses, density and intensity of uses and design character of development in Downtown. The d raft attached here is under review by the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that the draft code will be presented to City Council for adoption in February, 2001. _Sih SJrJ~i--_ pugel Sound Sire'eL ~ i"~. FERRY ' "~i ' ',,, T'~RMINAL '.tI- * PLAZA Naval Shipyard I(u~,ld u'll! Industrial TURNER .. ~. :-.<~,.~.~.,,~ re Plan (h) Revise plans, regulations, and the permitting process, as necessary, to allow and encourage the intended types of uses and get them approved as expeditiously as possible. Promote land uses and development patterns consistent with the following Urban Diagram and continue to study and refine the diagram to reflect the best interests of the community. Central Business District URBAN DIAGRAM Neighborhood Preservation Redevelopment to High-density Resid. Transition to -- high-density mixed-use SLxth Street Sixth Street & Resid. Highway-commerciaJ and Parking Service CommerciaJ Compact, intense pedestrian-oriented retail district Hotel/Historic District Iii I # · Intermodal Terminal High-density Residential Waterfront Mixed Use Land Use -- Page 58 R-2 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL NAME: Proposed Addition of Supplemental Downtown Development Policies to the Comprehensive Plan REPORT DATE: June 19, 2001 APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBER): City of Bremerton (PL01-0024) CONTACT: Chris Hugo, Director- Planning and Building Department; Phone: 360/478-5243 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal applies to downtown Bremerton. BACKGROUND: The revitalization of downtown Bremerton has been a high community priority for over a decade. When the city embarked on a new comprehensive plan in the early 1990s, downtown was one of the featured areas of the planning process. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995, the development of downtown was individually addressed in the Land Use Element. The Central Business District Sub-area Plan is part of the Central Bremerton Sector of the Land Use Element. This policy structure provides a hierarchy of increasingly explicit direction for the imprOvement of downtown. At the most explicit, sub-area level, however, the Plan's direction consists mostly of short-term projects and the need for additional planning work rather than a prescription for the overall function and character of downtown. A Central Business District Urban Diagram provides a framework of desired land uses, but over 50% of the covered District is residential. On page 58 of the Land Use Element, paragraph C. Studies provides a discussion of the many planning studies for downtown revitalization that had occurred in Years just prior to the Plan's adoption. Since that time, even more proposals have been put forward. In the summer of 2000 a new City initiative was started to establish a more incremental approach to redevelopment. A Planning Advisory Committee was formed to aSsist in the preparation of more specific development policies to supplement those in the 1995 ' Comprehensive Plan. The proposal includes a Set of Goals and General Poficies that apply to the entire downtown Central Business District, CBD and includes policies and code recommendations for the function and character of two sub-districts. These are identified as the Downtown Core (DC)and Downtown Waterfront (WF) sub, districts as are the implementing development codes for each. PROPOSED PLAN AND CODE AMENDMENT: -l-he Downtown Development Goals and Policies (attached) are proposed to be added to the Central Business District Sub-area Plan of the Central Bremerton Sector of the Land Use Element of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. COMPLIANCE WITH GMA GOALS: The proposed policy has relevance to the following GMA goals: Goal 1. Urban Growth; Goal 2. Reduce Sprawl: This proposed policy encourages infill development in the serviced urban area by promoting new housing, employment, and services in the heart of the region's major urban area. This reduces the need for new land on the urban edge to accommodate plann ed growth. Goal 3. Transportation: Measures to promote infill development and land use efficiency also help promote efficient transportation systems. Increasing housing downtown provides residents access to.a broader range of transportation choices, consistent with the goal's focus on multi-modal systems. Goal 4. Housinq: Downtown housing will afford convenience and choice for segments of the population that are overlooked in the current marketplace. Goal 5. Economic Development: Increasing the city's residential base by attracting infill development adds market opportunity for new economic enterprise. These policies promote a healthy mix of urban activity in the city's core to stimulate new retail, service, office, and entertainment activities where they are accessible to a workforce that needs access to new employment. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this non-proiect action in accordance with WAC 197-11. The Determination of Non- significance was issued by the Director of Building and Planning, June 19, 2001. After completion of a SEPA Checklist in the format required by WAC 197-11-960. DECISION CRITERIA: The Comprehensive Plan specifies the procedures and conditions under which amendments to the Plan may be approved. Section 2.D. of Plan Element K. states that each component of a Plan amendment package shall be reviewed and approved only if it meets ali five of identified criteria. All five ,criteria are considered as follows: (1) The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Act and will not result in Plan or regulation conflicts; The proposal is as directed to occur on pages. 56-5.8 of the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be compliant with the Growth Management Act. This staff report further reviews the applicable statewide goal requirements of the Growth Management Act above as a reconfirmation of the consistency of the policies and code proposal with the Growth Management Act and identifies no plan or regulatory conflicts. (2) The proposal will change the development or use potential of a s site or area without creating significant adverse impacts on existing sensitive land uses, businesses, or residents. The proposal will change the development and use potential of areas within the Central Business District (CBD). The Environmental Impact Checklist accomplished for the proposed Goals, Polices and Code revisions did not identify significant adverse impacts on existing sensitive land uses, businesses, or residents. (3) The proposed amendments can be accommodated by all applicable public services and facilities, including transportation. The Environmental Impact Checklist accomplished for the proposed Goals, Polices and Code revisions did not identify significant adverse impacts on all applicable public services and facilities, including transportation. (4) The proposal will help implement the goals and policies of the Bremerton comprehensive Plan. The proposal is as directed to occur on pages 56-58 Land use of the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Specifically Policies (e) and (g) as follows: "(e) work with downtown interest to develop guidelines for various sub-districts of the CBD" and "(g)revise plans, regulations, and the permitting process, as necessary, to allow and encourage the intended types of uses and get them approved as expeditiously as possible." (5) If the proposal could have substantive impacts beyond the City Limits, it has been sent to Kitsap County for review and comment. The proposed Downtown Bremerton goals, policies and code revisions have been coordinated with Kitsap County for review and comment. Kitsap County Commissioners in open public meetings have encouraged the adoption of the proposed goals, policies and code revisions which are not expected to have a substantive impact beyond the city limits. Additional criteria: The City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan in Section K also identifies implementation tools for the plan and specifically the zoning Ordinance and directs zoning implementation consideration by policies (1) and (2). A Third policy is for city wide amendments which is 'not applicable to this propoSal. The first two polices area considered as follows: (1) Zoning district description and requirements shall be reviewed and fine-tuned, as necessary, to ensure consistency with all Comprehensive Plan designations. As previously noted the proposal is as directed to occur on pages 56-58 Land use of the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Specifically Policies (e) and (g) as follows: "(e) work with downtown interest to develop guidelines for various sub-districts of the CBD" and "(g)revise plans, regulations, and the permitting process, as necessary, to allow and encourage the intended types of uses and get them approved as expeditiously as possible. 2) During the process of Zoning Ordinance review, the city shall look for ways to provide development incentives where needed to direct population and new development to the most appropriate locations. Possibilities may include density bonuses, reduced development requirements, reduced City standard for some public improvements, or the offering of new development options such as "accessory dwellings. The proposed code revisions provide for density bonuses, reduced development requirements, reduced City standard for some public improvements, and the offering of new development options such as additional floor area in return fo Public spaces, residential uses and area for Public art. Conclusions: Each component of the Downtown Goals, Policies and Revised Code amendments of the Downtown Bremerton Plan amendment package has been reviewed and that the proposal meets all five of Plan Amendment identified criteria as well as all applicable Zoning Implementation criteria. The proposed downtown Plan amendment and Code revisions are consistent with the Growth Management Act and the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan policies for amendment of both the Plan and Zoning Code. The Environmental impact checklist identified no significant impact upon the environment and a Determination of Non-significant has been made by the Director of ~Building and Planning and Issued as required by WAC 197-11. A public hearing has been advertised regarding these proposals and the notice published in the Bremerton Sun on Saturday June 9, 2001 for the Hearing scheduled June 19, 2001. S-1 CITY OF BREMERTON BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT DETERMINATIO:N OF :N:ONsIGNIFiCANC~E Environmental Application No: PLO 1-0024 Parcel No's:Various - Central Business District Date issued: July 12, 2001 Date published: July 14, 2001 ACTION: COMPREglI~NSIVE PLAN POLICY AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: This application consists of A Comprehensive Plan Policy Text Amendment and Implementing Code Amendment is proposed that encourage development and redevelopment of Downtown Bremerton's Central Business district. LOCATION: The Central Business District includes the Shoreline of Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows and all properties on both sides of Beach Street, Washington, Warren, Park, Pacific, Burwell, 4t~, 5t~ and 6th Streets from the Port Washington Narrows to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Warren Avenue. PROPONENT: City of Bremerton Building & Planning Depat~nent 286 4t~ Street Bremerton, Wash. 98337 The Responsible Official of the City of Bremerton hereby makes the following Findings and Conclusions based upon a review of the environmental checklist and attachments, other information on file with the City of Bremerton, and the policies, plans, and regulations designated by the City of Bremerton as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to RCW 43.21C.0 60. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Growth Management ~lct encourages the efficient use of land for urban development. 2. The Central Business District for the City of Bremerton has been designated in the City Comprehensive Plan and within the Bremerton Municipal Code. 3. The Comprehensive Plan discussion of the Central Business districts on pages 56-58 includes the City's adopted Vision as required by the Growth Management Act. 4. The City's vision for the CBD includes that it will "continue to the heart of the Bremerton" and become a "more of a people place" and offer culture and entertainment, retail, and other services. 5. Plan Policies on page 57 indicate eight directives as to implementation of the vision including: (g) Revise plans, regulations, and the permitting process, as necessary, to allow and encourage the intended types of uses and get them approved as expeditiously as possible." And (h) promote land uses and development patterns consistent with the following Urban Diagram and continue to study and re£me the diagram to reflect the best interests of the community. 6. The Central Business district urban diagram is larger than the designated Central Business District and in the area east of the Pacific Avenue (both sides) to the Port Washington narrows it includes the following uses: high density residential, waterfront mixed use, compact intense pedestrian-oriented retail, service commercial, and Hotel/Historic areas. 7. The City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendment Application PL01-0024, proposes to amend the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy statements by including more specific Goals and pOhces for the Central Business District (CBD) and adding two new sub-districts which permits uses for the Downtown Core (DC) and Waterfront (WF) which are consistent with the Urban Diagram and prohibits those not listed such as surface parking lots. 8. The Proposed Downtown Core (DC) and Waterfront ('WF) Policies are to be implemented with the proposed simplified Code amendment that identifies permitted Floor Area Ratios provided certain performance standards and public amenities are provided. 9. The City of Bremerton annually proposes to amend its Comprehensive Plan through city and public initiated amendment applications, which will be, applied city wide as well as property specific. The Growth Management Act allows amendments to Comprehensive Plans only once a year with few exceptions. Comprehensive Plan Amendment application requests are considered non-project actions, which do not propose specific development projects. Throughout the year, applications for Comprehensive Plan Text amendments are received and collectively placed on a docket for processing in order to assess the "cumulative effects". Those amendments recommended for approval as a result of the Public Hearing process conducted by the Bremerton Planning Commission are adopted by City Council Ordinance. 10. A SEPA review checklist has been reviewed for this non-project Comprehensive Plan policy amendment proposal. Further development of property effected by this specific amendment that is not categorically exempt pursuant to WAC Chapter 197-11-800, and, which will require issuance of a City license or permit, will be subject to future review under SEPA. CONCLUSIONS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Responsible Official concludes, based on a review of application materials and a review of City regulations governing the proposal, that this non-development project action proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by closing of the comment deadline. The Responsible Official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. No permits may be issued, and the applicant shall not begin work, until the comment deadline has expired and any other necessary permits are issued. Responsible Official: Lead Agency: Christopher R. Hugo, Director, Building and Planning Department City of Bremerton, Building and Planning Department 286 4th Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 (360) 478-5275 Date of Issue: July 12, 2001 Comment Deadline: July 27, 2001 Date of Publication: July 14, 2001 Appeal Deadline: August 10, 2001 christopher R. I~go, Responsible Officiay NOTE: Pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.075 and City of Bremerton Environmental Regulations, Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 21.12. Decisions of the Responsible Official may be appealed. Appeals are filed with appropriate fees at the Building and Planning Department, located at the Bremerton Permit Center. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the expiration of the comment deadline. You may APPEAL this determination to: Bremerton City Council NO LATER THAN: August 10, 2001. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact: Building & Planning Department to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Phone:(360) 478-5275 NOTE: The issuance of this Determination of Nonsignificance does not constitute project approval. Future applicants must comply with all other applicable requirements of City of Bremerton Departments prior to receiving construction permits. WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. Bremerton Downtown Plan Policies and Code Revisions ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an ElS is required. ]nstructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or ifa question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. · Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUP?LEMm, rrAL SHEET FOR NON'PROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Bremerton Downtown Plan Policies and Code Revisions proposed to implement and amend the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and City of Bremerton Developmeat Code as it pertains to the Central Business District (CBD). Revisions provide for plan policies providing for Downtown Core (DC) and Water front (WF) sub-districts code regulations within the Central Business District (CBD)Plan and Zone designation. 2. Name of applicant: City of Bremerton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 286 4a, Street, Bremerton, WA 360/478-5275 · Contact: Chris Hugo, Planning and Building Director 4. Date checklist prepared: May 29, 2001 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Bremerton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Revisions will take effect upon adoption by the city coumcll as per the Bremerton Code section 21.02.110. Revision of the Downtown policies and code regulations was directed by the city plan on pages 57 -58 policies l(e) "Work with downtown interests to develop guidelines for various sub-districts of the CBD." And l(g) Revi~e plan~, re~m~l~tinn~ and the permlifing praters; as neces.aary: tn allnw and encourage the intended LSrpes of ]l.qeR and get them approved an expeditim~sly as pn~sihle." (emphasis added.) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Proposal includes Plan Policies and a set of development regulations amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code which will follow the policy adoption. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The proposed Downtown Plan and Code Revisions are consistent with the policies on page 57 and 58 of the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan that was prepared with a complete EIS. 'The City has recently (6/2001) reviewed current water, sewer, road pavement and storm drainage capacities in the CBD area. The adjacent shoreline areas are included in the cities rical areas but are not listed as refugia for Endangered Salmon or Bull Trout species. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. This proposal includes all public and private property in downtown Bremerton. All pending development projects will by guided by these proposed policies and will be subject to separate SEPA evaluation. Some projects are vested by current applications for permits. 10. List any government approvals or pennits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Adoption by the Bremerton City Council. Shoreline areas are included but policies and regulations have been reviewed and are consistent with the existing shoreline designations. 11. Give brief; complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal is to adopt specific plan goals, development policies and to amend the development code regulations for the downtown Bremerton CBD sub-area as is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The goals and policies provide supplemental guidance for land use, circulation, open spaces, urban design, housing, and economic activity. The Development Code provides specific standards for floor area ratios 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, ff known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The downtown policies are proposed for use within the area designated and zoned on the city zoning map as the Central Business District and may be applied by policy to the whole or smaller portion of the zoned area. Sub-districts include a Water front area east of Washington Street to the shoreline of Sinclair Inlet and a Downtown Core (DC) area west of Washington Street to the Puget Sound Naval Ship yard and including properties on both sides 6th Street to the ferry terminal. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat~x.olling, h~ly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ...... b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Portions of some waterfront properties have slopes in excess of 100% TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Area is completely developed at urban level sand there are no prime agricultural soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is potential instability ofwaterfi-ont parcels with steep slopes. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. ~dicate source of fill. Proposal is regulatory, no fill proposed, city has existing Critical Areas Ordinances that include steep slope regulations that will not be altered by this proposal. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. By City development codes, control of erosion is required of any development that occurs pursuant to the proposed policies. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constmction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? This is the most intensively urban environment in the City. Redevelopment suppOrted by the proposed policies will add little impervious surface area current policy allows 100% coverage. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Use of existing erosion control regulations. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction activity typical of urban development projects will be subject to environmental performance requirements to minimize impacts. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The Central Business district is adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval Ship yard (PSNS). In the City CBD and PSNS there may be emissions that fall within the regulatory standards of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. This part of the city is defined by two stretches of saltwater: Sinclair Inlet to the south and the Port Washington Narrows to the east. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Some urban redevelopment supported by the proposed policies will occur within the shoreline environment and will be subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program and regulations. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. There are wetlands on portions of some parcels to which this proposal applies, however other policies and regulations which pertain to their conservation, preservation and or filling which are unchanged by this proposal. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Unknown, some properties to which the proposal applies may divert surface waters into the city storm water system. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Some portions of downtown Bremerton properties to which the proposal applies may lie within the 100 year flood plain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Unknown, some properties to which the proposal applies may divert surface waters into the city storm water system. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known, fda No, tlfis proposal is regulatory. FutUre applicants may use city water facilities that involve some withdrawn water but will complete an environmental review when proposed at the city water project level. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the g-round from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of anflnals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No, this proposal is regulatory. Future applicants may discharge to city sewer facilities An analysis will be complete an environmental review when proposed at the city sewer project level. c. Water nmoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The storm water system is completely built. Additions will involve minor upgrades with the City regulations and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permit. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Some surface runoff does run off directly into the Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoffwater impacts, if any: Follow the Existing Storm water Management Plan, Policies and regulations. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass -- pasture ~ crop or grain x__ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other x .water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other -- other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Vacant lands will be built upon such that existing grass and shrubs will be replaced with landscaped areas that include other types of shrubs and landscaping. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There area no threaten or endangered species in the Central Bus/ness District. Salmon are in the adjacent Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows but in Kitsap county refugia reports the their habitat is noted only within the Chico Creek refugia which is not a part of this proposal area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Lands/aping is encouraged in the policies and incentives used in regulatory language to enhance vegetation within the CBD, DC and WF sub-districts. