HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/02 AGENDA FILE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
APRIL 24, 2002
~ 1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00-5:30 P.M.
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. CONSENT AGENDA - There are no Consent Agenda Items this week
4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments limited to 3-minutes)
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Confirmation of Employment Contract with Michael C. Mecham, P.E. as City
Engineer (#AB02-077)
B. Professional Services Agreement for Gold Mountain Golf Complex with Scott
Alexander and Daryl Matheny (#AB02-078)
C.Lease Agreement for Gold Mountain Golf Complex with Scott Alexander and
Daryl Matheny (#AB02-079)
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 2855, Authorizing Application for Funding Assistance to the ,.~
Interagency for Outdoor Recreation for Development of Maritime Park (#AB02-
080)
B. Resolution No. 2856, Authorizing an Interfund Loan from the Equipment Rental
Fund to the General Fund; and Related Budget Adjustment No. 2002-09 (#AB02-
081)
C. Resolution No. 2857, to temporarily defer all non-emergency amendments to the
City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan (#AB02-082)
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance No, 4796 (Second Reading) Amending Bremerton Municipal Code
Chapter 21.02 by Providing the Regulatory Measures to Promote Adaptive
Reuse of Public and Semi-Public Buildings (#AB02-071)
(AGENDA CONTINUED ON BACK,,.)
B. Ordinance No. 4797 (Second Reading) Amending Shoreline Master Program
Relating to Appeals to Hearing Examiner; and Ordinance No. 4798 (Second
Reading) Amending Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 21.02 Regarding
Administrative Hearing Examiner Process and Procedures (#AB02-076)
C. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending Chapter 21.02 (Zoning Code) of the
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC)regarding PL02-001 for Compatible
Residential Infill Development and Front Yard Setbacks (#AB02-083)
D. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending Chapter 21.02 (Zoning Code) of the
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) regarding PL02-003 allowing flexibility and
innovative design pursuant to a "Plan-in-Lieu" (#AB02-084)
E. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code (BMC)relating to City Council meetings and publication of Council Salary
Schedules (#AB02-085)
11. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2002
SPEAKERS LIST
If you wish to make an announcement, inform the Council of an issue, or ask a genera/question...Please
provide information below so staff will be able to contact you.
Thank you.
NAME ADDRESS/TELEPHONE TOPIC j ~
1
~r~
o
o
o
Reminder: The next Council Meeting will be on Wednesday, May 1s*
Following thc Council Meeting there will be a Monthly Study Session
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIl,
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF:
Employment Contract ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities
City Engineer ORIGINATOR: W. Eugene Sampley, Director
Michael C. Mecham, P.E. DATE SUBMITTED: April 11, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
Dir of Human Resources ~~. ~-,--~.,~/(1) Employment ConWact
City Treasurer ~ ,
Operations Committee
Fiscal & Budget Comm. ~
ENDORSEME~-~ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR c.~-~-// COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Michael Mecham is a graduate of Brigham Young University with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. He is a
Registered Professional Civil Engineer with over 20 years of engineering experience. He has demonstrated leadership
qualities and is very highly recomded by both previous employers and other professional references. City Council
'confirmation of Michael C. Medham as City Engineer is requested in accordance with BMC 2.49.10.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
/V~O i/e~ ~ confirm the appointment of Michael C. Mecham as City Engineer.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED ~ TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The position of City Engineer will remain tmfilled with the Director of Public Works & Utilities filling that
position in addition to his own.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Monthly salary is included in the 2002 budget.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
{ ~70122_1 .ab}
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
CITY ENGINEER
This Employment Contract is entered into this 1st day of May, 2002 by and between the City of
Bremerton, a chartered first class municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Washington, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Michael C. Mecham (hereinafter referred to as "City
Engineer"). In consideration of the mutual benefits and promises herein contained, the parties agree as
follows:
1. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES: The City Engineer agrees to furnish full time services as
defined in the job description for City Engineer, which is attached and hereby incorporated as a part of this
Agreement, which may be amended by the City upon thirty (30) days notice to the City Engineer.
2. SUPERVISION: The parties understand and agree that the City Engineer will perform
independent functions and responsibilities in the exercise of his field of work. In the performance of these
duties the City Engineer shall work under the direction of the Director of Public Works & Utilities.
3. TERM: The City Engineer shall serve at the pleasure of the Director of Public Works & Utlities
commencing May 1, 2002 and continuing until termination or removal by terms of this Agreement infra.
4. COMPENSATION: The City Engineer and City agree that compensation for services render~l
under this agreement shall begin at band 19 rate B, three thousand, two hundred sixtben dollars, tl~irty-two
cents ($3,216.32) semi-monthly with a monthly rate of approximately six thousand, four hundred and thirty-
three dollars and no cents ($6,433.00).
The City Engineer shall be eligible for a pay rate adjustment upon completion of twelve months at
each rate in the salary band provided that he receives a "Meets Expectations" (or equivalent) on his work
performance evaluation.
Said compensation shall be paid on the City's regular payroll system. It is expressly understood by
and between the parties that the City Engineer is an exempt position pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
5. BENEFITS: All benefits shall be afforded as provided for in this Agreement pursuant to the
Bremerton Municipal Code, specifically, Chapter 2.50, Management & Professional Staff Compensation
Program, and as provided under the laws of the State of Washington relevant to the position of City
Engineer. Vacation is set at fifteen (15) days per year.
6. PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: Performance reviews shall be conducted in compliance with
applicable Human Resources Policies, and shall utilize review standards and forms approved by the Human
Resources Department.
7. EXCLUSION FROM COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: The City Engineer acknowledges~
EMPLOYM ,1LNT C()NTIL~CI' - l-
understands and agrees that the position he is accepting with the City is not included in the City's Civil
Service system, is exempt from Union Membership, and is a managerial/professional employee as defined
under BMC 2.50.
8. TERMINATION OF SERVICES: The City Engineer is an "at will" employee and the City may
terminate him without muse, at any time, with thirty (30) days notice required. In the event that the City Engineer
shall terminate employment with the City, he agrees that he shall provide the City not less than thirty (30) days
prior notice of the effective date of said termination in order to afford the City a reasonable oppommity to find a
replacement. The parties further agree that in the event a replacement is found who is able to commence
employment prior to the expiration of thirty (30) days notice, that they may, in good faith, negotiate an earlier
termination date. This Agreement may be terminated for cause, without notice, and employee understands, agrees
and accepts that no severance pay shall be paid. "Cause" shall be defined as any reason for which a regular
employee may be dismissed under the Bremerton Civil Service Rules, specifically Rule 19.
GENERAL PROVISIONS:
A. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and both parties
acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been fully set forth in the text
of this Agreement.
B. The parties hereby further agree that this Agreement cannot be amended or modified without the
written concurrence of both parties.
C. Any notices required to be given shall be in writing and delivered to the following parties at the
following addresses:
Human Resources Department Michael C. Mecham
239 Fourth Street City Engineer
Bremerton, WA 98337 c/o City Hall
239 4th Street
Bremerton, WA. 98337
D. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington. In the event of a dispute, such dispute shall be litigated in the Superior Court of Kitsap
County, Washington.
E. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision hereof shall, in no way, affect the validity or
enforceability of any other provision.
F. Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants, or conditions of this
Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such. nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of such right or
power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach.
EMPLO'~qVIENT CONqY{A(.q' -2-
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year
first above written.
Employee Name
Title
REVIEWED BY: CITY OF BREMERTON:
3~ BY:
CAROL S. CONLEY CARY BOZEMAN
Human Resources Director Mayor
RECEIVED FOR FILING: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY
City Clerk City Attorney
EMPLOYMENT CONqqtACW -3-
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Professional Services FOR AGENDA OF.' 4-24-02
Agreement Gold Mountain Golf Complex ORIGINATING DEPT: Parks & Recreation
ORIGINATOR: Jim Spencer, Director
DATE SUBMITTED: 4-16-02
2. CLEARANCES: 3. EXHIBITS: Professional Services Agreement
(Comment on back if necessary)
Parks & Recreation Director: .~v~
City Treasure~"'----
Fiscal & Budget Committee:
Operations Committee:
4. SU1VLMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Mr. Scott Alexander has been the Golf Professional at the Gold Moumain Golf Complex since
1984. During this time he and his staffhave contributed greatly to the overall success of the
Complex. Scott's selection in 1998 as the "Northwest PGA Golf Professional of the year" serves as
testimony to his abilities. Mr. Daryl Mathen?, Scott's Partner, has been added as a signature on the
agreement to ensure continuity of service in Scott's absence. Daryl has been with Gold Mountain
since 1989. This PSA includes responsibility for operating the restaurant, lounge, and pavilion. Due
to the uncertainty regarding the revenue from this new facility annual openers are built into the
agreement for possible adjustmem to ensure fairness.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
/ti o~,~ '4-o ' authorize and directs the Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreemem
for the Gold Mountain Golf Complex with Scott Alexander and Daryl Mathe. a y.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer
EXPIRATION DATE: 12-314/6
REVIEW DATE: 12-31-02
10. NOTICE OF ACTION ~
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED A
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
tl. AGENDA BILL#: ,j,,- - l~ /' ~'
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The Gold Mountain Golf Complex would be without the services of a Golf Professional and
staff, which would severely damage the operation and standards as set by the Gold Mountain
Board of Directors and the Bremerton City Council.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The compensation values identified in the Professional Services Agreement are consistent with
the financial model associated with the Gold Mountain Golf Complex budget.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
1. Date and Parties. This Agreement, for reference purposes only, is dated the
day of , 2002 and is entered into by and between the CITY OF
BREMERTON, hereinafter referred to as"City", and SCOTT ALEXANDER and DARYL
MATHENY, hereinafter referred to as "Professionals".
2. General Recitals. The Parties hereto have simultaneously executed a
document entitled "Lease Agreement" relating to the lease to the Professionals of a certain
portion of the Gold Mountain Golf Complex (the "Lease"). It is the intent of this Agreement to
have the Professionals serve as the Gold Mountain Golf Complex golf professionals, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
3. Term. The City hereby engages the services of the Professionals as the City
Professionals for the golf courses operated by it as the Olympic Course at Gold Mountain and
the Cascade Course at Gold Mountain for a term of five (5) years, commencing on January 1,
2002 and terminating December 31, 2006, dudng which time the Professionals shall be on
active duty at the Gold Mountain Golf Complex. The professionals are hereby granted an
option to renew this Agreement for an additional 5 year term under the same terms and
conditions, which renewal shall occur automatically unless Professionals and/or City provides
wdtten notice ho sooner than 1 January 2006 and not later than 1 July 2006 of its intent to
terminate this Agreement.
4. Duties of the Professional:
A. The Professionals shall devote their attention and energies to the
performance of duties as golf professionals for the City dudng the term of this Agreement.
They shall conduct themselves at all times and in all matters in accordance with the standards
accepted for golf professionals as established by the PGA. The Professionals shall operate
the facilities and programs under their direction and control so that they will meet or exceed the
standard in the industry for public golf courses in the Puget Sound region.
B. In cooperation with the Director of Parks and Recreation and Golf
Complex Board of Directors (the "Golf Complex Board"), the Professionals shall schedule all
golf tournaments and shall initiate and promote golf activities at the Gold Mountain Golf
Complex.
C. Professionals shall report directly to the Director of Parks and Recreation
and work closely with the Greens Superintendent. The Professionals and Greens
Superintendent shall mutually agree upon the open and start of play daily with the Director
resolving any conflicts.
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 1 of 10
4-9-02
D. The Professionals shall attend all meetings of the Golf Complex Board.
The Professionals may recommend and submit changes in policies and procedures to the Golf
Complex Board at any regular meeting.
E. The Professionals shall cooperate with the players at the Gold Mountain
Golf Complex, as well as the Golf Complex Advisory Committee and other player organizations
and render professional advice, opinions, assistance and services as required.
F. Professionals shall maintain a good credit rating in alt commercial
transactions so as not to discredit the reputation or name of the City of Bremerton.
G. Professionals shall supervise, direct and train a staff to perform duties
and meet requirements for sales, rentals and services which are, in the opinion of the City and
Professionals, necessary. There will be a minimum of three PGA professionals on staff
including the Professionals.
H. Professionals shall operate and maintain a service for the handling,
sales, and leasing of golf equipment and for leasing of carts.
I. Professionals agree to be available to attend regular and special
meetings of the Golf Complex Board, Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council, and
shall be prepared to discuss issues and ideas of interest to the Professionals and City.
J. Professionals shall be responsible to the City for the collection and daily
remittal of all monies at the Golf Complex belonging to the City including, but not limited to
greens fees. Professionals shall provide to the City daily reports of golf activity and receipts in
a format to be provided by the Director of Parks and Recreation and City Treasurer, and shall
structure their accounting system in a method satisfactory and acceptable to the City.
K. Professionals agree to keep the Golf Complex facilities staffed on a daily
basis throughout the year, except that operation on the following days shall be at
Professionals' option: Thanksgiving, Christmas, and days the Greens Superintendent closes
the course due to inclement weather.
L. Professionals must provide a course marshal a minimum of forty (40)
hours per week for the months October through February, and 80 hours per week for the
months of March through September. In case of extended pedods of inclement weather, this
requirement can be waived by mutual agreement of the Director of Parks and Recreation and
the Professionals.
M. Professionals shall supervise all golf activities in connection with outside
parties and shall provide members of the golfing public with adequate services, as may be
required.
N. Professionals shall manage the Clubhouse facilities (other than the
portion reserved for City Staff), as more fully described in paragraph 6 below.