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon are in Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows but in Kitsap County refugia reports the city habitat is noted only within the Chico Creek refugia which is not a part of this proposal area. c. Is the site part ora migration route? If so, explain. The CBD is not a known migration route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. All k/nds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) may be used by future applicant to meet energy needs. Energy may be used for heating and or some manufacturing. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The area is urban such that solar energy use by adjacent properties may be affected. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Use of energy conservation features is encouraged and incentives are provided. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None known. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Tall buildings may require use of fire fighting equipment specifically designed for such use. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or conlrol environmental health hazards, if any: Review by fire Department for installation of necessary fire protection facilities as is currently the case. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist'in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? All types of noise exist in the area which may affect future projects (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. All types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other). 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: A number of different types and levels of noise control measures may be created by or associated with the different projects on various short-term or a long-term basis and may be included in site review at the project level. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Shoreline use is Urban marine. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE OlqLY c. Describe any structures on the site. Numerous 1~2, 3 and even a 6 story buildings exist within the CBD. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? This is a regulatory proposal. As a result of policies and code changes future applicants may desire to replace existing structures and will be reviewed at that time for environmental impacts. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? There are several classifications applicable to the area including: BC, GB, PO, MF. MR, URD and DRO f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Cenlral Business District (CBD). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban / Design Review Overlay h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, steep slopes and wetlands areas are environmentally sensitive areas. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is a regulatory proposal but as Identified by the City Plan up to 7,000. people j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? This is a regulatory proposal. As a result of these policies and codes some displacement may occur but other units will be provided and the impact reviexved at the time of development. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if anY: This regulatory proposal provides substantial incentives for residential development. 7 I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: This proposal is compatible with the existing and projected land use plan which specifically directs the development of the proposed policies and code amendments at land use page 56-58. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whellaer high, middle,- or low-income housing. This is a regulatory proposal such that no housing is proposed, however applicants in future projects may choose to provide up to 7,000 new units as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Adopted EIS. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. This is a regulatory proposal. As one result of these policies and codes some elimination may occur but other units will be provided and the impact reviewed at the time of development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: City accomplishes an annual review of housing and housing needs. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? This is a regulatory proposal. No units are proposed. Aesthetic impact will be reviewed at the time of development. b. What views in ~he immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? This is a regulatory proposal. No units are proposed. View impact will be reviewed in project applications at the time of development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Aesthetic impact will be reviewed at hhe time of development. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This is a regulatory proposal. No units are proposed. Lighting impact will be reviewed in project applications at the time of development. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? This is a regulatory proposal No units are proposed. Lighting impact will be reviewed in project applications at the time of development. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: This is a regulatory proposal. Lighting impact will be reviewed at the time of development. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opporttmities are in the mediate vicinity? City walks area and some limited seating areas are now currently available. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No known existing opportunities will be displaced. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation oppommities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: This is a regulatory proposal. The proposal encourage creation of public spaces to enhance both indoor and outdoor recreation oppommities 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation- registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. The city has done a listing of historic properties w/thin the city. Several buildings within the CBD may now qualify as historic structures only because of there age as review for significance W/.ll be accomplished in future site specific impacts. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. The former Elks building, "Give Em Hell Han'y" is within the CBD area. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Keview Listed older building for significance in future site specific impacts. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This is a regulatory proposal, major streets include: Washington, Pacific, Burwell, 6th, 5th, 4t~ and 2nd as well as Beach. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The CBD is served by transit currently. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? This is a regulatory proposal such that parking spaces are not proposed. Applicants under the proposal may choose to provide parking in structures and substantial incentive to do so are provided. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No new roads are proposed. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?- If so, generally describe. The CBD includes the Bremerton Ferry Terminal. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This is a regulatory proposal such that no trips will be generated, however the proposal is consistent with the Bremerton Plan that encourages redevelopment of over 7,000 units and its traffic impacts within the city. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: This proposal encourage residential uses and offstrent parking in structures as a means of reducing travel requirements for those who live in the city. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. This is a regulatory proposal. Future applications under the proposal may increase the need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other). Impacts of this increase has been anticipated in the city Plan/EIS. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Impacts of this increase has been anticipated in the adopted City Plan/EIS EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 16. Utilities a. Circle (underline) utilities currently available at the site: eleclrieity: n8tnral ga~ wamr: refi~.qe ~erv- ice. telephnne. ~anltary sewer; septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providimg the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. This is regulatory proposal, such that no utilities are required, however in future application all urban utilities services may be required. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are tree and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: .... ~~....~~. ................................................................. , ................................... Date Submitted: ..................... ' ..7.l.(..~.../..~.../. ...... ~ .......................................................................................... i .................. 1 ! 10 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Yes discharge are likely to increase to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or ha?ardous substances; or production of noise. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases axe: Adopted City capital facility plans, sewer plans, storm water regulations, air quality regulations of PSAPCA, and these proposed policies and code amendments for development and redevelopment are intended to avoid or reduce such increases. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No. This is a regulatory proposal such that there is no direct impact Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Future applications under the proposal are intended to provide additional habitat for people, and landscaped areas. Animal, fish and marine life are to be unharmed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal encourages development and redevelopment as per the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The Plan provides areas such as the CBD for compact development as a energy saving design. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands7 This is a regulatory proposal that is consistent with city regulations for threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, and flood plains. Other areas are not applicable. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Existing city regulations provide for the protection of threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, and flood plains. Other areas are not applicable. 11 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed policies encourage shoreline uses. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Proposed policies encourage shoreline uses that are compatible with existing plans. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? By encouraging commercial and mixed use residential uses the proposal increases demands on transportation and public services and utilities Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: By increase reuse of under utilized land in closer proximity to ferry and do~vntown services a more efficient traffic pattern is proposed. Although demands on transportation or public services and utilities will increase capacity is available to handle the increases as per the adopted plan. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal does not conflict in any way with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE The above answers are tree and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to m~on. ~ ~, Signature: ......... ~~/~'"~'Tf"~ ..................................... '~" .................................................................................. Date Submitted: ..././..L..~]ff....0...~ ............................................. ~/ ........................................................................................... -/ -[ 12 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. Bremerton Downtown Plan Policies and Code Revisions ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an ElS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or ifa question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. ' Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." nq ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. 2k. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Bremerton Downtown Plan Policies and Code Revisions proposed to implement and amend the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and City of Bremerton Development Code as it pertains to the Central Business District (CBD). Revisions provide for plan policies providing for Downtown Core (DC) and Water front (WF) sub-districts code regulations within the Central Business District (CBD)Plan and Zone designation. 2. Name of applicant: City of Bremerton 3. A~tdress and phone number of applicant and contact person: 286 4m Street, Bremerton, WA 360/478-5275 Contact: Chris Hugo, Planning and Building Director 4. Date checklist prepared: May 29, 2001 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Bremerton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Revisions will take effect upon adoption by the city council as per the Bremerton Code section 21.02.110. Revision of the Downtown policies and code regulations was directed by the city plan on pages 57 -58 policies l(e) "Work with downtown interests to develop guidelines for various sub-districts of the CBD." And l(g) Revi~e plans~ regulations Rod the permitting process~ Rs nenessary,; tn allow Rnd encf)nrage the intended Lypes of uses and get them Rppmved as expeditim~sly as possible_" (emphasis added.) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Proposal includes Plan Policies and a set of development regulations amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code which will follow the policy adoption. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The proposed Downtown Plan and Code Revisions are consistent with the policies on page 57 and 58 of the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan that was prepared with a complete EIS. The City has recently (6/2001) reviewed current water, sewer, road pavement and storm drainage capacities in the CBD area. The adjacent shoreline areas are included in the cities rical areas but are not listed as refugia for Endangered Salmon or Bull Trout species. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. This proposal includes all public and private property in downtown Bremerton. All pending development projects will by guided by these proposed policies and will be subject to separate SEPA evaluation. Some projects are vested by current applications for permits. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Adoption by the Bremerton City Council. Shoreline areas are included but policies and regulations have been reviewed and are consistent with the existing shoreline designations. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal is to adopt specific plan goals, development policies and to amend the development code regulations for the downtown Bremerton CBD sub-area as is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The goals and policies provide supplemental guidance for land use, circulation, open spaces, urban design, housing, and economic activity. The Development Code provides specific standards for floor area ratios 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to tmderstand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The downtown policies are proposed for use within the area designated and zoned on the city zoning map as the Central Business District and may be applied by policy to the whole or smaller portion of the zoned area. Sub-districts include a Water ~ont area east of Washington Street to the shoreline of Sinclair Inlet and a Downtown Core (DC) area west of Washington Street to the Puget Sound Naval Ship yard and including properties on both sides 6~ Street to the ferry terminal. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS l. Earth a. General description o£the site (circle one): Flat,~ly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ...... b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Portions of some waterfront properties have slopes in excess of 100% TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Area is completely developed at urban level sand there are no prime agricultural soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable softs in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is potential instability of waterfront parcels with steep slopes. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantifies of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Proposal is regulatory, no fill proposed, city has existing Critical ~reas Ordinances that include steep slope regulations that will not be altered by this proposal. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. By City development codes, control of erosion is required of any development that occurs pursuant to the proposed policies. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces alter project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? This is the most intensively urban environment in the City. Redevelopment supported by the proposed policies will add little impervious surface area current policy allows 100% coverage. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Use of existing erosion control regulations. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, aUtomobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction activity typical of urban development projects will be subject to environmental performance requirements to minimize impacts~ EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The Central Business district is adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval Ship yard (PSNS). In the City CBD and PSNS there may be emissions that fall within the regulatory standards of the Puget Sound Ak Pollution Control Agency. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in year-round and seasonal streams, saltwate~ and provide names. If appropriate, state This part of the city is defined by two sm the south and the Port Washington Narro 2) Will the project require any work over, in, waters? If yes, please describe and attach Some urban redevelopment supported by shoreline environment and will be subjec 3) Estimate the mount of fill and dredge mat( from surface water or wetlands and indic~ Indicate the source of fill material. There are wetlands on portions of some pz other policies and regulations which perta or filling which are unchanged by tiffs proI ~e immediate vicinity oft. he site (including , lakes, ponds, wetlands)'?. If yes, describe type hat stream or river it flows into. ~tches of saltwater: Sinclair Inlet to ~s to the east. )r adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described ~vailable plans. the proposed policies will occur within the :to the City's Shoreline Master Program and regulations. ~rial that would be placed in or removed e the area of the site that would be affected. reels to which this proposal applies, however in to their conservation, preservation and ~osal. 4) Will the proposal require surface water wi~drawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities ifknowm Unknown, some properties to which the prop( into the city storm water system. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year ilo, Some portions of downtown Bremerton prope within the 100 year flood plain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges ( describe the. type of waste and anticipated Unknown, some properties to which the prop~ into the city storm water system. ,sal applies may divert surface waters )dplain? If so, note location on the site plan. rties to which the proposal applies may lie fwaste materials to surface waters? If so, volume of discharge. ,sal applies may divert surface waters b. Ground: / 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will later be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known, n/a No, this proposal is regulatory. Future applicants may use city water facilities that involve some withdrawn water but will complete an environmental review when proposed at the city water project level. 4 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the nmrtber of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No, this proposal is regulatory. Future applicants may discharge to city sewer facilities An analysis will be complete an environmental review when proposed at the city sewer project level. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters7 If so, describe. The storm water system is completely built. Additions will involve minor upgrades with the City regulations and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permit. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Some surface runoff does mn off directly into the Sinclair Inlet and Port washington Narrows. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and rtmoffwater impacts, if any: Follow the Existing Storm water Management Plan, Policies and regulations. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs x~ grass -- pasture ~ crop or grain x 'wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullmsh, skank cabbage, other x water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ~ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered7 Vacant lands will be built upon such that existing grass and shrubs will be replaced with landscaped areas that include other types of shrubs and landscaping. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There area no threaten or endangered species in the Central Business District. Salmon are in the adjacent Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows but in Kitsap county refugia reports the their habitat is noted only within the Chico Creek refugia which is not a part of this proposal area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping is encouraged in the policies and incentives used in regulatory language to enhance vegetation within the CBD, DC and WF sub-districts. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near llae site. Salmon are in Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows but in Kitsap County refugia reports the city habitat is noted only within the Chico Creek refugia which is not a part of this proposal area. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The CBD is not a known migration route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs7 Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. All kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) may be used by furore applicant to meet energy needs. Energy may be used for heating and or some manufacturing. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The area is urban such that solar energy use by adjacent properties may be affected. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Use of energy conservation features is encouraged and incentives are provided. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None known. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Tall buildings may require use of fire fighting equipment specifically designed for such use. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Review by fire Department for installation of necessary fire protection facilities as is currently the case. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? All types of noise exist in the area which may affect future projects (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come bom the site. All types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,' other). 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: A number of different types and levels of noise control measures may be created by or associated with the different projects on various short-term or a long-tenu basis and may be included in site review at the project level. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Shoreline use is Urban marine. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. Numerous 1,2, 3 and even a 6 story buildings exist within the CBD. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? This is a regulatory proposal. As a result of policies and code changes future applicants may desire to replace existing structures and will be reviewed at that time for env/ronmental impacts. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? There are several classifications applicable to the area including: BC, GB, PO, MF. MR, URD and DRO f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Central Business District (CBD). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban / Design Review Overlay h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? Il'so, specify. Yes, steep slopes and wetlands areas are environmentally sensiti-ve areas. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is a regulatory proposal but as Identified by the City Plan up to 7,000. people j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? This is a regulatory proposal. As a result of these policies and codes some displacement may occur but other units will be provided and the impact reviewed at the time of development. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: This regulatory proposal provides substantial incentives for residential development. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: This proposal is compatible with the existing and projected land use plan which specifically directs the development of the proposed policies and code amendments at land use page 56-58. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,- or low-income housing. This is a regulatory proposal such that no housing is proposed, however applicants in future projects may choose to provide up to 7,000 new units as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Adopted EIS. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. This is a regulatory proposal. As one result of these policies and codes some elimination may occur but other units will be provided and the impact reviewed at the time of development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: City accomplishes an annual review of housing and housing needs. I0. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed slxueture(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? This is a regulatory proposal. No units are proposed. Aesthetic impact will be reviewed at the time of development. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? This is a regulatory proposal. No units are proposed. View impact will be reviewed in project applications at the time of development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Aesthetic impact will be reviewed at the time of development. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This is a regulatory proposal. No units are proposed. Lighting impact will be reviewed in project applications at the time of development. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? This is a regulatory proposal. No units are proposed. Lighting impact will be reviewed in project applications at the time of development. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: This is a regulatory proposal. Lighting impact will be reviewed at the time of development. EVALUATION FOR. AGENCY USE ONLY 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are im the immediate vicinity? City walks area and some limited seating areas are now currently' available. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No known existing opportunities will be displaced. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: This is a regulatory proposal. The proposal encourage creation of public spaces to enhance both indoor and outdoor recreation opportunities 13. Itistorie and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation- registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. The city has done a listing of historic properties within the city. Several buildings within the CBD may now qualify as historic structures only because of there age as review for significance will be accomplished in future site specific impacts. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. The former Elks building, "Give Em Hell Harry" is within the CBD area. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Review Listed older building for significance in future site specific impacts. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the ex/sting street system. Show on site plans, if any. This is a regulatory proposal, major streets include: Washington, Pacific, Burwell, 6th, 5th, 4t~ and 2nd as well as Beach. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The CBD is served by transit currently. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have'?. How many would the project eliminate? This is a regulatory proposal such that parking spaces are not proposed. Applicants under the proposal may choose to provide parking in structures and substantial incentive to do so are provided. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No new roads are proposed. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or ak transportation?- If so, generally describe. The CBD includes the Bremerton Ferry Terminal. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This is a regulatory proposal such that no trips will be generated, however the proposal is consistent with the Bremerton Plan that encourages redevelopment of over 7,000 units and its traffic impacts within the city. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: This proposal encourage residential uses and offstreet parking in structures as a means of reducing travel requirements for those who live in the city. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. This is a regulatory proposal. Future applications under the proposal may increase the need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other). Impacts of this increase has been anticipated in the city Plan/EIS. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Impacts of this increase has been anticipated in the adopted City Plan/EIS EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 16. Utilities a. Circle (underline) utilities currently available at the site: eleetricily; natural ?.q. water; retiree .qerv- inc. telephnne~ .qanilary .qewer; septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needeck This is regulatory proposal, such that no utilities are required, however in future application all urban utilities services may be required. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are tree and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Date Submitted: ..................... ' ...~./../.,.~.../~..t ...... /_ ............................................................................................................ 10 EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Yes discharge are likely to increase to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or h_a?~rdous substances; or production of noise. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases a.re: Adopted City capital facility plans, sewer plans, storm water regulations, air quality regulations of PSAPCA, and these proposed policies and code amendments for development and redevelopment are intended to avoid or reduce such increases. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No. This is a regulatory proposal such that there is no direct impact Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Future applications under the proposal are intended to provide additional habitat for people, and landscaped areas. Animal, fish and marine life are to be unharmed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal encourages development and redevelopment as per the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The Plan provides areas such as the CBD for compact development as a energy saving design. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This is a regulatory proposal that is consistent with city regulations for threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, and flood plains. Other areas are not applicable. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Existing city regulations provide for the protection of threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, and flood plains. Other areas are not applicable. 11 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed policies encourage shoreline uses. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Proposed policies encourage shoreline uses that are compatible with existing plans. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? By encouraging commercial and mixed use residential uses the proposal increases demands on transportation and public services and utilities Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: By increase reuse of under utilized land in closer proximity to ferry and downtown services a more efficient traffic pattern is proposed. Although demands on transportation or public services and utilities will increase capacity is available to handle the increases as per the adopted plan. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal does not conflict in any way with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE The above answers are tree and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Date Submitted:~_t .//...~.ff.L.~.0...~.' ................... , ....................... 2... .............................. i ....................................................... 12 S-2 City of Bremerton Department of Building and Planning DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal: The City of Bremerton proposes to amend its Comprehens£ve Plcm and Optimum Land Use Map through city and public initiated amendment applications that will be applied ci .tywide as ~vell as to specific properties. The approved amendments will be adopted by ordinance and are often accompanied by related rezones to maintain consistency between the City's Plan and development regulations. The purpose of the following project specific and non-project specific amendments is to fulfill the City's requirements under the Growth Management Act and to correct oversights in mapping and Plan designations. Any projects associated with specific Plan amendments will be reviewed separately for compliance with SEPA (if required). Upon adoption, the Plan amendments and subsequent ordinances will apply throughout the incorporated limits of the City of Bremerton as' detailed in the specific applicability statements contained within each amendment. Proponent: Ci~::'of':Beem6~6~ Olympic College, School District, Albertons, Nance, Loveless/Brook, Schmidt, Transerve, Hancock, WELSAR, Mentor, Setterlund. P roiect Num hers: ~ · TEXT: PL01-0010,PL01-00I 1, PL01-0008, PL01-0016, PL01-001~in fact amendment, PL01- 0010,PL.~OffM~ 1-0017,PL01-0024 · MAP:(PL 01-0024, ~L01-0054, PL01-0061, PL01-0062, PL01-0063, PL01-0073, PL01-0077, PL01-0001. Location of Proposal: City of Bremerton Lead Agency: City of Bremerton The lead agency for this non-project proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.2 IC.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for at least 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted Responsible Official: Position/Title: Phone: Address: by: 5:00 pm by. Chris Hugo Director of Building and Planning (360) 478-5275 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton, WA 98337 Date: August 3, 2001 Signature: You may appeal this determination to: no later than August 19, 2001. Bremerton ~ity ~ouncil S£p 0 4 200 BREMERTON EIUILDIN8 DEPARTMENT You should be prepared to make sPecific factual objections. Contact: Chris Hugo to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Phone: (360) 478-5275 CITY OF BREMERTON DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING AMENDMENTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: July 31, 2001 PROJECT: The City of Bremerton proposes to amend 'its Comprehensive Plan and Optimum Land Use Map through city and public initiated amendment applications that will be applied citywide as well as to specific properties. The approved amendments will be adopted by ordinance and are often accompanied by related rezones to maintain consistency between the City's Plan and development regulations. The purpose of the following project specific and non-project specific amendments are to fulfill the City's requiremefits under the Growth Management Act and to correct oversights in mapping and Plan designations. Any projects associated with specific Plan amendments will be reviewed separately for compliance with SEPA (if required). Upon adoption, the Plan amendments and subsequent ordinances will apply throughout the incorporated limits of the City of Bremerton as detailed in the specific applicability statements contained within each amendment. FILE: PL01- 0043 APPLICANT: City of Bremerton, RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Chris Hugo, Director of Building and Planning STAFF CONTACT: Chris Hugo LOCATION: City of Bremerton The following amendments, comments and additions correspond to sections of the environmental checklist submitted by the applicant. These amendments are attached to and become part of the checklist. A. BACKGROUND The City of Bremerton proposes to amend its Comprehensive Plan and Optimum Land Use Map through city and public initiated amendment applications that will be applied city wide as well as property specific. The approved amendments will be adopted by ordinance and are often accompanied by related rezones to maintain consistency between'the City's Plan and Zoning maps. The purpose oft he following project specific and non-project specific amendments are to fulfill the City's requirements under the Growth Management Act and to correct oversights in mapping and Plan designations. Any projects,associated wkh specific Plan amendments will be reviewed separately for compliance with SEPA (if required). Upon adoption, the Plan amendments and subsequent ordinances will apply throughout the incorporated limits of the City of Bremerton as detailed in the specific applicability statements contained within each amendment. The Growth Management Act allows amendments to Comprehensive Plans only once a year, with exceptions for amendments related to annexations, emergencies, and adoption of subarea plans. Throughout the year, applications for Plan Amendments are collected and placed on a docket for processing together after April 1. Property owners, organizations, City staff, the Mayor, the Planning Commission, or the citY Council may initiate plan amendments. Requests are submitted on the City's application form and processed as a "package". Environmental review on the "package" of proposed amendments is contained herein. This review is programmatic in nature and does not involve revie~v of potential environmental impacts associated with specific development proposals. B. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Earth Conditions relating to slopes, soils and topography vary depending upon the subject site. While some of the proposed Plan amendments refer to specific sites, no specific projects have been proposed for any of the sites. Therefore, no mitigative measures are necessary at this time. Development of specific project sites will be subject to review under th~ CitY of Bremerton's Critical lands ordinance, to ensure compliance. Future project applications that are not categorically exempt pursuant to Chapter 197-11-800 WAC, and which require issuance o£a Ciw license or permit will be subject to review under SEPA. After reviewing such development applications, the City of Bremerton may determine that mitigation measures are necessary to avoid probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Air The checklists submitted for the proposed amendments adequately cover this topic. No impacts will be generated by the proposed amendments; therefore, no mitigative measures are necessary~ Water A variety of natural and human modified aquatic resources exist within the vicinity of Bremerton. However, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are non-project actions that do not propose specific development in, over, or within 200 feet of the waterbodies. Therefore, the proposed amendments will not generate any impacts associated with water. As such, no mitigative measures are proposed. Project specific developments that propose discharges to groundwater, work in, over or within 200 feet of a waterbody will be required to be consistent with applicable Critical Lands Ordinance standards, and may be subject to Shorelines Program standards and environmental review consistent with WAC 197-11. Pla~ts The checklists submitted for the proposed amendments adequately cover this topic. No impacts will be generated by the proposed amendments; therefore, no mitigative measures are necessary. Individual development proposals not categorically exempt from WAC 197-11 may be subject to mitigation measures necessary, to avoid probable significant adverse environmental impacts, including impacts related to any threatened or endangered plant species. Animals Rare and endangered species sighted in the Planning Area include slamon, the northern bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. Ospreys, which are listed on the Audubon Society's Blue List (rare or threatened), are also present. No amendments occur in identified Salmon refugia. The proposed amendments are non-project actions that will not directly impact wildlife. As such, no mitigative measures are necessary. However, specific development projects that are not categorically exempt pursuant to Chapter 197-11-800 WAC, and which require issuance ora City license or permit will be subject to review under SEPA. After reviewing applications for such project actions, the City of Bremerton may determine that mitigation measures are necessary to avoid probable significant adverse environmental impacts, including wildlife- related impacts. Energy and Natural Resources The checklists submitted for the proposed amendments adequately cover this topic. No impacts will be generated by the proposed amendments; therefore, no mitigative measures are necessary. Environmental Health No mitigative measures are proposed as the proposed amendments do not contain specific development proposals, and therefore will not generate impacts associated with environmental health. Land and Shoreline Use Because this proposals are non-project actions involving amendments to the Bremex:ton Comprehensive P/an, they have the potential to affect nearly all of the Comprehensive Plan land use designations, and Zoning Code districts. The outlined site specific amendments have distinct zoning classifications, which will change if the proposed amendments are adopted. The City of B remerton Comprehensive 2Plan, as adopted April 5, 1995, Element K, explicitly provides for continuing evaluation and yearly amendment to the Plan. Thus, the subject proposals and subsequent action are consistent with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Any site specific development proposal will require applicable land use approvals and overall consistency with the Optimum Land Use Map and goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Housing The checklists submit-ted for the prOposed amendments adequately cover this topic. No impacts associated with housing will be generated by the proposed amendments; therefore, no mitigative measures are necessary. Aesthetics No mitigative measures are proposed as the proposed amendments do not contain specific development proposals, and therefore will not generate impacts associated with aesthetics. Light and Glare The checklists submitted for the proposed amendments adequately cover this topic. No impacts associated with light and glare will be generated by the proposed amendments; therefore, no mitigative measures are necessary. Recreation The inventory prepared for Bremerton's Comprehensive ~Plan, adopted April 5, 1995, identified over 695 acres of park and recreation facilities within the City's corporate limits. This figure includes City. (e.g., City- wide & neighborhood parks), County, and regional parks, and a City-owned golf course. The largest parks within the City are Kitsap Lake Park, and Park and Pendergast Regional Park. The City has numerous access points for aquatic recreational activities. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are not project specifi~ and therefore do not impacts existing recreational facilities. No mitigative measures are necessary. Historical and Cultural Preservation No mitigative measures are proposed as the proposed amendments do not contain specific development proposals, and therefore will not generate impacts associated with historic and cultural preservation. Transportation No impacts to transportation are expected as a result of the proposed amendments. Therefore, no specific mitigative measures are necessary. l~ublic Services These amendments will not generate a need for increased public services. Therefore, no mitigative measures are proposed. Utilities The proposal is a non-project action involving amendments to the Bremerton Comprehensive .Plan, it would not directly affect utilities. As such, no mitigative measures are proposed. Cumulative Analysis - Text Amendments Most of the text amendment provide additional information, update back~ound materials, clarify existing policies, or provide consistency between the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and other city documents. None of the text amendments would result in significant environmental impacts. Impacts are discussed below. Impacts - Proposed Action The proposed action would result in all of the text amendments being adopted. These amends would have no effect on critical area or natural resource lands including PLO 1-0010, PLO 1-0011, PL01-0008, PLO 1-0016, PLO 1-0017, and PLO 1-0024. Amendments PLO 1-0010, PLO 1-0011, PLO 1-0017, PLO 1 ~0024 would protect natural resources beyond current policy and regulatory provisions by preserving existing open space area such as existing school facilities such that they may continue to be community service centers and economic resources. PLO 1-0024 would provide clarifying language that would require additional public open space, public art and community resources in downtown development. Impacts - No Action Alternative Under the No action alternative the existing polices of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan would remain in place. Many of the proposed amendments do not have a direct' impact on critical areas or natural resource lands. However, these text amendments are necessary to provide additional information, update background materials, clarify existing policies, or provide consistency bet~veen the Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents. Without updating and coordinating this information, the Comprehensive Plan would lose integrity over time. Impacts - Recommended action The Recommended Alternative would result in all of the proposed text hrnendments revising the Comprehensive Plan; the environmental impacts of the Recommended Alternative would be the same as discussed under the proposed action. Mitigation Measures PLO 1-0010 School District adaptive reuse policy. Clarifies application of existing policy to public and semi-public buildings not previously covered by City policy. · PL01-0011 School District adaptive reuse Zoning. Clarifies implementation of reuse in zoning. · PL01-0008 Parking Ratio Zoning. Clarifies parking ratios for selected commercial services. · PLO 1-0016 City Front Yard averaging Policy. Recognizes historic pattern of building setback as a relevant aspect of city character and allows for consideration in projects. · PLO 1-0017 Community Open SpaCe Zoning. Clarifies language for implementing zoning, · P101-0024 Downtown Development policies. Clarifies and provides implementation of existing city policy. Implementation Requirements Adoption of text amendments and insertion into the City Plan text for consideration in future projects. Cumulative Analysis - Map amendments Impact - Map amendments Proposed Action The proposed action would result in no changes to the City. of Bremerton Urban Growth Area since all areas are currently either within the City limits or within the existing urban growth area. All area s were previously considered for urban levels of development. Proposed map amendments'change uses from one type of urban development to another as follows: · PLO 1-0024, adds m,o new subcategories of DowntoWn Waterfront and Downtown Core to the Existing Central Business Districts with no change in the acres available for urban development. · PL01-0054, Nance proposal changes 2.54 acres from Low Density Residential to Commercia[ General. · PL01-0063, Transerve proposal changes 1.8 acres from Medium density Residential to General and Professional office. PL01-0065, Hancock proposal changes 46.04 acres from Low Density Residential to Industrial Park. PLO 1-0073, WELSAR proposal changes .25 acres from Medium Density Residential to Business Core. PLO 1-0077, Mentor; proposal changes .20 acres form Medium Density Residential to Commercial and Professional office(CP). · PL01-0001, Setterlund proposal changes .33 acre from Low density residential to Commercial General. · PL01-0061, Loveless/Brook proposal changes approximately 10 acres from Commercial General and Low Density to Mixed Use. · PL01-0062, Schmidt proposal changes about .5 acres from Low Density Residential to Commercial General The total if all proposed changes were made would increase densities on 61.67 acres, provided that PL001- 0024 for the downtown only changes how densities and intensities are distributed, producing no net change in land uses capacities. The following table is provided for illustrative purposes only and indicates the change of proportions city wide as a result of the proposed changes: Table: Impact on Lands Designated for development · Land[]use type 1995 Plan % After proposals · Residential 1,566.00 acres 66.2% 1504.33 63.6% · Commercial 420.10 acres 17.1% 435.73 18.4% · Industrial 379.40 acres 16.% 425.44 18.0% · Total acres 2,365.50 2,365.50 Note: There is no net change in the total area of lands designated for development. Amendments PL 01-0024, PLO 1-0054, PLO 1-0061, PLO 1-0062, PLO 1-0063, PLO 1-0073, PLO 1-0077, and PL01-000I would increase impervious surface area and storm water runoff. Amendments PL00-0065 Hancock, and PL 00-0061 Loveless / Brook may impact area streams near or through the. properties. There would be an increase in surface 5vater runoff from the higher level of urban development. Increased storm water runoff and routing of storm water to a system of pipes also reduces the amount of water reaching and recharging the aquifer. Increased urban density increases traffic funding to correct traffic problems or to provide alternative travel methods. All amendments PL 01-0024, PLO 1-0054, PLO 1-0061, PLO 1-0062, PL01-0063, PLO 1-0073, PLO 1- 0077, and PL01-0001 would increase traffic concerns. Impacts - No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative, the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan map would remain as identified in the current Comprehensive _Plan. No changes would occur in any of the Land use designations. Environmental impacts would be the same as reflected in previous environmental documents for the Comprehensive Plan. For a full discussion of the Impacts associated with the No Action alternative, reference the documents listed in the 1995 City, of Bremerton Environmental Impact Analysis for the Comprehensive Plan. Impacts - Recommendation Alternative The Recommendation Alternative represent the recommendation of the City of Bremerton 'Planning Commission and City Staff The Planning commission recommends the adoption of amendments PL 01-0024, PL00-0054, PL00-0063, PL00-0065, PL00-0073, and PL00-0077. The impacts of these amendments are discussed with the proposal impact analysis. Mitigation measures · City of Bremerton critical area regulation would serve to protect some aspects of the environment. · Appropriate adopted capital facilities plans and the provision of facilities and services as required by the City of Bremerton could significantly reduce impacts to streams, New open space requirements in the downtown core could reduce impacts within the city central Business district. Implementation Requirements The proposed map amendments to the COmprehensive Plan are accompanied by concurrent applications to change the Official City Zoning Map to meet the consistency requirement of the Growth Management Act. The proposed policy additions to the Comprehensive Plan will be implemented by pending revisions to development regulations to meet the consistency requirement of the Growth Management Act. DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL I have reviewed and considered the referenced proposal, the environmental checklist, and other available material, and the staff recommendation. I hereby: X issue a Determination of Non-Significance issue a Determination of Mitigated Non-Significance issue a Determination of Significance determine that I do not have sufficient information upon which to make a threshold determination and direct staff to obtain additional information on the proposal. Chris Hugo, Director B~iiding and Planning Date AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON FOR AGENDA: ~ Nov. 20, 2002 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHORELINE ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney's Office MASTER PROGRAM RELATING TO ORIGINATOR: Roger A. Lubovich DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS DATE SUBMITTED: Oct. 22, 2002 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) CHR'i§ I~uG~.