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 2 of 10
4-9-02
5. Duties of the City The City agrees:
A. To fumish and maintain a practice and teaching range.
B. To consider recommended changes in policies and procedures through
its Golf Complex Board and to submit them to the Mayor and Council.
C. To budget and provide janitorial supplies.
D. To budget and provide round-related advertising approved by the
Director of Parks and Recreation.
6. Club House Manaaement.
A. The Professionals shall manage the new Gold Mountain Golf Clubhouse
(the "Clubhouse") for the City. This shall include operating and maintaining the restaurant and
lounge, providing catering for events at the pavilion, and renting the pavilion for pdvate events.
The City shall provide the furniture, fixtures and equipment ("FF&E") currently located in the
Clubhouse; provided, that the Professionals are providing the FF&E listed in Exhibit A attached
hereto and by reference incorporated herein.
B. The Professionals shall be responsible for the routine maintenance of all
FF&E. Provided, replacement of equipment shall be in the sole discretion of the City and the
City shall arrange for equipment replacement in accordance with available funding. The City is
responsible for kitchen equipment repair over $500.
C. The Professionals shall be responsible for hiring, training and managing
sufficient employees to adequately staff the restaurant and lounge.
D. The Professionals shall determine the menu to be made available. It
shall be comparable to the menu available at other golf clubs in the Northwest Region.
E. The Professionals shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary
licenses and permits for the operation of a restaurant and lounge.
7. Compensation: The Professionals shall be paid for their services the
annual sum of one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000.00); plus ten percent
(10%) of greer~s fees and pdvate cart fees revenue, net of sales tax, in excess of
$2,000,000.00; plus ninety four percent (94%) of food and beverage revenue, net of sales tax,
in excess of $1,000,000; plus 94% of the gross revenue from golf cart rentals, net of sales tax.
However, in no event shall the total compensation paid to Professionals exceed two million
four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000). The compensation shall be paid in weekly
installments. Each weekly payment will be in an amount equal to $3,846 plus the gross food
and beverage revenue, net of sales tax for the week, plus 94% of the gross revenue, net of
sales tax from golf cart rentals for the week. When the total food and beverage sales, net of
sales tax, reach $1,000,000 for the year, the weekly payments to the professionals shall be as
described above except that the food and beverage component of each weekly payment shall
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 3 of 10
4-9-02
be equal to 94% of that weeks food and beverage revenue, net of sales tax. Final
reconciliation and payment for each year will be made by January 31 st of the following year.
Due to the uncertainty of both parties of the food and beverage revenue likely to be
generated in the new clubhouse facilities, the parties agree that the compensation values will
be reviewed for fairness at any time within the first year of this agreement when it appears that
food and beverage revenue, net of sales tax, will be less than $1,000,000 or greater than
$1,500,000 for the year. The parties further agree that, at the end of 12, 24, 36, and 48
months, the compensation value will be reviewed for fairness and possible adjustment;
provided that any adjustment in compensation shall comply with the "safe harbor" guidelines
set forth in Revenue Procedure 97-13.
8. Tournament Play. The Professionals shall have the right and are expected to
represent the City of Bremerton in vadous golf tournaments. They shall submit their
tournament schedule for information to the Director of Parks and Recreation. In the event they
qualify, they shall have the dght to play in the U.S. Open, Masters, the PGA National
Championship, and the Club Professionals' Championship, or any tour event held locally.
9. Termination. This Agreement will terminate upon the happening of any of the
following events:
A. Upon its normal termination if not renewed.
B. Upon failure to cure following thirty (30) days wdtten notice by the City of
termination for good and sufficient cause including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Continuing inattention or neglect of duties.
ii. Suspension from the PGA for more than thirty (30) days.
iii. Conviction of a gross misdemeanor or felony.
iv. Major damage or destruction of the golf complex property,
structures or equipment that is the subject of this Agreement, when the City
decides not to rebuild, and that damage or destruction will prevent Professionals
from substantially performing their obligation under this Agreement.
C. Any reason specified elsewhere in this Agreement, or the attachments
hereto, that is designated as grounds for termination.
D. Upon termination of the Lease.
E. Upon the death of both Professionals
F. The City shall have the fight to terminate this agreement on December
31, 2004 with or without cause upon wdtten notice to the Professionals by September 1, 2004.
If the agreement is renewed for an additional 5 year term, in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph 3 above, then the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement on
December 31 2009, with or without cause, upon wdtten notice to the Professionals by
September 1, 2009.
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 4 of 10
4-9-02
In the event of termination, and at the Professionals' option, the Professionals may elect to
have the City purchase and Professionals sell, all merchandise and clubhouse property of the
Professionals such as televisions at Professionals' cost, less depreciation, and to pay the
same to Professionals, or their representative, within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice
of such election, less any monies owing to the City under the terms of this Agreement or under
the terms of the Lease. Should Professionals simply abandon any items set forth above, they
shall immediately become the property of the City.
10. Breach. In the event that either party claims that the other has breached
any of the provisions of this Agreement, a conference will be called between the parties and
every reasonable effort shall be made to reach an amicable solution. At said conference, either
party shall be entitled to have representatives present. Either party shall have thirty (30) days
from notice within which to correct any activity or conduct claimed by the other to have
constituted a substantial breach of this Agreement.
In the event that either party shall, within said thirty (30) day period, fail to either correct
the activity claimed to constitute a substantial breach of this Agreement, or notify the other
party in writing their denial of said substantial breach of this Agreement, then in such event this
Agreement shall cease and terminate as of the expiration of said thirty (30) day pedod.
'11. Notices: All notices under this Agreement shall be in wdting and delivered in
person or sent by registered or certified mail to City in care of Bremerton City Clerk, 239 Fourth
Street, Bremerton, Washington 98337, and to Professionals at P.O. Box 197, Bremerton,
Washington 98312, effective as of the postmark time and date, or to such other place as may ·
hereafter be designated by either party in writing.
12. Alterations: Professionals shall not make any alterations, additions or
improvements in the Gold Mountain Golf Complex, including the Clubhouse, without first
obtaining the consent of City in writing, Which consent can be withheld at City's sole discretion.
All alterations, additions and improvements, shall be at the sole cost and expense of
Professionals, and shall remain in and be surrendered with the Clubhouse as a part thereof at
the termination of this Agreement except for those improvements and fixtures supplied by the
Professionals which at the time of this Agreement are identified on the attached Exhibit A. If
Professionals shall perform work with the consent of City, as provided above, Professionals
agree to comply with all laws, ordinances rules and regulations of the City and any other
authorized public authority. Professionals further agree that workmanship will be of a
reasonable commercial quality, in color schemes in accordance with current building,
standards, and free of mechanics liens. Professionals further agree to save City free and
harmless from damage, loss or expense arising out of such work.
For major improvements/construction projects (e.g., concession stands, cart barns, etc.)
financed in part or whole by the Professionals, the City agrees to refund one tenth of the
actual cost provided by the Professionals to the project for every year not covered by this
agreement. Consideration of this provision begins at the time that the costs are actually
incurred by the Professionals for a specific project, and continues for the following ten-year
pedod.
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 5 of 10
4-9-02
13. Costs and Attorney Fees: If, by reason of any default or breach on the part of
either party in the performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement, a legal action is
instituted, the losing party agrees to pay all reasonable costs and attorney fees in connection
therewith. It is agreed that the venue of any legal action brought under the terms of this
Agreement shall be in Kitsap County.
14. Construction. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Washington. The provisions of this Agreement have been negotiated by the
parties, and when interpreting the provisions of this Agreement, there shall be no presumption
of draftsmanship for or against either party.
15. Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision hereof shall in
no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision.
16. Waiver. Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants
or conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or
relinquishment of such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach.
17. Modification. Any waiver, alteration or modification of any of the provisions of
this Agreement or cancellation or replacement of this Agreement shall not be valid unless in
writing and signed by the parties.
18. Independent Confractor. Professionals are independent contractors and
neither the Professionalsl nor the City, shall have the right to act for or on behalf of the other,
or to incur debts binding on the other for any purpose. The Professionals shall supervi.se and
direct the work as provided for in this Agreement using their best skills and attention. The
Professionals shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and
procedures for coordinating all portions of the work contemplated by this Agreement. The
Professionals shall be responsible for withholding and paying all payroll taxes for any person
hired by them to perform the duties they are required to perform under the terms of this
Agreement. They are also responsible for all taxes owed to any governmental agency as a
result of the monies paid to them under the terms of this Agreement.
19. Indemnity. Professionals agree to defend, indemnify and save harmless the
City, its appointed and elected officers and employees, from and against any and all liability,
loss, costs, damage and expense, including costs and attorney fees in defense thereof
because of actions, claims or lawsuits for damages resulting from personal or bodily injury,
including death at any time resulting there from, sustained or alleged to have been sustained
by any person or persons and on account of damage to property, arising or alleged to have
arisen directly or indirectly out of or in consequence of or the performance of this Agreement,
whether such injuries to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence of
Professionals, their subcontractors or agents. This provision shall be inapplicable to the extent
the City is judicially found solely negligent for such damage or injury.
20. Insurance. Professionals agree to purchase and keep in force, from their
own funds, comprehensive public liability insurance including products liability, for the benefit
of Professionals and City jointly against liability for property damage or bodily injury at the Gold
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 6 of 10
4-9-02
Mountain Golf Complex caused by negligence of the Professionals or their employees in the
amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). A copy of the certificate of
insurance shall be filed with the City Risk Manager. Such policy shall name City as an
additional insured and shall be primary and noncontributing with any insurance carded by City.
The policy shall further provide that it shall not be cancelled or altered without twenty (20) days
prior wdtten notice to City. This requirement can be met by jointly purchasing (i.e. 50/50) a
comprehensive golf insurance package with the Greens Superintendent.
21. Entire A~lreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between
the parties with regards to the subject matter set forth herein. There are no other
representations with regards to the subject matter, either orally or in wdting.
22. Nondiscriminaton. Professionals shall not discriminate in employment or
services to the public on the basis of race, color, national odgin, sex, religion, age, marital
status physical, mental or sensory disability except in an employment action based on a bona
fide occupational qualification.
23. Liens and Insolvency. Professionals shall not allow any property of the
City to become encumbered with liens of any sort by reason of his action or omission. Should
the Professionals become insolvent or declare bankruptcy, this Agreement shall terminate on
the happening of such event.
24. Remedies. Rights under this Agreement are cumulative; the failure to
exercise on any occasion any right shall not operate to forfeit such right on another occasion.
The use of one remedy shall not be taken to exclude, p~. waive the right to use another.
25. Bond. ProfessionalS' shall secure, a~ their own expense, a fidelity bond in the'
amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). This Dishonesty Bond shall be
approved as to form by the City Attorney.
26. Audit. Professionals shall permit the City, from time to time as the City deems
necessary, to inspect and audit in Bremerton, Washington, at any reasonable time, all
pertinent books and records of Professionals and any other person or entity that has
performed work in connection with or related to Professionals' services under this Agreement
to verify the accuracy of accounting records and shall supply the City with, or shall permit the
City to make, a copy of any books and records and any portion thereof, upon the City's
request. Professionals shall ensure that such inspection, audit and copying dght of the City is a
condition of any contract, agreement or other arrangement under which any other person or
entity is permitted to perform work in connection with or related to professionals' services
under this Agreement.
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 7 of 10
4-9-02
CITY OF BREMERTON PROFESSIONALS
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor SCOTT ALEXANDER
DARYL MATHENY
A'CrEST:
Kathleen L. McCluskey, Clerk
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:
JIM SPENCER
Dim~orofPa~sand Recmation
R~ler Lub(~ich, City Attor~ -
b~2497'tgoldmt~osa2-11 .doc
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 8 of 10
4-9-02
EXHIBIT "A"
LIST OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT OF PROFESSIONALS
Refrigerators
Convection oven
Whirlpool stove I Meat slicer
Vending machine (candy)
Soup warmer
Upright freezer
Chest freezer
Microwave ovens
Service bar
Toaster oven
Outside cooler
Silverware service for 200
2 Dozen salt and pepper
2 Dozen creamer pitchers
2 Dozen sugar holders
2 Dozen coffee thermos'
3 Dozen 9" baskets
1/2 Dozen bus tubs
1/2 Dozen 2-quart pitchers
3 Small ice chests
2 Large ice chests
Assorted glassware
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 9 of 10
4-9-02
Leased
2 two-door coke coolers
1 one-door coke cooler
3 Coffee makers
1 Hot chocolate machine
1 ice machine
3 Vending machines (beverages)
1Coffee dispenser
Professional Services Agreement
Gold Mountain Golf Complex
Page 10 of 10
4-9-02
/7
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Lease Agreement FOR AGENDA OF: 4-24-02
Gold Mountain Golf Complex ORIGINATING DEPT: Parks & Recreation
ORIGINATOR: Jim Spencer, Director
DATE SUBMITTED: 4-16-02
2. CLEARANCES: 3. EXHIBITS: Lease Agreement
(Comment on back if necessary)
City Treasurer~~'~'
Fiscal & Budget Committee:
O
MAYOR: - ) ~// COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
This is the Lease Agreement with Scott Alexander and Daryl Matheny for the Gold Mountain
Golf Complex. This Agreement is for five years and is to lease the driving range and a portion of the
clubhouse to operate it as a golf pro shop. Mr. Daryl Matheny, Scott's partner, has been added as a
signature on the agreement to ensure continuity of service in Scott's absence.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
/~oV'e~ 7~'a authorize and directs the Mayor to sign the Lease Agreement for the Gold
Mountain Go If Complex with Scott Alexander and Daryl Matheny.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer
EXPIRATION DATE: 12-31-06
REVIEW DATE: 12-314)2
10. NOTICE OF ACTION ~lllk~P
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
II. AGENDA BILL#: ¢' - ~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The Gold Mountain Golf'Complex would severely be interrupted. There would be no one to
operate the pro shop and driving range.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILI.T. IES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The Lease Agreement values have been factored into the Gold Mountain Golf Complex budget.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
After Recording Retum To:
City of Bremerton
City Attorney
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
LEASE AGREEMENT
1, Date and Parties. THIS LEASE AGREEMENT (the "Lease"), for reference purposes
only, is dated the day of , 2002, and is entered into by and
between the CITY OF BREMERTON, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Landlord", and SCOTT ALEXANDER and DARYL MATHENY,-collectively hereinafter referred
to as "Tenant".