~, l~i~:~)/~ of Community Development 'ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney FISCAL & B~GET CHA~AN 6P Tf6 S ENDORSE~[-'] MAYOR 3. EXHIBITS: PROPOSED ORDINANCE - APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT d~C4/~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The current provisions of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program provide that downtown waterfront site development standards be regulated by the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. A companion ordinance the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. The proposed ordinance amends the Shoreline Master Program to allow development of the downtown waterfront in accordance with new development standards and regulations. 5. RECOMMENDATION: ~ve to i~ppmve the p,'_~ ' ce ' Move to pass Ordinance No. 4~27 o~A~econd reading. 7. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED [-] TABLED ~-] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED [--] RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director of Community Development ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director of Community Development EXPIRATION DATE: n/a REVIEW DATE: n/a DISAPPROVED [] AMENDg~: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: 10. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 11. RESEARCH SOURCES: ORDINANCE NO. 4829 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to downtown waterfront site development standards regarding shoreline setback, view corridors and height restrictions in the Downtown District. WHEREAS, the current provisions of Chapter 3 of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to environment designations and requirements provides that downtown waterfront site development standards be regulated by the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan (DWURP); and WHEREAS, the City anticipates significant development in the downtown waterfront area in the next few years; and WHEREAS, the downtown waterfront area is a unique shoreline area in that it encompasses vehicular and pedestrian traffic, including Kitsap Transit and other local and regional transportation systems connected to the state ferry system; and WHEREAS, the development regulations set forth in the DWLrRP are outdated and not consistent with the City's plans for development of the downtown waterfront area; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within the downtown waterfront area by providing for intensive public access and use and by managing anticipated development so that it enhances a multiplicity of uses for the downtown shoreline environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council, in ensuring optimum utilization of the downtown shoreline, desires to encourage pedestrian waterfront activities and to enhance visual and physical access to the shoreline environment for all citizens through various means of public access; and 1 Shoreline Master Program WHEREAS, the City Council, in a companion ordinance, Ordinance No. 4828, is repealing the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan and the City Council desires to amend its Shoreline Master Program to allow development of the downtown waterfront in accordance with new development standards and regulations consistent with recent amendments with the City's Comprehensive Plan; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 3, Section A of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to shoreline environment designations is hereby amended to read as follows: A. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS City shorelines are classified into specific environment designations. These designations are based on physical, biological and development characteristics of the shorelines. The Shoreline Management Act represents state-wide concerns and is based on the public trust doctrine protecting the rights of the peopIe of the State of Washington. Therefore, shoreline environment designations take precedence over local zoning and comprehensive plan designations. The entire Bremerton shoreline is designated an "Urban" environment. The Shoreline Management Act Guidelines state: The objective of the urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for intensive public use and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of urban uses. Since Bremerton's shoreline is almost entirely developed, except in its utility lands, with some type of residential, commercial, industrial or recreational use, it was believed that an Urban designation was most appropriate. Within this main designation, several sub-designations have been made. All designations extend 200 feet landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWlVO, unless otherwise described below. The Urban environment is divided into the following sub-designations, t ~The descriptions of the environment designations, except for the Downtown Waterfront designation, are excerpted from the City of Bremerton Shoreline Management Master Program adopted in October 1977. The Downtown Waterfront description 2 ~ Shoreline Master Program Urban Conservancy The Urban Conservancy designation is for areas that are currently or intended for recreational use and for areas identified as having biological or physical limitations or other unique or hazardous characteristics that are incompatible with intense development. Activities permitted in these areas are intended to have minimal adverse impacts upon the shoreline. Urban Residential The Urban Residential designation is for areas which are primarily residential or intended for residential use. These areas are to maintain existing character and be consistent with that character in terms of open space, bulk, scale, and intensity of use within the guidelines of current zoning. Urban Commercial The Urban Commercial designation is primarily for those areas which range from the high intensity business district and small light industry to the small commercial operations located in the various neighborhoods. The intent of this designation is to encourage commercial development that could enhance public access to the shoreline, either physical or visual, and provide a setting for the commercial operation that will be of economic benefit. Downtown Waterfront The Downtown Waterfront designation is a special Urban Commercial designation for the downtown shoreline area that is subject to the r~;,.. ^cr~ .... .-~.. r~ ........... rJ~,~r~ ~r~.t...~ Rcnc,;'a! PlanChapter 21.02.152 BMC. The intent of this desi~ation is to encourage development of the downto~ water~ont into a vital, attractive water-ohented area that m~imizes oppo~ities for l~ge numbers of people to interact passively and actively with the shoreline for leis~e and enjo~ent uses. is exerpted from the former "Designation of Environments" section of the 1989 amendments. These descriptions were inadvertently omitted from the amendments adopted in 1989 and/or 1992. 3 Shoreline Master Program Urban Industrial The Urban Industrial designation is primarily for those areas which are heavily developed for industrial purposes and those which are appropriate for industrial purposes. The intent of the designation is to provide for efficient utilization of suitable shoreline areas for water dependent commerce and industry consistent with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, as amended. SECTION 2. Chapter 3, Section B of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to Common Legal Descriptions is hereby amended to read as follows: B. COMMON LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS "Common" legal descriptions provide a dear basis for identifying boundaries of environment designations. These descriptions typically rely on both man-made and natural features (i.e. roads, bluffs, dikes, etc.) to delineate boundaries. Where there is a discrepancy, the common legal descriptions take precedence over mapped boundaries. Certain areas expected to be annexed into the City in the near future have been pre-designated in order that the City Master Program will be effective upon annexation. These areas are described in italics in the common legal descriptions. Urban Conservancy The following areas are designated Urban Conservancy (map designations precede descriptions): City Parks The following Urban Conservancy areas are under the jurisdiction of the City of Bremerton Parks Department: CS-1 Kitsap Lake Park -- A city park northwest of Harlow Drive off Price Road, at the south end of Kitsap Lake. Much of the westerly part of the park is within the Kitsap Bog Natural System Designation (described later in this section), in which case regulations for the Bog apply. The western portion of the park is currently outside the city limits, but is expected to be annexed in the near future. 4 Shoreline Master Program CS-2 CS-3 CS-4 CS-5 CS-6 CS-7 CS-8 NAD Marine Park -- An undeveloped city nature area park located at the north end of Shorewood Drive, along the west shore of Ostrich Bay. Warren Avenue Bridge Landing -- A state right-of-way at the south end of the Warren Avenue Bridge, along the south shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Evergreen Park -- A city park east of Park Avenue and south of Park Drive, along the west shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Lions' Community Playfield/Manette Treatment Plant -- A city multi-purpose park located south of Lebo Boulevard between Sheridan Road and Stephenson Avenue, consisting of a playfield on the northwest and an undeveloped view area at the site of the demolished Manette sewage treatment plant on the southeast, along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Lent Lane Viewpoint -- An undeveloped view area south of Lebo Boulevard located at the intersection of Reid Avenue, along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Sheridan Park/Community Theatre -- The southerly portion of a city park south of Lebo Boulevard at Clare Avenue, and the Community Theatre site northwest of the park, along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Manette Bridge Landing -- A state right-of-way at the east end of the Manette Bridge, along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. City Utility Lands The following Urban Conservancy areas are City of Bremerton lands under the jurisdiction of the Bremerton Utility Department: CS-9 Union River Reservoir -- This reservoir is given special consideration because of its vital role in providing the greater Bremerton area a safe, clean supply of industrial and domestic water. The reservoir is formed by Casad Dam which was completed in 1957. The reservoir is located approximately 5 miles west of the urbanized portion of Bremerton on Utility Department lands. However, it is inside the corporate limits of the City and receives police and fire protection from Utility Department staff and the Department of Natural Resources. 5 Shoreline Master Program The Union River canyon was dammed by the 195 foot high Casad Dam, filling the canyon to a depth of 135 feet at the dam. The reservoir extends more than 1-1/4 miles to the northeast between the steep slopes of Gold Mountain and the Blue Hills. CS-10 Twin Lakes Reservoir -- This man-made reservoir is located south of the Belfair Valley Road, west of the Gold Mountain Golf Course, in a city Water Supply Protection Area, on Utility Department lands. It is connected to the Union River by a water transmission pipeline. It has a capacity of 1200 acre feet. CS-11 Anderson Creek -- This site is located at the mouth of Anderson Creek at the head of Sinclair Inlet, just east of the Gorst business district, north of S.R. 160, in a city Forest Resource Area, on Utility Department lands. The site is a former solid waste landfill that was more recently used as a log staging site, and is now vacant. The soils on the site are not suitable to support most commercial and/or industrial type buildings, and could not be used for septic tank drainfield sewage disposal systems without extensive fill. The site is about 800 feet east of a 22 acre Port of Bremerton aquatic preserve that was established in the mid-1960's by an agreement with the Department of Ecology that is expected to expire in the mid-1990's. Other Conservancy Designations CS-12 Camp McKean -- A recreational area for the use of Navy personnel located approximately mid-way on West Kitsap Lake Road between Kitsap Lake Wetlands and Northlake Way. Federal facilities are outside the jurisdiction of the City. This designation will become effective upon annexation of the area to the City. Urban Residential The following areas are designated Urban Residential (map designations precede descriptions): R-I(F) Jackson Park -- A U.S. Navy housing area located between NAD Marine Park and the city limits off the SR-3 Austin Drive Interchange, along the west shore of Ostrich Bay. This is a U.S. Navy housing area and is outside the land use jurisdiction of the City. R-2 Ostrich Bay-West/Oyster Bay-West -- Extends west from NAD Marine Park on the west shore of Ostrich Bay, and around Madrona Point, to the Oyster Bay Commercial area along the south shore of Oyster Bay. 6 Shoreline Master Program R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 11-9 R-10 R-11 R-12 Oyster Bay-East/Mud Bay -- Extends east from the Oyster Bay Commercial area, along the east shore of Ostrich Bay, and along the west shore of Mud Bay to the city limits. Haddon Peninsula -- Extends northeast from the city limits at the south end of Phinney Bay, along the west shore of the Port Washington Narrows, and around Anderson Cove to the Thompson Commercial area. Port Washington Narrows-South - Extends west from the Thompson Avenue Industrial area to the Warren Avenue Bridge Landing, along the southwest shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Park Avenue -- Extends southeast from the Warren Avenue Bridge landing to Evergreen Park, along the southwest shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Tracyton Beach -- Extends southeast from the city limits along the north side of Tracyton Beach Road to Elm Street, along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Stephenson Avenue -- Extends east from Lions' Community Playfield/Manette Treatment Plant site to the Lent Lane Viewpoint at Stephenson Avenue, along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Reid Avenue -- Extends east from the Lent Lane Viewpoint to the Community Theatre/Sheridan Park site along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Manette-West -- Extends south from the Campbell/Wheaton Commercial area to the Manette Bridge Landing, along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Manette-East -- Extends south from the Manette Commercial area, around the Manette peninsula, to the city limits, along the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows and the west shore of Sinclair Inlet. This area will extend north of Jacobson Boulevard to the approximate extension of Cascade View Trail effective on the date of annexation (pending). Kitsap Lake -- Extends north from Camp McKean on the west lake shore, around the lake along the east lake shore to Kitsap Lake Park. This area will include the southwest lake shore between Camp McKean and Kitsap Lake Wetlands effective upon annexation of that area (pending). 7 Shoreline Master Program R-13 Sherman Heights -- Extends along the northwest shore of Sinclair Inlet approximately between State Route 3 (SR-3) and Bayview Drive extended. This designation will become effective upon annexation of the area (pending). Urban Commercial The following areas are designated Urban Commercial (map designations precede descriptions): C-1 Oyster Bay -- Extends southeast from Lower Oyster Bay Road, to the south side of Kitsap Way at Oyster Bay Road, and then northeast on the north side of Kitsap Way to the Forest Avenue intersection, along the south shore of Oyster Bay. This area excludes the parcels adjacent to the shoreline at Lower Oyster Bay Road (Lot 14) and at Forest Avenue (Lots 3 and 4), which are within the Residential designation. C-2 Highland -- Extends south from the intersection of 13th Street and Highland Avenue, then south past the Manette Bridge to Sixth Street extended on the east side of Washington Avenue, along the west shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Small portions of the area west of Highland and Washington may also be within the 200-foot shoreline area. C-3 Campbell/Wheaton -- Extends southeast along old Wheaton Way from Sheridan Park to a point just southwest of Warren C. Magnuson Way (the north boundary of the Bremerton Gardens apartment complex), on the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. C-4 Manette -- Extends southeast of the Manette Bridge Landing to the intersection of Eleventh Street and Pitt Avenue, including a small area northeast of Shore Drive, on the northeast shore of the Port Washington Narrows. Downtown Waterfront The Downtown Waterfront area is located along the west shore of the Port Washington Narrows where it meets Sinclair Inlet. It is bounded on the south by PSNS; on the west by the west side of Washington Avenue; on the north by the extension of Sixth Street waterward; and on the east by 8 Shoreline Master Program the Outer Harbor Line. The Downtown Waterfront designation is divided into two sub-areas: Upland (DW/U) and Marine (DW/M). (Map designations precede descriptions.) DW/U Downtown Waterfront/Upland -- The area landward from the OHWM.414s4m~qd~ D ......~ Plan DW/M Downtown Waterfront/Marine (Over-Water) -- The area waterward of the OHWM. Urban Industrial The following areas are designated Industrial (map designations precede descriptions): I-1 Thompson Avenue -- Extends east from Marguerite Avenue extended northward before it tums east to Pennsylvania Avenue extended northward, along the south shore of the Port Washington Narrows. I-2 Sheldon Boulevard -- Extends south from Evergreen Park at Fourteenth Street to the intersection of Thirteenth Street and Highland Avenue, along the west shore of the Port Washington Nan-ows. A small portion of this area between Fourteenth Street and Pacific Avenue extends west of Sheldon Boulevard. I-3(F) PSNS [I-3] -- Extends west from the Washington Street Ferry Terminal west of First Street to the city limits on Charleston Beach Road south of Preble Street, on the west shore of Sinclair Inlet. The entire area is within the federally owned Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS), and outside of the land use jurisdiction of the City. SECTION3. Chapter 3, Section F of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to environment-specific regulations is hereby amended to read as follows: F. ENVIRONMENT-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS Urban Commercial Environment 1. Urban Commercial Environments Landward of High Bluffs (As indicated on Shoreline Environment Designation Maps): a. Permitted: Water-dependent uses; water-related uses. 9 Shoreline Master Program b. Permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit: uses. Other Urban Commercial Environments: a. b. C. Non-water-oriented commercial Permitted: Water-dependent uses; water-related uses. Permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit: Water-enjoyment uses.2 Prohibited: Over-water non-water-oriented commercial structures. (This does not include marine or public access uses.) Downtown Waterfront Environment 1. Downtown Waterfront Environment: Public access shall be provided in accordance with *~-~ ~'~^~ r~ ..... , ..... r~,t~,r~, r r.t.~_ ~> ........ ' P!anChapter 21.02.152 BMC. 2. Downtown Waterfront/Upland: a. Permitted: Water-dependent uses; water-related uses; water-enjoyment uses, as defined herein, which may include museums, restaurants, and mixed-use commercial. b. Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Permit: Commercial parking lots, consistent with the following criteria: 1) The parking lot is designed and managed for use by visitors and patrons of uses within the downtown waterfront, and not available for employee parking. 2) Parking stalls and drives are set back at least 25 feet from the OHWM. 3) The site plan features significant amenities and access to the shoreline. 4) The permit shall expire unless renewed every five (5) years. ge Downtown Waterfront/Marine Environment: a. Permitted: Water-dependent uses; water-related uses. b. Permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit: Over-water restaurants; aquariums; floating maritime museums (e.g. ships open to the public for tours); other water- 2Since they are not specifically prohibited, non-water-oriented uses may also be permitted by CUP where not over the water. 10 Sh oreHn e Master Program enjoyment uses, as defined herein: PROVIDED, Approval of such uses is contingent upon compliance with the following criteria: 1) The use provides an opportunity for a substantial number of people to enjoy the waterfront area. For restaurants and aquariums, access to and on the seawardside of the structure shall be provided for patrons and the public. 2) Large ships open to the public for tours should be located north of Burwell Street, to prevent degradation of views from the downtown business core. 3) Restaurants and aquariums shall not exceed seventy-five (75) feet in width, and not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OI-IWM). 4) All structures shall be designed to be attractive and unobtrusive. 5) The structures shall be built on pilings or float. Landfill waterward of the OI-IWM is not allowed. 6) The use is compatible with water-dependent uses of the area. Evaluation of compatibility will consider: a) Demands for the site by water-dependent uses (e.g. ferry terminal, foot ferry, shipyard); b) The effect on the usefulness of adjacent areas for water-dependent uses; c) The probability of attracting additional desirable water-dependent or undesirable non-water-dependent uses; d) Subsidies or other help offered by the developer to support nearby water-dependent uses. 11 Shoreline Master Program Development Standards The matrix and illustrations which follow outline Master Program development standards for various Environment and Natural System designations. These figures are intended to supplement the Use/Activity requirements in subsequent chapters. Table 3-2 Site Development Standards The Site Development Standards matrix (Table 3-2) summarizes development standards for structures located within each environment designation. The intent of these requirements is to provide limited view protection for nearby public and private areas and to help protect thc shoreline environment. (See also: View Protection requirements, Chapter Figure 3-3 View Corridor Examples Figure 3-3 shows a "bird's eye" view of the Figure 3-3 View Corridor requirements as applied to lots that are 40 - 90 feet wide. Figure 3-4 View Corridor/Height Requirements Figure 3-4 gives a cross-section example of the Figure 3-3 View Corridor and Height requirements as applied to lots varying from 40 to 90 feet in width. (The maximum heights correspond with Bremerton Zoning Ordinance height limits for structures in the SF-1, SF- 2 and SF-3 zones.) SECTION 4. Chapter 3, Table 3-2 of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating site development standards is hereby amended to read as stated in Exhibit A attached hereto. SECTION5. Chapter 4, Table 4-1 of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to public access requirements is hereby amended to read as stated in Exhibit B attached hereto. 12 Shoreline Master Program SECTION 6. Chapter 5, use category "Commercial Development" of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program is hereby amended to read as follows: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Applicability Commercial developments: Those uses which are involved in wholesale and retail trade or business activities. Commercial developments range from small grocery stores to high-rise office buildings, and include hotels and restaurants. Commercial development does not include any activity for which a Home Occupation Permit is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance. Goal Encourage adequate commercial development of the kind that can be integrated with the shoreline environment and can benefit from a shoreline location. Policies 1. Commercial development in shoreline areas should be water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment uses. In general, non-water-oriented activities should be located upland, away from the shoreline and landward of the top of the bluff. 2. Locate commercial development to maximize the enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of patrons, or for the general public. 3. Locate parking, circulation, and other elements of a commercial development so as not to interfere with visual quality and visual or physical access to the shoreline. 4. Parking facilities should be placed inland, away from the immediate water's edge and recreational beaches. 5. Development over the water which interrupts normal public use of the water surface should be discouraged, except when such development is shown to be an integral part of a plan promoting public access. 13 Shoreline Master Program 67. View Protection: Design commercial development to be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area. Structures should not significantly impact water views from upland properties, public roadways or other public areas, nor views of the shoreline from the water. Public Access: a. Require commercial development to provide physical and/or visual public access to the shoreline or other opportunities for the public to enjoy the shorelines of the state. b. Design resorts and commercial recreational developments to maximize public access to the shoreline and water areas. c. Design commercial developments to provide maximum public access to the shoreline and water areas, unless it is demonstrated to be physically infeasible or unsafe. Regulations 1. Water-oriented commercial developments shall be permitted on the shoreline in accordance with Table 3-1 - Shoreline Use/Activity Matrix. Non-water-oriented commercial developments may be permitted by Conditional Use Permit when in accordance with said Table 1 and other provisions of this Master Program, only where it can be demonstrated that: a. A water-oriented use is not reasonably expected to locate on the proposed site due to topography, surrounding land uses, physical features, or due to the site's separation from the water. b. The proposed use does not usurp or displace land currently occupied by a water- oriented use and will not interfere with adjacent water-oriented uses; and c. The proposed use will be of appreciable public benefit by increasing public use, enjoyment or access to the shoreline. 