2. General Recitals.
A. The Landlord owns and operates a golf complex known as the Gold
Mountain Golf Complex ("Gold Mountain"). Gold Mountain originally had one 18-hole golf
course and a clubhouse, For purpose of this Lease, this 18-hole course shall be known as
"Cascade Course" and this clubhouse as the "Old Clubhouse". The Driving Range (the "Driving
Range") is located on the Old Course.
B. In 1996 the Landlord decided to expand the Gold Mountain Golf Complex
by adding a new 18-hole golf course known as the Olympic Course. Additionally, the Landlord
built a new clubhouse (the "Clubhouse") in 2001 at a total cost of $3.5 million The Landlord
financed $3.1 million of the total cost of constructing the Clubhouse by selling bonds (the
"Bonds"), the interest on which is not included in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
C. The Tenant has served the Landlord as its golf professional for many
years. It is the desire of the Tenant and Landlord to continue this relationship. The Tenant and
the Landlord are simultaneously, with the execution of this Lease, also entering into a
Professional Services Agreement ("PSA") with the Tenant so that the Tenant will serve as the
Golf Course Professional, and provide management services for Gold Mountain.
D. As an inducement to have the Tenant enter into the PSA, and to assure
that the customers reh..eive all of the services that are customary for a golf course, the Landlord
-1-
has agreed to lease the Driving Range and a portion of the Clubhouse to the Tenant. The
portion of the Clubhouse to be leased to the Tenant is for a Golf Pro Shop.
E. The Ddving Range is located adjacent to the Cascade Course, neither of
which include improvements that were bond-financed.
F. The Golf Pro Shop, the location of which is within the Clubhouse, is
pictorially illustrated in Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. The pro
rata cost of construction for the Clubhouse that is attributable to the Golf Pro Shop is less than
the Landlord's contribution to the cost of construction derived from sources other than Bond
proceeds, which contribution was approved in the Declaration of Official Intent of the Landlord
adopted pursuant to federal tax law pdor to the issuance of the Bonds and allocated by Landlord
to area of the Clubhouse in which the Golf Pro Shop is located.
G. The purpose of this Lease is to provide for the Tenant to operate the Pro
Shop and Driving Range while serving as the Landlord's Golf Professional under the terms of
the Professional Service Agreement referenced above.
3. Premises. The premises subject to this Lease are the Ddving Range located at
the Gold Mountain Golf Complex and the Golf Pro Shop located in the new Gold Mountain
Clubhouse (collectively, the "Premises") The Premises are located on the real property legally
described as Section 36, Township 24 N, Range 1 West, WM in Kitsap County, Washington.
4. Use of Premises.
A. The Golf Pro Shop may be used for all activities normally related to the
retail activities of a golf course including, but not limited to, retail sales of golf related
merchandise, equipment rental, and golf related professional services. The golf range may be
used for all activities normally related to operating a golf range, including, but not limited to,
providing lessons and rental of balls and equipment.
B. The Tenant shall maintain an adequate stock of golf related merchandise
to serve the playing public.
C. The Tenant has the exclusive dght to rent practice balls on the Driving
Range. The Tenant shall provide and maintain ball dispensing machines, ball retrieval and
washing equipment. The Tenant shall be responsible for retrieving the balls. The Landlord
shall be responsible for grass related maintenance of the Ddving Range.
D. The Tenant shall have the exclusive fight to salvage golf balls from all
water hazards at Gold Mountain.
E. Tenant shall not use the Premises or any part thereof for any illegal
purpose. Tenant shall not engage in any activity with respect to or on the Premises other than
the express uses and purposes stipulated herein, without obtaining prior wdtten consent from
the Landlord, which consent can be withheld for any reason. Tenant agrees to conform to
municipal, county, and state codes, statutes, ordinances, and regulations concerning the use
and occupation of the Premises.
-2-
F. The Landlord and Tenant do not intend to allow the leased premises to be
used in such a manner as to cause the interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for
purposes of federal income taxation. If it is determined that any use contemplated under the
terms of this Lease, or the PSA referenced herein would cause the bonds to be pdvate activity
bonds, then the parties agree, that without penalty to either party, the terms of this Lease and/or
the PSA will be modified accordingly so as to preserve the exclusion of the interest on the Bonds
from federal income taxation.
5. Term. The term of this Lease shall be five years, commencing on January 1, 2002,
and terminating on December 31, 2006, unless eadier terminated pursuant to the Lease
provisions. Tenant is hereby granted an option to renew this Lease for an additional five year
term under the same terms and conditions which shall occur automatically unless tenant and/or
landlord provides wdtten notice no sooner than January 1, 2006, and not later than July 1, 2006
of its intent to terminate the Lease. The termination of the Lease at the end of the initial term
can be with or without cause, so long as the notice to terminate is timely given.
6. Professional Services Agreement. The Landlord and Tenant, contemporaneously
with the execution of this Lease, have entered into the PSA, in which the Tenant agrees to
perform the services of the Golf Professional for the Golf Complex and to operate the restaurant
located within the new Gold Mountain Clubhouse. A breach of the PSA shall be deemed a
breach of this Lease. The faithful performance of the PSA terms are part of the consideration
for entering into this Lease.
7. Rent: Tenant shall be obligated to pay a base rent of thirty-three thousand dollars
($33,000) per year payable $4,750 on January 1, $11,750 on April 1, $11,750 on July 1, and
$4750 on October 1 of each year dudng the term of this leasel In addition, the Tenant shall
pay, as additional rent, eight per.cent (8%) of the gross revenues from ddving range fees..~ The
percentage-based amount shall be paid quarterly for the preceding quarter, payable' on Apdl 15,
July 15, October 15 and January 15. Tenant shall provide a quarterly accounting to the
Landlord of ali "gross revenues" at the same time it makes the quarterly payment. The Landlord
reserves the dght to inspect the financial statements and records of the Tenant at any
reasonable time and may require accounting to be performed in accordance with Landlord's
audit standards.
8. Taxes. The Tenant shall be responsible for the timely payment of all taxes
associated with the businesses operated under the terms of this Lease. In addition, the Tenant
shall pay all leasehold taxes imposed upon the Landlord and/or the Tenant as a result of this
Lease.
9. Utilities: The Landlord agrees to provide and pay all charges for electricity, water,
sewer, telephone, and for all other public utilities used in the Premises. The Landlord shall not
be responsible for failure of provision of these services unless said failure is due to non-
payment for services. Tenant shall pay for garbage and gas/propane for the entire clubhouse,
and their proportionate share of the Intemet charge.
10. Sublet: Tenant shall not assign this Lease or sublet the whole or any portion of the
Premises without first obtaining Landlord's wdtten consent. Landlord may withhold its consent
for any reason. Provided, however, the Tenant may transfer the Lease to a wholly owned
corporation or limited liability company for tax purposes or third party liability purposes.
-3-
However, the Tenant shall remain personally liable to Landlord for the faithful performance of all
Lease terms. If consent is once given by Landlord to the assignment of the Lease, or any
interest therein, Landlord shall not be barred from afterward refusing to consent to any further
assignment.
11. Repairs and Maintenance: The Premises have been inspected and are accepted
by Tenant in their present condition, and Tenant will at all times keep the Premises neat, clean
and in a sanitary condition. Landlord shall maintain at its sole expense the building, including
but not limited to, the roof, foundations, extedor walls, structural members, gutters, downspouts,
concealed and underground plumbing and utilities of the Premises in good condition and repair,
except that Tenant shall be responsible for repair of any damage resulting from the negligence
of Tenant, Landlord shall not be required to redecorate the Premises at any time. Tenant shall
be responsible to maintain at its sole expense all the furniture, fixtures and equipment. Tenant
agrees that at the expiration of this Lease, Tenant will quit and surrender the Premises in a neat
and dean condition, and will deliver all keys belonging to the Premises to Landlord.
12. Default. In case of violation of this Lease by Tenant, the Landlord shall notify
Tenant in writing of such violation. The Tenant shall cure any default that imposes an
immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare within 24 hours. Any default in the
payment of monies due under any provision of this Lease shall be cured within 10 days. All
other violations shall be cured within thirty (30) days following the delivery of said notice. In the
event of the failure of the Tenant to remedy any default or violation of the covenants,
agreements, or conditions herein contained within the pedod of time specified in the notice, this
Lease and all dghts of Tenant hereunder shall be terminated and the Lessor shall have the dght
to enter upon the Premises and re-take possession thereof. Continued violations for same or
similar reasons may be grounds for immediate termination if a subsequent violation occurs after
the Landlord gives notice that it intends to terminate upon the further occurrence of similar
violations.
13. Termination. This Lease shall terminate on December 31, 2006, unless extended
pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 5 above. This Lease can be eadier terminated, or
terminated dudng the extension period, for good cause. Good cause shall mean any of the
following; 1) failure to timely cure a default after notice as provided in paragraph 12 above; 2)
termination of the PSA, 3) lack of sufficient insurance proceeds to rebuild or repair the facility
after damage or destruction, 4) insolvency of the Tenant, or the appointment of a receiver to
administer its financial affairs, or 5) any reason specified elsewhere in this Lease, or the
attachments hereto, that is designated as grounds for termination. Upon the termination of the
Lease, the Tenant shall vacate the Premises, and the Landlord may immediately reenter and
take possession of the Premises without the necessity of a court order to do so.
14. Accidents and Indemnity: Tenant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Landlord
harmless from all loss, damage, liability or expense resulting from any injury to any person or
any loss of or damage to any property caused by or resulting from any act or omission of Tenant
or any officer, agent, employee, guest, invitee or visitor of Tenant in or about the Premises, but
the foregoing provision shall not be construed to make Tenant responsible for injuries to third
parties caused by the sole negligence of Landlord or any officer, agent, employee, guest, invitee
or visitor of Landlord. Landlord shall not be liable for any loss or damage to person or property
-4-
sustained by Tenant, or other persons, which may be caused by theft or by any act of neglect of
any tenant or occupant of the building, or of any other person, or by any other cause, unless
Landlord is judicially found solely negligent for such damage or injury. Tenant further agrees to
procure, at no expense to the Landlord, industrial insurance for all employees of Tenant.
15. Liens: Tenant shall keep the Premises and the Gold Mountain free from any
liens adsing out of any work performed, materials fumished or obligations incurred by Tenant
16. Access: Tenant will allow Landlord or Landlord's agent free access at all
reasonable times to the Premises for the purpose of inspection, or of making repairs, additions
or alterations to the Premises or any property owned by or under the control of Landlord, but
this right shall not be construed as an agreement on the part of Landlord to make any repairs
other than those repairs for which Landlord is responsible pursuant to the terms hereof.
Landlord shall have the dght to show the intedor of the Premises to interested parties for thirty
(30) days pdor to the expiration of this Lease. By mutual agreement of the Director of Parks and
Recreation and Tenant, portions of the Clubhouse may be provided on a non-interference basis
with no room charges assessed when conducting Landlord's business. Room set-up is the
responsibility of the Landlord.
17. Fire Insurance, Hazards:
A. No use shall be made or permitted to be made of the Premises, nor acts
done, which will increase the existing rate of insurance upon the Clubhouse or cause the
cancellation of any insurance policy covedng the Clubhouse, or any part thereof, nor shall
Tenant sell, or permit to be kept, used or sold, in or about the Premises, any article which may
be prohibited by the standard form of fire insurance policies. Tenant shall, at its sole cost and
expense, comply with any and all requirements, pertaining to the Premises and resulting from
Tenant's business activities, of any insurance organization or company necessary for the
maintenance of reasonable fire and public liability insurance covedng the Premises, Clubhouse
and appurtenances. In the event that Tenant fails or refuses to comply with any and all such
requirements then Landlord may, at its option, assess the Tenant any increases in such fire and
public liability insurance premiums caused as a result thereof and the Tenant shall pay the
same upon demand as additional rent or Landlord may declare the Tenant to be in default under
the terms of this Lease.
B. Landlord hereby releases Tenant of and from every and all dght, claim and
demand the Landlord may hereafter have against Tenant or Tenant's successors or assigns
arising out of or in connection with any loss or losses occasioned by fire and such items as are
included under the normal extended coverage clause of fire insurance policies and to the extent
of the policy limits, and does hereby waive all dghts of subrogation in favor of insurance carders
against the Tenant adsing out of any lawsuit occasioned by fire and such items as are included
under the normal extended coverage clause of fire insurance policies and sustained by Landlord
in or around the Premises. Tenant hereby releases Landlord from any and every dght, claim
and demand that Tenant may hereinafter have against Landlord or landlord's successors or
assigns adsing out of or in connection with any lawsuit occasioned by fire and such items as are
included under the normal extended coverage clause of fire insurance policies, and does hereby
waive all dghts of subrogation in favor of insurance carders against Landlord adsing out of any
loss occasioned by fire and such items as are included under the normal extended coverage
clause of fire insurance policies and sustained by Tenant to the trade fixtures, equipment and
merchandise on the Premises. The waiver provided for in this paragraph shall be applicable and
effective only in the event such waivers are attainable from the insurance carders concerned.