2. Commercial uses that are proposed for shoreline locations will be evaluated individually for their visual impact, waterfront relationship to the shoreline, and potential to enhance public access, direct and visual, to the shoreline. 14 Shoreline Master Program Parking shall be upland of the associated use whenever possible, and located, designed and screened so as to have minimum visual impact. When parking or circulation elements must be located adjacent to the shoreline, they shall be designed to enable pedestrians access to and along the shoreline. Commercial development shall provide landscaping which is appropriate for the scale of structure and accessory use, such as parking area. Such landscaping shall consider the visual impact on adjacent properties. Public Access Requirements: Commercial use developments shall provide public access as follows: a. All commercial developments: "General public access" to the water, as specified in the Public Access regulations. b. In addition, all commercial developments on lots adjacent to the water's edge shall provide "improved public access" to and along the shoreline. (See Public Access use/activity section.) c. In Downtown Waterfront environment: Public access shall be provided in accordance with a.~ ~^~,~a r~ ..... ~ ..... ur~,~.-r~_, T T.~.~. r~ ....... ' Pla Ch pt 21.02.152 BMC. SECTION 7. Severabili~. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (1 O) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2002 PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2002 CAROL ARENDS, Council President 15 Shoreline Master Program Approved this day of ,2002 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attomey PUBLISHED the EFFECTIVE the ORDINANCE NO. day of day of ,2002 ,2002 R:\LEGAL\Ordinances',Community Development\SMP - Downtown Improvement.doc 16 Shoreline Master Program EXHIBIT A TABLE 3-2 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Page 1 of 34_) ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION SHORELINE VIEW HEIGHT 4 SETBACK ~ CORRIDOR z URBAN CONSERVANCY Utility Lands 25' 6 25' 3 Other 25' 60% 2, 3 25' 3 Over-Water 8 NA NA 10' 5 RESIDENTIAL Detached Dwelling Unit 25' 25-40% 2-, 3 25' 3 Attached or Stacked 25' or 15% of 30% 2, 3 25' 3 Dwelling Units parcel depth ~ Over-Water 8 NA NA 15' 5 COMMERCIAL Water-Dependent 0' 2, 3 35' 3 Water-Related 25' 2, 3 35' 3 Water-Enjoyment 25' 2, 3 35' 3 Non-Water-Oriented 50' 2, 3 35' 3 Over-Water 6 NA NA 35' 5 DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT ;~25,12 7 7 INDUSTRIAL Water-Dependent 0' ~ 35' 3 Water-Related 35' s 35' 3 Over-Water 9 NA NA 35' 5 NATURAL SYSTEMS Kitsap Lake NA NA NA Kitsap Lake Wetlands (Upland) CUP lO CUP lo CUP ~o Tracyton Beach (Marine) NA NA NA CUP = SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT · NA = NOT APPLICABLE 7o EXHIBIT A TABLE 3-2 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Page 2 of 3~_) KEY I REQUIREMENT 1 Shoreline Setback -- Minimum setback for structures landward of OHWM: PROVIDED, that an activity adjacent to a marine bluff may be subject to a special marine bluff review resulting in a greater setback. EXCEPTIONS: As provided in Bremerton Zoning Ordinance Chapter IV. Section 1 ,C. Front Yards: Intrusions into Required Setbacks.3 2 View Corridor -- A view corridor shall be maintained across a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the average parcel width, as provided in Requirement #3 (below). a. The corridor must be in one continuous piece. b. Structures, parking areas and landscaping may be allowed within the corridor, provided that they do not impair existing water views from the nearest public street landward of the site nor from adjoining uses. 1) "Adjoining uses" are uses on property that touches or is directly across a street from the subject property. 2) The applicant shall obtain signatures of all adjoining property owners who do not object to the proposal in order to verify that a proposal will not impair adjoining water views. c. EXCEPTIONS may be permitted by Conditional Use Permit. 3 Height/View Corridor -- Structure height may be increased to designated zoning district height limit if the increase does not impair views of the water from residential properties upland of the nearest public street landward of the site; and a. Either: The increased height is offset by an increase in the minimum View Corridor width as follows: Buildin.q Heiqht View Corridor Width Under 20 feet: 25% 20-35 feet: 35% Over 35 feet:4 40% (See also: Figure 3-5 View Corridor Requirements; and Figure 3-6 View Corridor/Height Requirements.) b. Or: The increase is offset by maintaining comparable portions of the structure lower than the designated height limit. 4 Height Landward of OHWM -- Maximum height above Average Grade Level, unless otherwiSe specified. 5 Height Waterward of OHWM -- Maximum height above Extreme High Water (EHW) [15.4 ft. elevation along the Bremerton shoreline]. 6 View Corridor Exception -- No Shoreline Master Program requirement; Zoning Ordinance, -rDc';:ntc:vn Watc.'f. mnt U~an Rcnc'::a! P!an, or other applicable land use regulations apply. 3The shoreline yard is considered to be a second "front yard" for purposes of determining what intrusions may be permitted in the shoreline setback. Fences are permitted within the shoreline yard in residential zones as provided by Zoning Ordinance Section 8. "Fences and Walls" (maximum height - three (3) feet; open mesh cyclone type fence - 42 inches). 4Heights above thirtyfive (35) feet are permitted only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. (RCW 90.58.320) EXHIBIT A TABLE 3-2 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Page 3 of 34) KEY REQUIREMENT 7 Downtown Waterfront -- Height/View CorridorA~ r~?, ,__qc+.cd~h" ~v..,..v..,,r~ ..... ~ ..... ~^t~,~,~r~.. ~.v, ,. v, ,. ~ ~'~ ~. ~,, HeiRht a. Maximum structure hei.qht shall be as provided in BMC 21.02.152(b) Development Standards (DW Zone). View Corridor a. A view corridor shall be provided and maintained across a minimum of 20% of the avera.qe site width re,qardless of structure hei,qht and shall be subiect to the provisions of 2 a.-c. above. b. In lieu of providin.q a view corridor as specified in a., the applicant may choose either of the foliowin.q means to enhance shoreline view access: 1) provide physical public access on the shoreline side of the site equal in area to the amount of site that otherwise would be set aside for a view corridor in a.; this physical access shall be provided as waterfront open space, terraces, decks, or similar access features open to the public at all times; or 2) pay a public access acquisition fee to any dedicated account established by the City for the sole purpose of acquidnR and/or enhancin.q physical and/or visual shoreline access in the DW Zone throu,qh easement or fee simple title, the amount equal to 50% of the assessed value of the site area that otherwise would be set aside for a view corridor in a. above; if this fee is not used to acquire and/or enhance physical and/or visual shoreline access within 10 years~ it shall be refunded to the property owner; or c Any combination of a, b(1) and b(2) may be utilized to satisfy the view corridor requirements set forth herein. 8 Over-Water Environments -- No structures, other than moorage structures or public access piers, may be waterward of the OHWM. 9 Over-Water Industrial Environments -- No structures, other than moorage structures, public access piers, or industrial water-dependent structures, may be waterward of the OHWM. 10 Kitsap Lake Wetlands -- To be determined as a condition of approval of Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 11 Multifamily Shoreline Setback -- Whichever setback is greater.5 1_~2 Shoreline Access -- Open space in the form of landscapin,q, walkways, terraces, restaurant decks, and similar features accessible to the public that enhance public enjoyment of the, shoreline environment is allowed as a permitted use within the setback area. To enhance access by the public to the shoreline environment, parkin,q is allowed as a permitted use within the setback area when ancillary to a primary use, accessible to the .qeneral public, concealed from shoreline views, and contained within the support structure of open space features. 5Research into early drafts of this provision confirms that the intent of this provision was for the greater shoreline setback to apply. This provision assumes that larger buildings will be located on larger lots with room for larger setbacks. This is consistent with the height/view corridor principle that taller buildings provide a wider view corridor. EXHIBIT A TABLE 3-2 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (PaQe 4 of 4} KEY REQUIREMENT CUP Conditional Use Permit -- Permitted subject to approval of Conditional Use Permit, NA Not Applicable. EXHIBIT B TABLE 4-1 PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS (Page 1 of 2) USE ACTIVITY GENERAL IMPROVED PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS PUBLIC PUBLIC (SUMMARY) ACCESS ACCESS AQUACULTURE F 1. Provide access or benefit to the public if feasible. ARCHEOLOGICAL & F F 1. Provide as required for associated use. HISTORIC 2. Design and manage to give maximum RESOURCES protection to resource. COMMERCIAL USES R R 1. Downtown Waterfront: In accordance with Renewa~O-la~Chapter 21.02.152 BMC. FOREST F 1. Provide along Shorelines of State-wide MANAGEMENT USES Significance: a. Roadside scenic view pullovers; b. Shoulder parking and pedestrian access to streams; LANDFILL * * 1. Provide as required for associated use. MARINAS R F 1. Provide along top of breakwater where feasible. MINING F F 1. Provide safe visual access when physical access not feasible. RECREATION USES R R 1. Motorized vehicular access to beaches, bars, spits and streambeds limited to boat launching and maintenance activities. 2. All-terrain and off-road vehicles permitted only where specific areas are set aside and controlled, and only when demand is sufficient to warrant such activity. 3. Golf courses: Provide public access for dispersed passive recreation. INDUSTRY USES R R 1. Provide visual and/or physical public access whenever feasible and safe. RESIDENTIAL USES R R 1. Exceptions: Multi-family developments, subdivisions, and planned unit developments of four (4) or less waterfront lots/units. TRANSPORTATION * * 1. Public Roads with Scenic Vistas: USES a. Viewpoint areas; b. Provisions for safe pedestrian and non-motorized vehicular travel through scenic corridors. SMP GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 4 - 1 EXHIBIT B USE ACTIVITY GENERAL IMPROVED PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS PUBLIC PUBLIC (SUMMARY) ACCESS ACCESS SHORE * * 1. Provide as required for associated use. MODIFICATION 2. Dikes and Levees: Provide linear public ACTIVITIES access when in public interest. Improved public access is preferred. 3. Breakwaters, Jetties, & Groins: Provide where feasible and safely compatible. 4. Bulkheads at public access sites: Provide for safe access to the water. UTILITIES R R 1. Provide for compatible multiple use of sites and rights-of-way, including physical and/or visual access points and trail systems. WATER ACCESS AND * * 1. Provide as required for associated use, MOORAGE consistent with scale of project. KEY: Required Required Where Feasible Special Requirements as Summarized SMP GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 4 - 2 CITY OF BREMERTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Determination of Nonsi nificance Date Issued: Date of Publication: November 4, 2002 November 5, 2002 ACTION: SEPA Review for City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Amenchnents. Tiffs is a "Non-Project Actioff'. PROPONENT: City of Bremerton Department of Connnm~ity Development 286 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 The Responsible Official of the City of Bremerton hereby makes the following Findings m~d Conclusions based upon a review of the Environmental Checklist, other flffomkation on file with the City of Bremerton, and the policies, plans and regulations that pertain to fltis proposal mid file substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to RCW 43.21.C. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed action constitutes certain mnendments to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program tlmt include the following: a. Delete reference to the "Do;amtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan" and b. Referencing a new "Downtown District" Ordinmlce (Section 21.02.152)1 that specifies development standards for the "Dowtown Wateffrom District" with regard to building height, view comdors, floor area ratios and other design stm~dards. 2. The Donmtown Waterfront District is situated along the west shore of the Port Waskington Narrows and is bounded on the south by PSNS, on the west by the west side of Waslfington Avenue, on the north by the ex'tension of Sixth Street waterward, mid on fl~e east by the outer harbor lh~e. The Downto'am Waterfront designation is divided into two sub-areas; Upland (DW/U) mid Marine (DW/M). 3. The development regulations set forth in the "Downtown Wateffrom Urban Renewal Plan" (DWU-RP), wlfich was adopted in 1989 are outdated mid not consistent with the City's plans for development of the downtown waterfront area. 4. The proposed amendments will promote optimmn utilization of the downtown shoreline by encouraging pedestrian waterfront activities mid providing visual and physical access to shoreline enviromnent for the public. 5. The associated Downtown Waterfrom District regulations are essemially the same as those that were the subject of a SEPA Checklist and Detern~kation of Nonsignificance issued on Jtme 19, 2001. 6. An Enviro~m~ental Checklist was prepared for tiffs proposal, which is dated November 4, 2002. 7. Tiffs is a "non-project action" involving revisions to the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. As such, the proposed action will not lmve significant enviro~m~ental impacts. Development applications submitted pursuant to the proposed regulations will be required to undergo SEPA review on a case-by-case basis, thereby providing an opportunity for review of specific enviromnental impacts. CONCLUSIONS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Responsible Official concludes, based upon a review of the proposal and a review of City regulations govenfing the proposal, flkat tiffs non-project action does not lmve a probable sig~fificm~t adverse impact on the environment. An enviromnental impact statement (EIS) is not required m~der RCW 43.21.C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed enviromnental checklist and olher information on file with the lead agency. This infommtion is available to the public upon request. This Detennination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued pursumat to WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on tiffs proposal for 14 days from the date of publication. Comments must be submitted by closing of the comment deadline. The Responsible Official will reconsider the DNS based upon timely colmnents mad may retain, modifs', or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be fi~ml after fl~e ex~piration of the comment deadline. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Clu-istopher R. Hugo, Director Depamnent of Community Development City of Bremerton 286 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98337 STAFF CONTACT: Jim Svensson, Developlnem Manager, Phone: (360) 478-7986 DATE OF ISSUE: November 4, 2002 DATE OF PUBLICATION: November 5, 2002 COMMENT DEADLINE: November 19, 2002 ~R. Hugol Responsible Official NOTE: Pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.075 and City of Bremerton environmental regulations (BMC Chapter 21.12), decisions of the Responsible Official may be appealed. Appeals must be filed with the appropriate fees at the Deparlanent of Conunurdty Development located at tl~e Bremerton Permit Center, 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton, 98337. Appeals must be filed no later thma fourteen days from the publication date of this notice. If you appeal, you should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Minutes for Approval Planning Commission Special Meeting November 14, 2002 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:32 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Buckingham, Commissioner Cockbum, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Wood. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kosusko introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Buckingham and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to approve the agenda as written. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Dingficld: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes, and Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved. IV. Approval of Minutes The October 15, 2002, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner Kosusko. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Dingfield to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Minutes approved as corrected. V. Public Meeting Chairman Kosusko moved directly to the call to the public portion. A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing no comments from the public, Commissioner Kosusko moved onto the public meeting portion. Public Meeting 1. Public Hearing: a. Commissioner Kosusko then opened the meeting up for public hearing. PL02-0063 - To perform a text amendment to the Bremerton Municipal Code, Section 21.22.240. The proposal will remove criterion "(a)" from the Extraordinary Hardship Test located within the wetlands section of the Critical Lands Ordinance. Ms. Ralph presented on this item. She explained that this is a relatively small text amendment to the extraordinary hardship of our critical area ordinance dealing specifically with wetlands. The idea behind an extraordinary hardship test in the Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 1 of 20 78 wetland section of that ordinance is - if someone has a legally established parcel and the requirements of that section deny all reasonable economic use of the parcel, that if they can meet this list of criteria - then they can do something on that parcel to provide some economic use of the property. This is for us to avoid a regulatory taking. Currently there are seven different criteria in the extraordinary hardship test. It is our departments position that the first of the criteria under-minds the overall intent of the extraordinary hardship test. The last criterion isn't really a criterion at all, but more a directive statement that should be included in the first paragraph, which is the directive paragraph of the test. So this text amendment simply removes the first criterion which states that "the activity or use is a water dependent project that requires wetland access as an essential element of its function." The more directive statement that we propose to move to the introductory paragraph is "Diminished value shall not be considered on extraordinary hardship." Ms. Ralph said that was it and asked if the group had any questions. Commissioner Cockburn asked why we are looking at this [making this change]? Ms. Ralph answered that we are looking at this because we have an applicant who has a parcel that is subject to the extraordinary hardship test. It's a complicated code to get through until you actually get to the extraordinary hardship test. You have to go through a number of different places before you "have to pass the extraordinary hardship." At this point you must pass the extraordinary hardship before your project can go forward. Part of what is required is a wetland delineation report, a specialist being hired, going through the whole process. We did that and this applicant got to this point in the process where he has to pass the extraordinary hardship test and as we go through the criterion that make up the extraordinary hardship - this applicant meets all that first criteria. Or could meet all, but the first criteria prohibits that application. It just brought it to our attention. Not to say that this text amendment shouldn't happen regardless - but that is what brought it to our attention. Commissioner Cockburn asked that if we have a certain mount of wetlands, and there is a limited supply - wouldn't we want to have those properties just developed for something that was water-dependent? Not just a parking lot or something. Ms. Ralph said that if you look at the other criteria it would still make it so that you couldn't put a parking lot there. That is probably not the least intrusive thing you could do on that parcel. Our question was - on this small parcel, what could possibly be done that would be water dependent and you NEED a wetland for? This prompted a short discussion about water-dependent uses and economic benefit. Ms. Ralph stated that we are certainly not saying that we would encourage development in a wetland or its associated buffer by removing this criterion. This in NO WAY indicates that. We are saying that there is not a lot of water, wetland dependent projects that you can do that provide economic gain. Most parcels in the City are large enough that part of the parcel has upland property. So we would Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 2 of 20 require that the house or proposed project be put in the upland property. But for the very rare occasion that we get an application where that is not possible - then the extraordinary hardship test would kick in. It still has to go through all the different regulations that are applicable in the overall critical area ordinance which include: no net loss of wetland, mitigate on-site and off-site depending on what the proposal is and what it will actually impact. All those things are still applicable, but this extraordinary hardship test would be usable. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there were any other questions (from the commission). Seeing none, he asked if there were any comments from the public on this item. Seeing none, he then closed the public comment portion of the hearing and returned to discussion. Commissioner Wood stated that this proposal makes sense, especially removing criterion (g) because it is not really criterion. It seems pretty straight forward. Commissioner Buckingham stated that he agrees. It does seem pretty straight forward. He said that having criterion (a) as it was makes the test virtually impossible to apply. He says that he can see how it could put us in a position of creating a regulatory "taking." There is no point in having a test that no one can possibly meet. This seems like a reasonable thing to do. Commissioner Cockburn stated that he wasn't sure that in the case of critical lands that are wetlands - that we don't want to make it nearly impossible. And that if we are going to do something that takes this wetland and develops it that we do want to make it as hard as possible. If it is truly a wetland that we do want to make it something that is related to the wetlands. So we don't just have something that could fit and have a better economic fit on some other property that isn't so critical. Commissioner Kosusko asked if would be possible to retain this first element but rewrite it. Instead of saying "water dependent project" it's doesn't have to be water related, it just has to be something that is not detrimental. This prompted a lively discussion. Commissioner Dingfield said that it seems that people wanting to develop a piece of property have to go through a number of other hoops before they get to this hoop. She said that she doesn't have any fears about the critical wetlands being threatened by taking that criterion off because the standards are pretty high. If they are impacted and mitigation has to occur then you are still going to meet the intent of wetlands. The properties and the intent are going to be protected. Commissioner Nelson concurred. He said that his concern would be that people wouldn't be able to develop on wetlands if it is determined to be that. Certainly this test won't allow that to happen. It seems to be pretty straight forward as far as he is concerned. The change in language seems to be appropriate. He said that he could not visualize a water dependent project. This again prompted a short discussion of what that would be - but no one could think of one that would provide economic benefit. Mr. Hugo asked Ms. Ralph if there were any examples in the text. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 3 of 20 Ms. Ralph said that there are no examples in the text. She said that she had done some research with other municipalities and this criterion reads a lot like something you would read in the Shoreline Master Program variance process. In that process you Can have water dependent uses, such as a marina or boat launch. She said that she couldn't find any municipality that had anything even remotely like this. Aside from conservancy places that have trails and such through wetlands - the only examples of those are pretty large scale, high end wetlands, she could think of no other water dependent uses requiring a wetland. In the case of our applicant, we're talking about a tenth of an acre of wetland. It is a very small site, very little is economically feasible. Even the idea of access, it is true it could be a water dependent use but it wouldn't provide any economic benefit. No, aside from a larger wetland or use as a nature reserve she hasn't found any examples. Commissioner Cockburn asked if the entire tenth of an acre was a wetland. Ms. Ralph answered, "Yes." In fact, more of the site is a wetland but a tenth of an acre is the part that would be disturbed. Commissioner Cockburn stated that some property that is a wetland never will be developed. He then shared that he personally inherited one sixth of a farm along Ebby Sloe. With the change in drainage for generations it had been dyke property. It was allowed to be flooded and became a wetland. We couldn't keep it with its original source and had to sell it to the city as a park. We just couldn't maintain development on that property. It was a wetland - my grandfather destroyed the wetland to put a farm on it. Some property is not developable. Ms. Ralph responded by saying that there are parcels that will still not be developable. Those properties will not pass the rest of the criteria. But this particular parcel is next door to a single family home and is proposed to be a single family home. There is possibility of only one other parcel in that area being developed without being sub-divided and if the others were short platted or long platted we would make the wetland protection a criteria. There are a lot of methods to protect wetlands. This is the desperation measure. When it gets down to this one they can either do nothing on a legally short platted lot or we allow them to do as little as possible and seize some economic gain. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there are provisions elsewhere for replacing a wetland that is disturbed. Ms. Ralph said that yes. We have a zero net loss policy, so that should still be the case - whether they are increasing the value and function of a wetland on site or they are doing off-site mitigation. Mr. Hugo asked Ms. Ralph to talk briefly about what the wetlands report suggested could be done - even though we don't like to focus on specific projects as we are proposing legislative changes. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 4 of 20 Ms. Ralph explained that the case we're dealing with is an after-the-fact permitting process. This applicant received a building permit from our office without indicating on his original application that he was building on a wetland. So we started some code enforcement. She went out and walked around and it is definitely a wetland. We sat down with this applicant, and she has talked extensively with his wetland specialist. The specialist has done a lot to reconnect the hydrology of this parcel. It is across the street from the park at Kitsap Lake. It is a very difficult scenario. She said that when she first saw it she could not have guessed that it was a type one wetland. There are four different qualities of wetland and this one is the top of those classifications. It is a type one wetland because it used to be forested. It also has been disturbed already because of what the neighbors have done to it. So this wetland report and some of the mitigations that will be required if we give him the wetland permit would be: reconnecting the hydrology; putting notice to the title so that it will be a permanent deed restrictions and always be a wetland and its associated buffers; and some suggestions of near off-site things that could potentially be done. The report was quite extensive. We are talking to the Department of Fisheries and Tribes about different things that can be done to mitigate this site. The applicant is a relatively young contractor and has had no experience with wetlands before and getting a dramatic crash course. The Army Corp of Engineers has permitted the filling of this tenth of an acre requiring some low impact development things for reducing the impervious surface and footprint of the house. A motion was made by Commissioner Buckingham and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to recommend to the City Council for approval of text amendment PL02-0063. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockbum: no; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Motion cames. Draft Ordinance - Shoreline Master Program Amendments - Proposed Ordinance which would amend Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to downtown waterfront site development standards regarding shoreline setbacks, view corridors, and height restrictions in the Downtown District. Mr. I-Iugo presented on this draft ordinance. He started with a brief history of downtown regulation changes. Beginning in late summer 2000 the City started looking at new downtown policies and regulations, which the Planning Commission was a part of since last year we were engaged in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan revisions. That package included the downtown development policies and the proposed downtown regulations. The policies and regulations were broken apart mid- year 2001 and the regulations were set aside. The policies went forward and were accompanied by Peter Calthorp's work - policies and Illustrative Plan, which was adopted by Council last November or December. The regulations have been sitting there every since. As we begin looking at adopting the regulations recommended by the Planning Commission, we discovered some linkages - the zoning references to the shoreline environment in the downtown waterfront district went all the way back to the DWURP (Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan). The DWURP was Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 5 of 20 initially adopted in 1989 [pre GMA]. In 1998, the Council readopted and essentially asserted that the 1989 plan was an "okay" GMA compliant plan. Mr. Hugo stated that he had always had concerns about that and the City Attorney agreed. The planning department and legal staff reviewed these issues and have brought the downtown development regulations before you (Planning Commission) again to affirm them. We took out the DWURP and moved forward the downtown development regulation package, but forgot about the shoreline package. This is the draft ordinance before you now - amendments to the Shoreline regulation, which took some of the things fi.om the DWURP and put them into the Shoreline Master Program where they are easier to access and understand. There was quite a large package of changes. Most of the changes were taking out the reference to the DWURP. Whenever we took out the reference to the DWURP and the substantive provisions of the standards for development, they need to go into the Shoreline Master Program and these are the focus of this draft ordinance. Mr. Hugo directed the commission to page twelve of the draft ordinance. Table 3-2 is the meat of the shoreline programs when it comes to development standards. There is a figure that goes along with Table 3-2, which is the critical piece - Exhibit A, at the end of the draft ordinance. He then directed everyone to look at Exhibit A. About 2/3 the way down the table [Key #1-3], we come to the environment that the DWURP and all these things were intertwined about - the downtown waterfront environment. Within the downtown waterfi'ont environment there are specifications for setback, view corridor, and height. The proposed setback is 25. The view corridor item goes to Key #7. This is probably the most substantive part of this whole proposal. Referring to Key #7, he stated that in the past the downtown waterfront environment had the same view corridor requirements as other places in the city - where there was a relationship between building height and the amount of setback required. As the buildings got higher the setback had to be greater. In that very intensive downtown urban environment where we want to get a lot of development intensity like the Calthorp illustration showed, we don't want much openness. We want residential character development intensity. In the Calthorp plan, all the development sites along Washington had buildings along them on the entire fi'ontage. The only penetration was not on private property - it was on public street ends. That was the only way to get to the water. The proposal is to devise various ways to enhance public access to the shorelines environment. Not just through that strict band-aid of taking away development opportunity and development intensity by increasing the width of the view corridor as you go higher. Mr. Hugo then read fi.om the draft ordinance the three ways that you can still develop and enhance public access [Exhibit A, Key 7, a., b., and c.]: A view corridor shall beprovided and maintained across a minimum of 20% of the average site width regardless of structure height and shall be subject to the provisions of 2 ~-c. above. ' Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 6 of 20 He explained that this is important - that we start out by saying that a view corridor shall be provided and maintained. This is the first thought we establish in a potential developer's mind. We are starting out with the premise of a view corridor. Then "2 a.- c. above, there, is talking about Key 2 on the previous page, which speaks to how to manage that view corridor environment. Then under "b." it is saying "BUT, we're going to give you some outs." The idea of a view corridor is still a primary objective of the public. He then read directly from the draft ordinance [Exhibit A, Key 7. b.] In lieu of providing a view corridor as specified in a., the applicant may choose either of the following means to enhance shoreline view access: 1) provide physical public access on the shoreline side of the site equal in area to the amount of site that otherwise would be set aside for the view corridor in a.; this physical access shall be provided as waterfront open space, terraces, decks, or similar access features open to the public at all times; or Mr. Hugo explained that he believed this to be a big idea. He says that this is really a good thing for any shoreline. Instead of having that view penetration through a site, they can actually occupy that ground provided that they give the public physical access to an equal amount of area on the shoreline - and give them that access, unimpeded, 24 hours a day. It is the same amount of geography and we are giving it to people physically, to occupy the space - not just to look through it, but to actually get closer to the water and occupy the space. pay a public access acquisition fee to any dedicated account established by the City for the sole purpose of acquiring and/or enhancing physical and/or visual shoreline access in the D W Zone through easement or fee simple title, the amount equal to 50% of the assessed value of the site area that otherwise would be set aside for a view corridor in a. above; if this fee is not used to acquire and/or enhance physical and/or visual shoreline access within 10 years, it shall be refunded to the property owner; or" c. Any combination ora, b(1) and b(2) may be utilized to satisfy the view corridor requirements set forth herein. ' Mr. Hugo gave an example of the 50% of the assessed valuation. EXAMPLE: If you had a waterfront property and if you could access some surplus land next door, such as a right-of-way [there is a State law that says that you cannot do that - but for the purpose of example] - our way of coming up with a value for that is to use 50% of the assessed value. This provision speaks to a developer willing to "buy his way out of this. You can do it for 50% of the assessed value of the property that you want to occupy that otherwise would be a view corridor. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 7 of 20 We have ten years to figure out how to structure this provision if we do this and buy additional property in the same environment. There are some places that the City is looking at - we just don't have the money to do it. This option is not operative unless we set up a dedicated fund. That fund has to be based on some deliberate plan that we have. There does need to be an action plan to do this. We can't just set up a fund for the purpose of holding money for ten years and then give it back at the end often years because we didn't have a clue what we were really up to. There has to be a plan in place before we set up the fund. Then the fund becomes the tool that gets us to where our plan says we want to go. Right now we don't have that - so that is not an option today. For that to be a workable option, we have more work to do over the next year or so. However, we are setting up the philosophical framework so that if the community does additional work and sets up that plan in a workable way, that this could be another option. Commissioner Kosusko asked where that requirement was. He stated that the language for it was not here [in the draft ordinance]. Mr. Hugo explained that it is just the way the law works. You cannot just take people's money for no purpose. You must have a stated purpose and action plan. The Council will not set up a dedicated fund for no deliberate purpose. They would ask, "Okay, we're taking people's money. What are we going to use it for?" Therefore, we wouldn't even propose it. We would have to know exactly why we're collecting this money. We would have to have some target sites, which would be in our plan. Our plan is a too general fight now. We would have to have an urban design plan - which will probably come out of the work that Terry Records is doing for the City fight now with Gary Sexton's office. He is working on a scheme to do some of the urban design refinements that were missed at Peter Calthorp's more global look at downtown. That urban design scheme will come up with some opportunities sites. If we adopt that, then we can set up a fund which would enable us to go after some developer money to add to some City money and acquire some sites or easements. These sites could be along the waterfront or through properties. Mr. Hugo asked the commission if there were any questions regarding the view corridors section of the proposal. Commissioner Wood asked why there is a need to set up this kind of a senario - to give developers the opportunity not to provide a view corridor. She wanted to know how this would benefit us (City of Bremerton)? Mr. Hugo explained that if there is a site at a major street end that is already there - it would be better if the public views are already adequate, to get near the site where the street ends. There is a place along the waterfront now where a street end was vacated some time ago. So there is a long stretch where there is n_~o penetration. We could use this money to go back and get an enhanced penetration there. Or there is another place that the administration has its eye on, for a public park along Washington. This would be a fairly large development site between two streets. We would try to buy that whole site and preclude development entirely. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 8 of 20 Commissioner Wood asked if we would do this instead of having additional open space privately, since the City is cash poor. Instead of doing both -having the developer have their own open space and provide this other open space through the City? Mr. Hugo stated that this would be their (Planning Commission) call because this is a policy matter. For Bremerton, the waterfront is our most marketable thing fight now to stimulate the economy and get downtown going. If we commit a third of our waterfront to open space, we may be loosing an opportunity. This is a value call - you, as the body to recommend policy and the Council, as the body to adopt policy must decide the short and long term trade-offs here. Some communities allow fairly intensive development all along the waterfront. It is an urban active area with the focus tending to be right at the water's edge. He mentioned a promenade - there is the water's edge and then some formal landscape and some public related uses, such as restaurants. It is a fairly, well-defined area - and this is what constitutes the desired waterfront environment. He went on to say that there are other places where all uses is pushed back a couple hundred feet, maybe even a city block and then expanses of just green. We need to ask ourselves "What's the value system? What's the context? What are we trying to accomplish?" He said that he could not answer that for them (Planning Commission). Commissioner Kennedy had a question about Exhibit A - between the requirement of downtown waterfront and then on Table 3-2 on the height/view corridor. It appears that one applies to downtown and the other one does not - three versus seven. She said that she understood seven, but she doesn't know where three applies. Mr. Hugo explained that seven applies city-wide. He explained that there are three pages. He referred the group to Exhibit A, page one "Site Development Standards - there are "2" and "3" sprinkled throughout the table. Once you find out which environment you are in, you look to the standards and footnotes. Commissioner Kennedy then understood and said that the "Commercial" heading is what confused her. She assumed that commercial applications would also be in the downtown area. There was then a short discussion of the table and maps that define the downtown area, which is from the Shipyard up to 6th Street and from Washington to Pacific. Commissioner Buckingham said that he was concemed about the language being consistent. He read from Table 3-2, 7 a. under View Corridor, which refers to provisions of 2 a-c, "A view corridor shah be provided and maintained across a minimum of 20% of the .... "Then he read from Table 3-2, a.-c. "A view corridor shall be maintained across a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%)... ". He said that it is 25% versus 20%. Mr. Hugo explained that he was not reading from a, he was reading from two. Two a.-c. doesn't include that first statement. He explained that he had gone over this Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 9 of 20 with the City Attomey and understood the confusion. There was a short discussion about confusing language and how we are getting closer to what we want. Commissioner Buckingham asked about the statement Mr. Hugo made about the administration having their eye on some potential properties that could replace what we might loose under this provision. He asked if those properties were located in the downtown waterfront zone as stated in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Hugo said yes. He explained further that that option says you must apply it "for the sole purpose of acquiring shoreline access in the DW zone." That is where this is. Mr. Hugo said that we have to be real deliberate about this or he could see this mechanism not being used. He explained again that the City doesn't want to be encumbered with setting up a fund to collect money for an undefined purpose - it becomes a management issue. He said that he doubted that this mechanism would ever be used. It will be there in case we come up with a good plan and there is an opportunity. It is either going to happen in the next five years or it isn't. Commissioner Buckingham asked where the 50 percent of assessed value of the site area that would be lost came from. If you have a piece of property and you're saying that 20 percent of the property needs to be view corridor, but we will let you get away with using all of that and not dedicating 20 percent as a view corridor if you pay us 50 percent of the assessed value of that 20 percent of the property you otherwise would have provided as a view corridor. Is that going to equitably provide us with the funds and the means to recover what we've lost here? Mr. Hugo said that you could probably do the mathematics of that and say no. There was a short discussion about this and the possible variables. Mr. Hugo explained that under the first two options the property owner is not actually loosing all benefit of their property. The occupants of the property still get to use that space. In the one case - if you can see through it, you could probably still put parking under it. In the other case - you give the public 24 hour access and the residences of the property still have access. In the other case you are taking some value and transferring it somewhere else. You get more use of the site but they don't necessarily get the benefit of the open space. There may be an argument to be made here for the public interest. Commissioner Coekburn asked about Key 12 on Table 3-2, parking in the setback areas, ".... concealed from shoreline view." Does this mean that it has to be underground? Mr. Hugo explained that what has guided us all along is our current development activity. How do we make these things work when we have ambitions that are broadly expressed in the community, as expressed in our plan and reinforced with good attendance and comments through the last year of public participation? We have a project that needs to handle a lot of parking down there - we're trying to figure out how to allow that project, which has been displayed around in the community and has always shown parking in it. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 10 of 20 He explained further that fight in this one location there are two vertical elements of the project. There is a hotel and a conference center/office building. Then there is a opening-fan type feature that draws the public off Washington down to the waterfront. Underneath all of that, and particularly the two low-rise parts, there is three levels of parking. The lowest level is a half a floor of parking and then two floors above that. In one case that parking gets really close to the shoreline edge. So the language that was put in to literally "not kill" the project says that you can park in that setback, but that you have to conceal the parking. What does that mean? This is going to be a big thing. Mr. Hugo explained that in the designs he has seen, he doesn't think that the parking is concealed. I have already brought that to the attention of the project team. Concealed means concealed - you can't tell that it is parking. The other feature is that the parking cannot exist there just for the sake of parking - it has to provide a shoreline access benefit. So, if it is parking - it has to be lidded or something like a terrace or roof. It must be something that people can easily access and have more opportunity to be able to look out over the water. In this case with the marina there, being somewhat closer to the water and terraced out and being up high - being able to look down across the sailboats, etc. will be a nice urban, waterfront experience. He said that he is committed to making sure that we're not looking at cars. There was a short discussion about the meaning of concealed and Mr. Hugo's discussions with the project team. Mr. Hugo said that the mayor support the idea that we need design review standards. In the short term we are relying on all of our expectations for a great project, and great waterfront development. We need to pay attention to everything being shown and reminders of what these words and what the community's expectations are of a finished product. He said that he doesn't believe that anyone in this administration is expecting to see decks of cars. Commissioner Cockburn stated that if we are talking about this "walkable" city, which is a big part of the Comprehensive Plan - do they really need exposed parking down right where they should be walking? Mr. Hugo said that the performa of the project partly relies on that. There is a commitment to various occupants of the site [to provide parking]. The Public Facilities District (PFD) has operational requirements for parking. In fact, some of the money from the PFD is predicated on having parking to support the conference center and some of the money that was given was to pay for part of the parking. Kitsap Transit has parking associated with their commuter alternative transportation functions. The hotel needs parking for overnight guests. The restaurant there, is going to want parking because, fight now we are not a walkable downtown. We also have the burden of being a "ferry city." As good as that is, it also has its own unique demands on our community and our downtown - having to accommodate people who want to park downtown and take the ferry to jobs across the way. He said further that it is absolutely legitimate to be paying very close attention to this issue. It does affect the entrance to our community and the impression that we make. We have to find the balance point. We've tried to do a careful job in crafhng Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 11 of 20 and trying to respond to some of the current agenda and the community's interest in moving Bremerton forward, but also putting in language that is very rigid. Having design reviews will help. He further stated that the action he will take - when we are reviewing the project in our office [Planning Department]. We will stick with this and say, "What do you think concealed means? Let's go and look at the dictionary. It will say hidden, that means that I can't see it. I can see this. That doesn't work." After a short silence, Mr. Hugo said that this is the purpose of his report - for the Planning Commission to tell him if they are not confident that the language does that. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was anything more to present. Mr. Hugo said that yes - and he moved on to discuss height. From all of the history, the most constant thing in the downtown waterfront district in terms of height has been that draft downtown development code that said 60 feet in the DW Zone. During all the public review conversations - everything he recalled said that it would be something lower than that, more low-rise. Sixty feet, the way the state shorelines act defines height, would be from the average existing grade of the building site. This means that 60 feet would actually produce a lower height above Washington because as the train falls off and you take the average of a sloping hillside - that midpoint of the footprint of the building is going to be below the grade of Washington, between five to fifteen feet. So 60 feet would really only net a building 55 or maybe only 45 feet above the grade of Washington. He then explained that he has inserted another idea - as the train falls off, under the SMP (Shoreline Master Program), you could go 70 feet, but in no case more than 50 feet above the grade of Washington Avenue at any point. Even this became contentious. Mr. Hugo then tried to clarify what you would see along there if this were adopted. Residential stories of wood frame construction are typically ten feet. Commissioner Kosusko concurred. This is a problem, because as Washington trails offnorth to south and gets lower in elevation, if you said just a plain 50 feet or five stories - as soon as you start to drop away, you are starting to get higher than that. So it says "...five stories and five feet." You can go quite a distance before you have to drop your roof and drop a floor. You try to get enough run until you gain another five feet of drop along the street and that's when your building would have to drop a floor or you would be headed to six stories. Five stories plus five feet to account for that drop off of Washington as you go along the frontage plus the roof. That is still about 60 feet, expressed in different ways. Sixty feet is the number that we started with two years ago - so it's back to 60 feet. This is still contentious with some of the waterfront property owners. Commissioner Wood asked if the next time issues like this come before the Planning Commission there could be more graphics to help them visualize. She explained that it is difficult to see this in text and put it to some reality. Mr. Hugo said that he wished there were something that he could draw on now. He didn't think of that because he feels uncertain about the political environment of the Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 12 of 20 whole idea. The only part of this whole proposal that we are going to secure a lot more on is the building height issue. He said that this is a short-term proposal that the Commission will be revisiting by spring. There was a short discussion about the timing. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was any public input on this item. Rex Allen - 17317 145th Avenue NE, Woodinville, WA. He started with a couple of comments about the view corridor. There was some concern about the trade-off for the view corridor that was lost. How would that be compensated to the City? He said this was an interesting opportunity to see that, not as a loss - but by giving the opportunity for other means of satisfying public access with a deck or an overlook of some sort. That creates an opportunity for the developer to have some alternatives or options. It also, by utilizing that 20% of the lot area creates a city benefit to development like that. There is an increase in the tax base, and gaining the density that you [the City] are trying to achieve downtown. There is a greater economic incentive to get development started. There are these unseen benefits that you get from giving more flexibility to the use of that open space or view corridor requirement. He said that he, personally would like to see a couple more alternatives that would allow a little more flexibility. Providing public physical access, on the shoreline side is a great idea. And as was mentioned, it can be a multi-use in that the residence of a property can use that space as well. However, it is open to the public at all times so it creates a security issue for the residents. So you have to weigh those kinds of things from the developer's standpoint. Is it worth doing this if no one will buy these units adjacent to these lovely decks because they are afraid people are going to be looking in their windows all the time? Giving more of those kinds of opportunities to amend - you could select depending on the specific needs of your project. This would be a great benefit. It will have the impact of making those projects more feasible, rather than having to give up 20% of my developable area. That 20% is a hard thing to get past and those kinds of ideas would be a great benefit to making this program happen. On the height issue, he said that he was a little confused. Looking in here (the draft ordinance), he could not find the heights Mr. Hugo was discussing. He asked where he could find this information. Mr. Hugo explained that the height issued is defined in the downtown development regulations. That the definition is five stories plus five feet along Washington. Mr. Allen said that it is a good direction and that the closer you can get to what the building code will allow for wood frame construction, the easier it will be to get concurrence on that height. He said that it sounds like we're getting close to that and he agrees it is a good thing. He concluded by asking the Commission if they had any questions for him and availed himself as a consultant. Commissioner Kosusko told Mr. Allen that the group appreciated him coming and participating in the process. Mr. Hugo spoke briefly to the statement Mr. Allen made regarding the building code and being able to build wood frame over concrete and get to a height that the market seems to support and respond well to. We haven't adopted those Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 13 of 20 amendments to the UBC yet. That would be the next thing before we get into some of these residential projects - taking the example of several other cities and adopting their amendments, but they would be our amendments. Commissioner Wood asked how this draft ordinance meshes with our Comprehensive Plan and green space. Would the new Comprehensive Plan override this ordinance, or how would they work together? Mr. Hugo explained that when the Plan is adopted, essentially, it is an opportunity to revisit everything. That is why this height issue could very well come up again. Anyone that suggested that it should be higher than these - he has told them that the public record in adopting the Calthorp supported plan doesn't support that. There is no history of anything in any of the public comments over 60 feet. He has said that during the Comprehensive Plan update process there is another chance to come back and make a case for something else. He said he thinks this will be done. It's the same thing for anything else that is adopted in that plan, which will be the new direction of the City. At any level of specificity it is the new direction and we are duty bound to pursue that new direction through code revisions and spending. Commissioner Buckingham expressed concem about the language in Table 3-2, Key 7, 2). He said his concern is that with this language present, even though Mr. Hugo stated that it is ineffective because this account doesn't currently exist - is this going to pose an interpretive problem down the road? If we adopt this ordinance and someone tries to use this provision - would it cause a problem? We have included it as an option for developers. Should we just leave this language out? Mr. Hugo explained that it is very carefully worded language. He read directly from the draft ordinance, "Pay alee to ANY dedicated account established by the City for the sole purpose .... "It does not say "THE dedicated account...", so it is not suggesting that we have done this. This means that it is recognizing that it's an action that maybe hasn't taken place, but could be done at some future time. It is a very conditional opportunity. He shared an experience with a like situation regarding pedestrian pathways and how the mechanism worked. There was a short discussion about that experience and the delay in implementing and termination of the mechanism. Commissioner Kosusko had a questions regarding Table 3-2, 7 b. 1). He referred to a statement made by Mr. Allen and looked at it from a developer's stand-point. This section says it should be open to the public at all times. City parks are not open to the public at all times - why should a developer be encumbered the same way? I-Ie suggested that maybe it should be open to the public as administered by the Parks Department so that it is consistent with other public parks. Mr. Hugo stated that the waterfronts are open all the time. We have no constraints on them. Commissioner Kosusko asked if he could go out on the Boardwalk at 3:00 in the morning. Mr. Hugo said yes. Commissioner Kosusko stated that he cannot go to the little street-end park across the street from him after 10:00 pm. This spurred a discussion of city park hours and security issues; ferry traffic and 24-hour downtown. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 14 of 20 qt Mr. Hugo said that his mental image of this is that there is enough of a slope there that all of these things will have great separation and there will be some kind of landscaped wall and terraces that allows access. It will be providing a wider expanse of public accessible space. He said he is quite confident that it would be separated from the private use. The private tenants of the site still have a larger space to use right down in front of their place. Commissioner Wood said that it was hard for her to visualize the height restriction [Table 3-2, Key 3 b.] "The increase is offset bi}' maintaining comparable portions of the structure lower..." It almost sounds like we would have these low buildings that are solid and the only openings would be street ends to the waterfront. Or high buildings with little narrow slits of view corridor, the way it's written right now. She said that we need to be really careful. The process with the ferry terminal - people didn't really understand and now citizens complain that they can't really see the ferry going in. Possibly because they have a code restriction to cover up their HVAC on the roof, which made it higher, now you cannot see the flow of the ferry and that's a loss of a big amenity to our city. She asked if there was any way to designate the downtown waterfront for a different creative approach to allow case- by-case. She suggested a percentage scheme and tie the creative approach to it. Mr. Hugo said that he doesn't disagree with her comments but stated that we are a little late because we are now faced with a project that is about to come out of the ground. That project is dependent on us making up our minds now. Commissioner Wood said that it's too bad we didn't have more public showings of the process for that project. We could have talked about that earlier. Mr. Hugo explained that the way the Calthorp plan shows it is different that what you were talking about. During the Caithorp process was the planning time to deal with that. That scheme very clearly shows only street ends and all the buildings are full height, full street frontage, "U" shaped buildings and resort style. He said that he doesn't find the scheme to be very responsive to the opportunities, but that is what the public was shown. We can rethink that but this is a difficult time to do that because we have projects that are ready to go forward, including our own - based on that scheme. Commissioner Wood stated that if we don't think about it and do it right we are stuck with it for another eighty years. Mr. Hugo said that he was not suggesting that they (Planning Commission) shouldn't be thinking about it or that between now and when we update the Comprehensive Plan that they cannot bring some of these things back. He said that they are welcomed to do that. He said he didn't want to close off anything. Commissioner Dingfield stated that this is still giving choice. It offers a view corridor or an alternative or a combination. This does give the flexibility and gives the City an ability to work with developers. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 15 of 20 Mr. Hugo agreed with Commissioner Dingfield and said that we suffer from the lack of a real, detailed urban design plan with urban design mechanisms to implement it. Without that, we are doing okay - we could be doing better. Commissioner Cockburn had a question about Table 3-2, Key 7. b. 1). He asked if the developer allows access to the setback, can they build on the whole lot - the whole width of the lot? One would encompass the setback? Mr. Hugo stated that the standard scheme is one of two: 1) Taking part of the lot and saying we want a slice Hom Washington right through your lot down to the water; 2) You can occupy the full frontage of Washington, but down on the water side you have to have and equal amount of physically accessible space to the public. Commissioner Coekburn asked if- with the view corridor, the developer would have to give up the setback on the front plus the view corridor. He would not be able to build on the setback anyway. Right? Mr. Hugo explained that the setback is a shoreline setback, not a zoning setback. The zoning setback is zero. They could very well already be back 25 feet from the shoreline with their property line. The shoreline setback and the zoning setback are two different things. So they could develop their whole site. He acknowledged that this was a very good point, but it is okay. Commissioner Nelson stated that in the interest of becoming a better student of development standards, he would like to see more visuals. He then said that he supports this proposed ordinance as it moves us forward on a very important project for the City and for the downtown area. He acknowledged that the design aspects are going to be a challenge for the developers. Mr. Hugo responded that they (Planning Commission) deserves to have better imagery that supports these ideas and that the department is still under some workload stress. However, on this item - since there is going to be more focus on the height issues, he said he is trying to hold to the record of what was taken through the public process. He wants to reserve any comments on whether it was good or bad because it is the public's ideas and public regulations that the department has to stand behind. He has suggested to people that have another idea about these regulations that they get very visual. He has asked them to submit 3-dimensional to the Planning Commission and the City Council. He said that the Commission will be able to see the scale-bulk relationships, impact to development schemes on what you experience when you can hold up the model and twist it and see it from different vantages. He gave several examples of locations where this would be critical. Commissioner Dingfield asked if something can be added. She wanted to introduce an idea so that as the City is working with major or government developers we begin to consider this. She referred the group to page 11 of the draft ordinance. Item number two, "2) Large ships open to the public for tours should be located north of Burwell Street,..." Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 16 of 20 She wanted the group to consider adding the phrase, "or south of the transportation center." She said that this is a major policy issue and that we, as a community, can be real clear about that. She stated that south of the terminal would be a highly desirable option. This sparked a short discussion of the Turner Joy and connecting it with the purposed museum. Commissioner Kosusko referred to a statement made by Commissioner Wood. He said that the parking is concealed behind a cement wall. Yes, we can have a concrete wall even if there's not parking behind it. A next step we need to take is defining either articulation, materials or just design review over what happens facing our shorelines. This same definition should be done for the whole downtown environment - we designate primary pedestrian streets and really talk about things like how much openness there is to a facade, articulation, fronting the sidewalk, etc. Mr. Hugo stated that in the development policies that are adopted - there are primary pedestrian streets. The policy states those. Right now our regulations try to pursue that but they are weakened by the current economic environment. There is so much desire to see something happen that adhering to the highest expectations is not politically going to happen. Commissioner Nelson asked about the idea of revisiting this. He asked, in Mr. Hugo's opinion, how much development will happen between now and that point. Mr. Hugo answered that there would only be one project, the conference center. Rex Allen stated that they wouldn't see any others because there is not enough certainty around these issues. How tall could my building be if I have to provide a view corridor? He said that he could not decide that. Mr. Hugo said that these regulations d__9_o answer all those questions. But for those six blocks along the waterfront that this applies to, the development interests that are there have various opinions as to whether or not they want to work under these rules. They understand the rules - they're just not so certain that they can get the economic return they need to make a project work under these rules. The variation they are looking for to make their projects work are of such magnitude that he couldn't trace it back to any part of the public record that got these proposals to the commission for hearing. This means that we would be violating the GMA rule about early, open and continuous citizen participation and input based outcomes. At the end you have to be able to show how we got there - it can't just be that someone showed up at the last minute and said, "I don't like it." Other jurisdictions have tried that and found all of their regulations invalidated and have had to go back to square one. We choose to respect the process and then go back to revisit the process if need be. We are doing that now through the Comprehensive Plan process. The Planning Commission can get into that, in as much detail as you wish, at that time. There will be people bringing these issues to the commission as part of that process. Commissioner Dingfield expressed a concern about the foot-ferry passengers and the accessibility to the terminal. She wants to keep this issue in the forefront. She said that we don't want to make their commute to Seattle more difficult. We need to allow for the kiss-and-ride access and encourage foot-ferry traffic as she believes Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 17 of 20 that this is our future bread-and-butter. This prompted a short discussion about the walk-on foot traffic and routes and possible trade-offs. Commissioner Kosusko asked Mr. Hugo what action the commission should be considering at this time. Mr. Hugo answered by saying - an action to recommend in some form or another on this proposal to the City Council. Commissioner Kosusko said that he would like to seek in favor of what we see here. Thc view corridor regulations that we have in place now - yes, they provide a view but it's not a quality access to the shoreline. You can sec the shoreline, but if you take into account these two options - a person from the public can get to the shoreline. They can actually occupy and experience the space that's being dedicated. Whereas, with the view corridor it's still some part - you look through and you are still that far away from the shoreline. He thinks this is a quality step. It's probably not the final step, but it is definitely a quality step. Now we need to start looking at the rest of the city and this view corridor issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to recommend to the City Council for approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program relating to downtown waterfront site development standards regarding shoreline setbacks, view corridors, and height restrictions in the Downtown District. Called for a vote: Buckingham: no; Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: no; and Kosusko: yes. Motion carries. VI. Business Meeting Chair Report - Andy Kosusko. 1. Planning Commission Elections - Commissioner Kosusko started by saying he was sure everyone had received the e-mail about the passing of the baton. This is scheduled to happen at our next meeting. Everyone should think about who you want to recommend.. It is tradition that the vice chair take the chairman position, only a suggestion. Mr. Hugo asked if everyone had received the rules. There was consensus that they had. He mentioned that there are term limits. Commissioner Kosusko verified that there is a two-year term limit and he's been the chair for a year and a half. Editorial in Bremerton Sun regarding the Department -: Commissioner Kosusko said he didn't know if everyone had seen the uninformed, stupid article complaining about the Planning Department in the newspaper. It was one of the daily opinion people and he was happy to see the Mayor respond to that very strongly a couple of days later. Director's Report- Chris Hugo. 1. Editorial in Bremerton Sun regarding the Department - Mr. Hugo replied that he was going to mention the same article. He wanted to note that we have a mayor who is very supportive of planning and the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission. Mr. Hugo said that before he could even talk to the mayor about it - the mayor was already all over it. The mayor had called the newspaper and said he wanted column space and that he wasn't going to let it ride. It's very good to have someone who is Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 18 of 20 that proactive on these issues. Mr. Hugo said it was just too bad because we (the department) had no contact with the author of that story at all. We think it was probably motivated by a handful of people that are in that 15 percent that don't get done in a month because they come to the office with issues before they even start. They don't disclose things on their plans; we catch them on inspections, or they are proposing things that we cannot do because the roles don't allow it - no matter how hard we try to resolve issues. Sometimes we cannot find a path to get them where they want to go. Like in the case Ms. Ralph just brought - there was a disclosure issue up fi.ont. Now we are trying to fix our codes so that we can at least approve something, and taking that as our obligation. That is taking some time. This house isn't going to get done and permitted in four weeks. Actually it did get permitted in four weeks - it just shouldn't have been. It should have taken three months to get everything fixed that needed to be fixed. We are still having some growing pains that make our life interesting in the department. It is nice to have the support of the mayor and the Council is understanding, even though they get lots of calls. There will probably be some more things this week in the paper about other issues going on with some of our projects. They have personalities behind them that are not happy with the way we do business sometimes, even though it is our job to do thing the way we do it. Personnel Changes - Mr. Hugo reported that we have interviews scheduled next week for the current planner position. It will not be quite as elaborate a process as before. We are trying to find someone quickly to fill our current planning needs. We have a pretty specific idea about what we need, based on our experience this last year with current planning. We need someone who can just come in and start helping immediately, someone with very definite current planning skills. C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: Bremerton Chamber of Commerce - Commissioner Dingfield reported that the Bremerton Chamber is starting to turn its legislative attention to what is going on locally. They are reacting very positively to what they have heard so far of this process (Comprehensive Plan Update). They like the kinds of changes that we're talking about and believe these changes to be "very business friendly" and believe they should create a more positive business climate. She believes they will be more involved all along the process, which should only help us. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for December 17, 2002. Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 19 of 20 Respectfully submitted by: Executive Secretary Approved by: Andrew J. Kosusko, Chairman Planning Commission Special Meeting November 12, 2002 Page 20 of 20 For a copy of the Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes on the Shoreline Master Program Amendments, please see Exhibit PC-6 attached to the staff report in the agenda item for Ordinance No. 4828, Downtown District. For a copy of the November 13, 2002 and November 20, 2002 City Council public hearing minutes on the Shoreline Master Program Amendments, please see Exhibits C-5 and C-6 attached to the staff report in the agenda item for Ordinance No. 4828, Downtown District. Br~nerto~ City Council Meml~'~ My wife and I have owned for the ~ 12 years a non-waterfiront Manette condo site across the water from ~he proposed convention center. Over the years we have had numerous plmmi~ department interpretations as to what was feasible on this lot Even though we are not waterfront, the current rules are that we are subject to the view corridor and height restrictions. Upon l~mfing of these restrietiorm we met with the Mayor, City Attorney and Planning Departm~ Stuff. We were assured that the same rule~ that applied to us applied to all Shoreline developments and that changes in the regulations were planned. When we read in The Sun that the City Council had met and tentatively approved changes to shoreline regulations we were quite excited. However wc learned that thc changes were site specific and applied only to the downtown waterfront where the City owns property,is financing the project through Bond sales and would benefit financially with increased taxes if the project is successful. A subsequent City Council study se~ion regarding changes to regulations affecting all other shoreline properties, several Council members asked the Planning Director if it were nex~'ssary to change these rules for the Downtown project to proceed. The director stated that the changes previously discussed for the downtown area were sufficient to allow development there. No action was taken and it was apparent that the rules for the rest of us could wait until spring, that now careful consideration was needed and that even a design review committee would be appropriate. My wife and I now know how the average Enron investor felt. The rules for the sale of our investment were not the same ss the CEO (City ofBremerton). We feel certain that the State Shoreline Hearings Board would agree with us that these site specific changes are contrary to the State Shorelines Act, the Bremerton Shorelines Ordnance and the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan Your Truly, ..._., . AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE REAFFIRMING DESIGNATED BLIGHTED AREAS, REDESIGNATING THE PROJECT AREA, AND CREATING A NEW COMMUNITY RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE PROJECT AREA. FOR AGENDA: !',.rev. 13 and Nov. 20, 2002 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney's Office ORIGINATOR: Roger A. Lubovich DATE SUBMITTED: Oct. 22, 2002 2. CSE, ARANCES:~_ (Comment on back if necessary) : //' c._ Js-alJc , e tor, o f O elopment ROGER A. LUB~ICH, City Attom~' ~:., FISCAL & BUDGET CHA~AN OPE~TIONS CHA~AN 3. EXHIBITS: PROPOSED ORDINANCE APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The proposed ordinance reaffirms the blighted areas as designated and reaffirmed in Resolution Nos. 1730 and 2117, creates a new Community Renewal Area for Community Renewal Projects re-designating the same as the "Project Area," and creates a new Community Renewal Plan for the Project Area. 5. RECOMMENDATION: 'Mc, ye *.e~ordinance on first reading. Move to pass Ordinance No. hr. ~30 o~a~econd reading. '30~ ~.O0'&. 7. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED ~-~ TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director of Community Development ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director of Community Development EXPIRATION DATE: n/a REVIEW DATE: APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED AMENDg~ 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 9. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: 10. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 11. RESEARCH SOURCES: ORDINANCE NO. 4830 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington: 1) reaffirming blighted areas as designated and reaffirmed in Resolutions No. 1730 and No. 2117 and Ordinance No. 4187; 2) amending and modifying the City's Urban Renewal Project Area as set forth in Resolution No. 2117, with a new "Community Renewal Area" for "Community Renewal Project(s)" re-designating the same the "Project Area"; and 3) amending and modifying the City's Urban Renewal Program by replacing the repealed DWURP with a new Community Renewal Plan for the Project Area consisting of: i) Section C-1 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as amended by Ordinance No. 4783, ii) Section 21.02.152 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Downtown District" and related Zoning Map designation Downtown Waterfront ("DW") zone, iii) Shoreline Master Program regulations related to the Project Area, iv) a project financing plan, and v) a housing plan for residents displaced by the Community Renewal Project. WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1730, the City Council declared that area generally described as from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard north to 6th Street and from Warren Avenue east to the shoreline of the Washington Narrows in the City of Bremerton to be a blighted area as defined in RCW 35.81.010(2); and WHEREAS, the City Council, in 1986, passed Resolution No. 2117 confirming and reaffirming Resolution No. 1730 and directed the Mayor and his staff to prepare an urban renewal plan and project for that portion of the blighted area bound by Washington Street on the west, the Outer Harbor line on Sinclair Inlet on the east, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard on the south, and the northerly line of Fifth Street extended easterly the blighted area for urban renewal ("Urban Renewal Project Area") as defined in RCW 35.81.010(2); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4187, the City Council adopted Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan ("DWURP") for the Urban Renewal Project Area; and 1 Community Renewal WHEREAS, the City Council, in Ordinance No. 4828, a companion to this Ordinance, is repealing the DWURP and amending the Zoning Code establishing the Downtown District consisting of the Downtown Core (DC) and the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zones, to allow development of the Downtown District in accordance with new development standards and regulations, and further, in another companion ordinance, Ordinance No. 4829 is amending the Shoreline Master Program relating to the Downtown District; and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds it in the best interest of the City to maintain and reaffirm the Blighted Area designation as defined in RCW 35.81.010(2) as designated and reaffirmed in Resolution Nos. 1730 and 2117, and Ordinance No. 4187, that conditions have not changed since those designations to warrant repeal of said designations and that the rehabilitation, redevelopment or a combination thereof of the blighted areas is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in its 2002 session amended the state's Urban Renewal Law, renaming it the "Community Renewal Law" and providing additional tools to cities for the revitalization of "Community Renewal Areas" which are blighted areas designated as appropriate for "Community Renewal Project(s)"as set forth in Chapter 35.81 RCW; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2508, the City approved the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan as a local comprehensive plan under Chapter 36.70 RCW CGMA Comprehensive Plan"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4783, the City amended Section C-1 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as a GMA Comprehensive plan policy amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it in the best interest of the City to amend and modify the City's Blighted Urban Renewal Area as set forth in Resolution No. 2117, with a new Community Renewal Area for Community Renewal Projects pursuant to Chapter 35.81 RCW, 2 Community Renewal designated the "Project Area" consisting of the area identified in the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zone as adopted in Ordinance No. 4828; and WHEREAS, the City Council also finds it in the best interest of the City to amend and modify its Urban Renewal Program by replacing the repealed DWURP with a new Community Renewal Plan for the Project Area consisting of.' 1) Section C-1 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as amended by Ordinance No. 4783; 2) Section 21.02.152 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Downtown District" and related Zoning Map designation of the Downtown Waterfront ("DW") zone as adopted in Ordinance No. 4828 as enacted and as hereinafter amended; 3) Shoreline Master Program regulations related to the Project Area including those adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 4829 as enacted and as hereinafter amended; 4) a project financing plan; and 5) a housing plan for residents displaced by the community renewal project; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2755, the City Council authorized the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority ("Kitsap Authority") to exercise its powers as a housing authority within the City, and to exercise the powers of an Urban Renewal Agency, pursuant to Chapter 35.81 RCW, within the City; and WHEREAS, the City desires that the Kitsap Authority continue to exercise the powers authorized by Resolution No. 2755, however to exercise such powers as a Community Renewal Agency pursuant to Chapter 35.81 RCW; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2002 and November 20, 2002, the City Council held public hearings concerning proposed new COMMUNITY RENEWAL PLAN after notice was given in accordance with RCW 35.81.060; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are few, if any, residents living in the Blighted Area but that, a housing plan is necessary for displacement of residents who might be replaced by the community renewal project designated the "Residential Displacement Plan", 3 Community Renewal and that the proposed plan is feasible for making adequate housing for residents who may be displaced by the project; and WHEREAS, adoption of this ordinance and the proposed Community Renewal Plan does not amend and or create a sub-area plan of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Community Renewal Plan conforms to and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Community Renewal Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City for the rehabilitation or re- development of the blighted area by the private sector; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a sound and adequate financial program exists for the financing of the Community Renewal Project(s) given current Public Facilities District ("PFD") funding, City partnerships in proposed projects and anticipated private development financing; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the Community Renewal Plan to allow development of the Project Area in accordance with new development standards and regulations and to address changes in conditions since the adoption of the DWURP; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as if set forth herein in full. SECTION2. The findings set forth in Resolution Nos. 1730 and 2117 and Ordinance No. 4187 as they relate to the areas of blight are hereby adopted by reference as if 4 Community Renewal incorporated herein, and further, there is hereby designated and reaffirmed, within the City of Bremerton, an area of blight as defined in RCW 35.81.010(2), as designated and reaffirmed in Resolution Nos. 1730 and 2117 and Ordinance No. 4187 to be an area of blight, designated the "Blighted Area" as set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The City's Urban Renewal Project Area as set forth in Resolution No. 2117, is hereby modified and amended as the new Community Renewal Area for Community Renewal Projects pursuant to Chapter 35.81 RCW, designated as the "Project Area" consisting of the area identified in the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zone as adopted in Ordinance No. 4828, which area is more specifically set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. SECTION4. The City's downtown Urban Renewal Program, previously consisting of the DWURP which is concurrently being repealed in Ordinance No. 4828, is hereby modified and amended as follows: There is hereby adopted and established a new Community Renewal Plan for the Project Area consisting off 1) Section C- 1 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as amended by Ordinance No. 4783; 2) Section 21.02.152 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Downtown District" and related Zoning Map designation of the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zone as adopted in Ordinance No. 4828 as enacted and as hereinafter amended; 3) Shoreline Master Program regulations related to the Project Area including those adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 4829 as enacted and hereinafter amended; 4) the project financing plan as set forth in Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by reference; and 5) the housing plan for residents displaced by the Community Renewal Project(s) designated the "Residential Displacement Plan" as set forth in Exhibit "D", incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. The Council ratifies and reconfirms its election, by Resolution No. 2755, to authorize and assign the Kitsap Authority to exercise the powers of a Community Renewal Agency granted by and consistent with Chapter 35.81 RCW, and finds that such election is in the public interest. 5 Community Renewal SECTION 6. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2002 day of ,2002 CAROL ARENDS, Council President Approved this day of ,2002 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attomey PUBLISHED the EFFECTIVE the ORDINANCE NO. day of ,2002 day of ,2002 R:XLEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development\Community Renewal.doc 6 Community Renewal FINANCE PROGRAM The following is a proposal for financing projects within the Community Revitalization project area. The finance plan to implement the redevelopment of the project area includes: · Encouraging residential growth in the project area · Expanding the downtown public and private sector workforce · Stimulation of earnings and investment The strategy will combine the use of appropriate municipal bond financing and public/private investment partnerships for financing new development and upgrading existing infrastructure. For example: · Increase and improve downtown parks open spaces and plazas · Improve downtown traffic circulation · Create pedestrian friendly areas · Continue to improve transit opportunities A goal of the strategy is to effect positive changes in the municipal tax base by assisting existing property owners and businesses with the addition of new construction and value. The City of Bremerton will actively seek public and private funding to be used to mitigate private development risks within the Community Revitalization area. Public funding shall include but not be limited to the New Market Tax Credits, The Low Income Housing Tax Credits, taxable and tax exempt municipal Bonds. U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Initiative grants, U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sec 108 loans, HUD Community Development Block Grant funds and HUD Home Investment Partnership loans and grants. The plan will provide for the sale of condominiums to public or private purchasers in the project area to encourage economic growth in the blight area. Inviting joint development 1 Community Renewal [ {)~ Exhibit C opportunities where feasible will encourage private sector investment. The Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Agency, acting as redevelopment agency for the City of Bremerton shall use its bonding finance authority to purchase and develop property that meets the goals of the plan and to sell developed properties to the private sector whenever feasible. The City will establish the Community Revitalization area development as a top priority for the application of all grant funds and will actively solicit and encourage private investment in the project area. The strategy also includes ongoing economic and demographic analysis of the revitalization project and future growth initiatives necessary and appropriate to assist in the administration and implementation of the project. Community Renewal Exhibit C RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT PLAN Introduction The City of Bremerton does not anticipate displacement of residents in the revitalization area. In the event such displacement does occur, all available resources will be used to mitigate its adverse effects. Plan to Minimize Displacement The City of Bremerton will emphasize projects which: Do not demolish buildings housing low income residents · Require no relocation or only temporary relocation · Use properties voluntarily sold, not as result of the project Plan to Assist Displaced Residents For projects where displacement is unavoidable, the City of Bremerton will follow all pertinent Federal and State of Washington laws, rules, and guidelines governing relocation of displaced persons. In addition, the programs, services and funding sources of the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority, the Bremerton Housing Authority and the Washington State Housing Finance Commission shall be requested to assist any resident displaced as a result of the project. These programs are expected to include down payment assistance, rent subsidies, (HUD Sec 8) self-help housing construction and placement in subsidized housing projects currently in operation or planned for construction in the near future. Community Renewal Exhibit D Bremerton Blighted Area EXHIBIT A Ordinance #, ~EET PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD Legend City Parcels Blighted Area Downtown Project Area EXHIBIT B Ordinance # 6TH STREET 5TH STREET 4TH STREET 2ND STREET 1ST PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD Legend City Parcels ~'~ Project Area AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2881 IN SUPPORT OF PASSENGER-ONLY FERRY SERVICE FOR AGENDA OF: DECEMBER 30, 2002 ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY COUNCIL ORIGINATOR: CITY COUNCIL DATE SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 23, 2002 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. HEARD AT COMMITTEES 12/23/02 EXHIBITS: WSF PRESS RELEASE RESOLUTION NO. 2881 ENDORSEMENT MAYOR: INFORMATION ~. APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Director of Washington State Ferries has recently presented a plan to the Transportation Commission calling for service cuts to generate funding for capital needs. The plan includes phasing out the passenger-only ferries between July 2003 and June 2005. The proposed resolution supports continued service to Bremerton with passenger-only ferries. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Move to pass Resolution No. 2881. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (continued): 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCER: 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: RESOLUTION NO. 2881 A RESOLUTION of the Bremerton City Council Affirming Support for the Passenger Only Ferry. WHEREAS, the Seattle-Bremerton Passenger Only Ferry has provided a vital transportation link between Bremerton and Seattle; and WHEREAS, it is recognized that such a transportation route has provided a crucial link from King County to Kitsap County; and WHEREAS, it is recognized the convenience and timeliness the Passenger Only Ferry provides to workers and residents on both sides of the Puget Sound; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council wishes to call on the Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Ferry System, and the Washington State Transportation Commission to continue Passenger Only Ferries on the Bremerton-Seattle routes; Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL hereby does voice its strong support for the consistent and continued use of Passenger Only Ferries. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton on the day of CAROL ARENDS, Council President FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 18, 2002 CONTACT: Patricia Patterson, (206) 515-3410 / Pager: (206) 993-4620 Washington State Ferries CEO Presents Plan To Fund Urgent Capital Needs OLYMPIA--In a meeting with the Transportation Commission today, Washington State Ferries (WSF) Director and CEO Michael G. Thorne presented a plan calling for service cuts, selling surplus ferries and mothballing boats to maximize ferry resources and build a foundation for the future of the system. This plan, coupled with WSF's previously released business plan that calls for a five percent fare increase, five percent cost reductions and five percent new revenues generated from advertising, retail and marketing programs, will provide the funding required for critical capital infrastructure projects. Funding for much needed preservation and new construction had been earmarked for WSF in Referendum 51. Those investments are still urgently needed to ensure a viable ferry system in the future. Without money for new boats WSF is faced with the potential of pouring millions of dollars into the oldest vessels in the fleet just to keep our current level of service for a few short years. "If our aging vessels are not replaced and our terminals are not properly maintained, we will no longer have a viable ferry system, "Thorne said. "In order to find the funding necessary to invest in our future, we looked at all available options and in the end made some tough, but necessary, decisions." Thorne explained that WSF management was guided by two core principles in deciding service changes: impact the fewest number of riders and only make changes where the riders have another transportation option. - more - Thorne proposed a return to the system's core function--a marine highway system providing auto/passenger ferry service. The_plan has two parts: Phase One, which has the vast majority of the service changes, would be effective June 15, 2003. This includes changes that provide substantial savings in operating costs and, overall, affect the fewest number of customers. The highlights of Phase One, effective June 15, 2003, include adopting a 12-week winter schedule - January to late March. During this 12~week period, the following service would be discontinued: - International service to Sidney; - Saturday and Sunday inter-island service in the San Juans; - The 6:35 p.m. round trip from Anacortes to Lopez, Shaw and Orcas Monday through Thursday and on Saturdays; - The last two round trips, Monday through Thursday, on the Port Townsend/Keystone route; and - Third boat service on the Fauntleroy/Vashon/Southworth route on winter weekends. - These changes will save the system approximately $400,000 a year. Phase One also includes the following year-round changes: - Discontinuing the Seattle/Vashon and Seattle/Bremerton passenger-only service; - Discontinuing the 1:00 a.m. departure from Edmonds to Kingston on Friday and Saturday nights; - Continuing the schedule modifications and reduced fuel costs on the Seattle/Bainbridge Island ferry route that began in the fail of 2002. - These changes generate a net annual savings of approximately $6 million. WSF also plans to place two vessels in stand-by status, saving the system approximately $1.25 million annually. WSF aiso plans to retire and sell the HIYU, the NISQUALLY and the five passenger-only vessels between July 2003-June 2005. Phase Two of the plan continues consolidation of services and reduction of the fleet. The plan, which spans 2005-2013, includes construction and delivery of two new vessels; retirement of four more auto ferries, relocation of the Keystone ferry terminal and ending Internationai service from Anacortes to Sidney, B.C. During this time, the ferry system also will explore moving Vashon Island and Southworth traffic from Fauntleroy to downtown Seattle as well as moving the Eagle Harbor maintenance facility on Bainbridge Island to an aiternative site. "Washington State Ferries stands ready to assist King and Kitsap County leaders should they choose to pursue future passenger only service," says Thorne. "I remain a firm believer in the concept of ferries as transit and in the role passenger-only ferries play in Puget Sound. Although we will no longer be a player in this service, we will support public and private efforts to make passenger-only service a reality in the future." Refocusing attention on our core business to ensure the viability of the ferry system. II3 The Capital Funding Plan leverages the 5 +5 + 5 business investments. These changes reduce our operating costs and plan formula previously mentioned. We've added a new ultimately provide the ability for Washington State Ferries chapter to the plan that addresses our immediate capital to self-finance some of our most urgent capital needs. funding needs Service Reductions + Vessel Retirements = kess Preservation Work T h e by making C ap ital changes to Less preservation work = Funding For Critical Capital Investments Funding Plan our current service plan. It's a straightforward formula: is also based on continuing the £mancial assumptions made service reductions + vessel retiremehts = less preservationin the Washington State Department of Transportation and work. Less preservation work = funding for critical capitalWSF current law budget and ten-year financing plan. Phase One Highlights Phase One is effective June 15, 2003 and takes us through 2005. It includes the vast majority of the service changes. These particular changes were identified because they provide substantial savings in operating costs, affect the fewest number of riders, leave no one without a transportation alternative and ultimately ensure a viable ferry system.. Adopt a 12-week Winter Schedule Season (January - late March) Net annual savings: $;421,000. · Discontinue the last two roundtrips, Monday through Thursday, on the Port Townsend/Keystone route. · Discontinue third boat service on the Fauntleroy/Vashon/Southworth route on winter weekends. · Discontinue Sidney, B.C. (International Service) for the winter schedule season. · Discontinue San Juan Island inter-island vessel service on Saturdays and Sundays; adjust other vessel schedules to accommodate the reduced winter weekend inter-island demand. · Discontinue the 6:35 p.m. round trip from Anacortes to Lopez, Shaw and Orcas, Monday - Thursday and Saturdays. Make year-round changes on several routes. Net annual savings: $6,175,000. · Discontinue all current passenger-only ferry service on the Seattle/Vashon and the Seattle/Bremerton routes. · Discontinue the 1:00 a.m. departure from Edmonds to Kingston on Friday and Saturday nights. · Continue the schedule modifications and reduced fuel costs on the Seattle/Bainbridge Island ferry route that were implemented in the fall of 2002. Place two vessels in standby status. Net annual savings: $1,250,000. · Place the M/V EVERGREEN STATE and the M/V HYAK on standby status. Surplus five passenger only and two auto ferries. Summer 2003 Institute service reductions luly 2005 July 2006 Construction of Vessel Keystone terminal construction begins program begins Phase Two Highlights .a-- Phase Two is a longer-range plan that takes us through 2013. Phase Two includes building at least two new boats [possibly three) and relocating an existing terminal. These capital projects are critical to the ferry system infrastructure. Remember, the money we save from implementation of Phase One provides funds for the work scheduled through 2013. Phase Two of the plan spans the period from 2005 - 2013. During this phase, we will construct and take delivery of the new vessels and begin service at the new terminal. During this eight-year timeframe, we also expect to retire four more auto ferries and discontinue service to Sidney, B.C. We will be exploring the possibility of auto ferry service between Vashon and Southworth into Pier 52 [downtown Seattle) that could result in the permanent closure of the Fauntleroy ferry terminal. We will also be exploring a new focused approach to the maintenance facility located at Eagle Harbor and exploring alternative sites for the facility as suggested in a recent legislative oversight committee report. · Construction of Keystone terminal begins July 2005 · Construction of New Vessel//1 begins July 2006 ($86.6 mil) · Construction of New Vessel//2 begins April 2007 ($67.2 mil) · New Vessel//1 delivered March 2008, in service June 2008 at Port Townsend · New Keystone terminal completed June 2008 · New Vessel//2 delivered November 2008, in service February 2009 at Anacortes · Sidney B.C. service transferred to another operator by summer 2009 March 2008 Delivery of first new vessel for service at Port Townsend lune 2008 Keystone terminal completed November 2008 Second new vessel delivered for service at Anacortes Summer 2009 Sidney, BC service transferred to another operator Vessel Assignments by Route Route Anaeortes/Sidney Anaeortes/San Juans San Juan/Interisland Port Townsend/Keystone Mukilteo/Clinton Edmonds/Kingston Seattle/Bainbridge Seattle/Bremerton Seattle/Vashon Passenger Only Fauntleroy/Vashon/Southworth Point Defianee/l'ahlequah Current (2002) Summer Fall/Winter/Spring 3S~S. 3~ss. l{3~il~mulemdleen ll3~{~mumlmmdmen lO~i/mmde~en lOlii~mwmdmeen Future (2013) Summer Fall/Winter/Spring Vessel operates on both the Anacortes/Sidne¥ and Anacortes/San Juans routes.