18. Liability Insurance: Tenant, at its own expense, shall provide and keep in force
with companies acceptable to Landlord, comprehensive public liability, including products
liability insurance for the benefit of Landlord and Tenant jointly against liability for bodily injury
and property damage in the amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Tenant
shall furnish Landlord with a certificate of such policy within thirty (30) days of the
commencement date of this Lease and thereafter shall satisfy Landlord that such policy is in full
force and effect. Such policy shall name Landlord as an additional insured and shall be primary
and noncontributing with any insurance carded by Landlord. The policy shall further provide that
it shall not be cancelled or altered without twenty (20) day's pdor written notice to Landlord. This
requirement can be met by jointly purchasing (i.e. 50/50) a comprehensive golf insurance
package with the Greens Superintendent.
19. Damac~e or Destruction: In the event the Premises, other than the Clubhouse are
damaged to such an extent as to render the same unusable in whole or in substantial part, or
are destroyed, Tenant shall give Landlord or Landlord's agent immediate wdtten notice thereof,
and it shall be optional with Landlord to repair or rebuild the same. Landlord shall have not more
than ninety (90) days after date of such notification to notify Tenant in writing of Landlord's
intention to repair or rebuild the Premises, or the part so damaged and, if Landlord elects to
repair or rebuild Premises, Landlord shall prosecute the work of such repairing or rebuilding
without unnecessary delay, and during such pedod the rent of the Premises shall be abated in
the same ratio that that portion of the Premises rendered for the time being unfit for occupancy
shall' bear to the whole of the Premises. If Landlord. shall fail to give the notice aforesaid,
Tenant shall have the fight to declare this Lease terminated by written notice served upon
Landlord or Landlord's agent. In the event that there is not sufficient insurance to pay for the
repair or rebuilding of any damaged structure, then the Landlord, in its sole discretion, may.
terminate this Lease. Provided, however, prior to terminating the Lease for this reason, the
Landlord shall discuss with the Tenant other ways to provide for the funding shortfall, but such
will not prohibit the Landlord from terminating the lease.
In the event the Clubhouse is damaged (even though the Premises shall not be damaged
thereby) to such an extent that in the reasonable opinion of Landlord it shall not be practicable
to repair or rebuild, or is destroyed, then it shall be optional with Landlord to terminate this
Lease by written notice served on Tenant within thirty (30) days after such damage or
destruction.
20. Notices: All notices under this Lease shall be in wdting and delivered in person or
sent by registered or certified mail to Landlord in care of Bremerton City Clerk, 239 Fourth
Street, Bremerton, Washington 98337, and to Tenant at P.O. Box 197, Bremerton, Washington
98312, effective as of the postmark time and date, or to such other place as may hereafter be
designated by either party in writing.
21. Alterations: Tenant shall not make any alterations, additions or improvements in
the Premises without first obtaining the consent of Landlord in wdting, which consent can be
withheld at Landlord's sole discretion. All alterations, additions and improvements, shall be at
the sole cost and expense of Tenant, and shall remain in and be surrendered with the Premises
as a part thereof at the termination of this Lease. If Tenant-shall perform work with the consent
-6-
of Landlord, as provided above, Tenant agrees to comply with all laws, ordinances rules and
regulations of the City of Bremerton and any other authorized public authority. Tenant further
agrees that workmanship will be of a reasonable commercial quality, in color schemes in
accordance with current building, standards, and free of mechanics liens. Tenant further agrees
to save Landlord free and harmless from damage, loss or expense adsing out of such work.
22. Costs and Attorney Fees: If, by reason of any default or breach on the part of
either party in the performance of any of the provisions of this Lease, a legal action is instituted,
the losing party agrees to pay all reasonable costs and attomey fees in connection therewith. It
is agreed that the venue of any legal action brought under the terms of shall be in Kitsap
County.
23. Amendments: This Lease may be amended at any time only by written agreement
signed by the parties.
24. Insolvency: In the event that the Tenant shall become insolvent or go into
bankruptcy, this Lease may be cancelled at the option of the Landlord without notice, and the
Landlord may take immediate possession of the Premises and the whole thereof and the same
shall not become an asset in bankruptcy.
25. Nondiscrimination: Tenant shall not discriminate in employment or services to the
public on the basis of sex, race, color, creed, national odgin, age, madtal status, physical,
mental or sensory handicap except an employment action based on a bona fide occupational
qualification.
26. Waiver: Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or
conditions of this agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or
relinquishment of such fight or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach.
27. Binding Effect: This Lease shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, assigns
and all other parties legally empowered with signatory dghts of any or all of the parties hereto.
28, Invalidity of Provisions: Should any term, provision, condition or other portion of
this lease be held to be inoperative, invalid or void, the same shall not affect any other term,
provision, condition or other portion of this Lease and the remainder of this Lease shall be
effective as if such term, provision, condition or portion had not been contained herein.
29. Previous Agreements Superseded: The terms and conditions of this Lease
supersede the terms, obligations and conditions of any existing or pdor agreement between the
parties regarding the subject matter of this Lease.
-7-
30. Entire Aareeme, nt. This Lease, including the exhibits and statutes referenced
herein contain the entire agreement between the Parties and are the embodiment of all wdtten
or oral representations between the parties hereto.
LANDLORD: TENANT:
CITY Of BREMERTON
CARY BOZEMAN, MAYOR SCOTT ALEXANDER
DARYL MATHENY
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, CLERK "
APPROVED AS TO FORM: :'
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
County of )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that SCOTT ALEXANDER and DARYL
MATHENY are the persons who appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that they
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be their free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
DATED:
NOTARY PUBLIC
Print Name:
My appointment expires:
-8-
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) SS.
County of ~
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that CARY BOZEMAN is the person
who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on
oath, stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it, as the
Mayor of the City of Bremerton, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
DATED:
NOTARY PUBLIC
Print Name:
My appointment expires: __
b~2497~goldmtn~lease2-11 .doc
-9-
EXHIBIT "A"
Golf Pro Shop
new Gold Mountain Clubhouse
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
CLUBHOUSE
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Resolution - Authorizing FOR AGENDA OF: April 24, 2002
Application for Funding Assistance to the ORIGINATING DEPT: Parks & Recreation
Interagency for Outdoor Recreation for ORIGINATOR: Jim Spencer, Director
Development of Maritime Park DATE SUBMITTED: April 16, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: 3. EXHIBITS:
(Comment on back if necessary.) ~ . ,~ .!
Parks & Recreation Director: . . ~ solution
City Attorney:~/~vl.~td~'-~ ~ J
Treasurer: ~'~V--'~
Fiscal & Budget Committee: x
Operations Committee: '~
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City of Bremerton has embarked upon a downtown plan and development that envisions a
renovation to the entire area. Parks and open space are a critical component in achieving this
vision. To that end, the Navy is giving the City the property directly south of the Bremerton
Transit Center to develop into a park. The west end will house the Naval Museum and the rest
will be developed into a downtown waterfront park that will enhance the entrance to the City.
In order to fund the development of the park portion, we wish to apply to the Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) for a grant. The total development for the park portion
of the project is estimated to be $ 7. a~ a_ ann . The IAC grant request will be for a
maximum of $300,000. The match (l~al~ri~e-$i' fur~ding) will be coming from City funds, and
hopefully other grants (e.g. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account - A.L.E.A.).
8. RECOMMENDATION:
.5
Move to adopt Resolution No. oq~0 ~ , authorizing the application for funding assistance to the
Interagency for Outdoor Recreation for the development of Maritime Park.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Jim Spencer
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE ~E
OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED D
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION (continued):
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City will not be able to apply for an IAC grant.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER
RESOURCES:
Addition of this particular park will not impact the maintenance and operations budget and
staffing significamly.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
Organization Name: City of Bremerton Resolution No. o~ ~ ,5' 5
Project Name: Maritime Park
A resolution authorizing application for funding assistance for a Washington Wildlife and
Recreation Program (WWRP) project to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) as
provided in Chapter 79A.15 RCW, Acquisition of Habitat Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Lands.
WHEREAS, our organization has approved a comprehensive plan that includes this project area; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of WWRP, state funding assistance is requested to aid in financing the
cost of land acquisition and/or facility development; and
WHEREAS, our organization considers it in the best public interest to complete the land acquisition
and/or facility development project described in the application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
1. The Mayor be authorized to make formal application to lAC for funding assistance;
2. Any fund assistance received be used for implementation of the project referenced above;
3. Our organization hereby certifies that its share of project funding is committed and will be derived
from City funds;
4. We acknowledge that we are responsible for supporting all non-cash commitments to the sponsor
share should they not materialize;
5. We acknowledge that any property acquired or facility developed with lAC financial aid must be
placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless
otherwise provided and agreed to by our organization and lAC;
6. This resolution becomes part ora formal application to lAC; and
7. We provided appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application.
This resolution was adopted by our organization during the meeting held:
Location: City Council Chambers~ City Hall - 289 4~. Sweet, Bremerton~ Wa Date: April 24, 2002
Signed and approved by the following authorized representative:
Signed
Title Mayor Date:. April 24~ 2002
Attest:
Approved as to form:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. d::~~'' ~::~ FORAGENDA OF: 04/24/02.~,
AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE ORIGINATING DEPT: Trea~suf~r~/-~
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND AND ORIGINATOR: R':". Hanna
RELATED BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. DATE SUBMITTED: 04/15/2002
2. CLEARANCES: Comment of back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
Attome~ Proposed Resolution ~- ~ i~' ~
Dir. Admin~.'Serv.-~~ Budget Adjustment Request 2002
ENDORSEM~N];~ w ~ I1~ ~3RI~fATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESI?ENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COMNClL ACTION:
The proposed resolution and budget adjustment will provide for the use of an inte~und loan with which to finance the
cash flow of the General Fund. This financing is usually accomplished through the issue of a Tax Anticipation Note
or TAN, however conditions in the financial ma~ets have made the usual financing method una~ractive.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
1. Meth5 to approve Resolution No. ~f~?gauthorizing the inter-fund loan from the Equipment Rental Fund to the
General Fund.
2. Move, to approve Budget Adjustment 2002 ¢¢9.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Treasurer
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Mayor
EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/2002
REVIEW DATE: N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED ~ APPROVED ~ DISAPPROVED ~AMENDEI~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
The City's General Fund will operate for much of the year with a negative cash balance,
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
As indicated in the attached budget adjustment request.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Staff analysis.
RESOLUTION NO. ~ 8,5 (~
A RESOLUTION authorizing an Inter-fund Loan to the
General Fund from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund.
WHEREAS, the General Fund has an immediate need for cash with which to finance its
operations pending the receipt of property tax and other revenues; and
WHEREAS, the current market conditions make the use of a Tax Anticipation Note
(TAN) for this purpose financially unattractive; and
WHEREAS, surplus cash in an amount sufficient to meet these cash flow needs is
presently on hand in the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund;
NOW, THEREFORE, let it be resolved, that the City Treasurer is hereby authorized and
directed to make an inter-fund loan from the Equipment Rental Reserve Fund to the General
Fund in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000. This loan shall bear interest at the rate of 3.0% per
annum and shall be repaid in its entirety not later than December 31, 2002.,
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of
,2002.
CAROL AKENDS, Council President
CITY OF BREMERTON
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
Requesting Department: GENERAL FUND Adjustment Number: 2002 #9
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
Approval Authority Required:
nTreasurer nMayor F Fiscal & Budget r~Council
SOURCE OF FUNDS: USE OF FUNDS:
Description Amount Description Amount
General Fund:
Delete:
Proceeds of TAN (1,250,000) Ending Cash (TAN) (1,250,000)
Add:
Proceeds of Interfund Loan 1,000,000 Repayment of Interfund Loan 1,000,000
Equipment Rental Fund:
Add:
Repayment of Interfund Loan 1,000,000 Issue of Interfund Loan 1,000,000
NARRATIVE:
This adjustment will change the budget to reflect the use of an interfund loan to finance the General Fund cash flow
instead of a Tax Anticipation Note, TAN, as was originally anticipated. Market conditions make the use of a TAN
financially unattractive at this time.
Department Head Sil~nature Date , Director Signature .: Date
Treasurer Comments:
~-~ Recommended ]-----] Not Recommended ~ ~ 'D~a~e~ ~
Treasurer's Signatur"-~
Mayor Comments:
]-----] Recommended ~ Not Recommended
r---] Approved ~ Denied
Mayor's Signature Date
Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments:
Approved ~ Denied
Fiscal & Budget Committee Signature Date
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Resolution to temporarily defer all FOR AGENDA OF: April 24, 2002
non-emergency amendments to the City of ORIGINATING DEPT:
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan ORIGINATOR: Chris Hugo~
DATE SUBMITTED: April 16, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
~~~'~ Resolution ~O~ '2 ~ '?
City
Attorney
Fiscal/Budget
Operations
APPROVE~t} SU~: /_,&4~ COUNCIL PRESDENT /7.~. ~// "
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Bremerton community is in the
process of updating the 1995 Comprehensive Plan in accordance with a State mandate for local governments to revisit
their respective plans periodically. The Plan update process, Shaping Bremerton, provides opportunity for property
owners and other interests to seek changes to the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan.
By provisions of the State Growth Managemen? Act and the 1995 Comprehensive Plan, plan amendments can
not be considered more than once per year and not less than once every five years. The City has adopted
procedures for plan amendments, but these do not specify an amendment interv.al.
The proposed resolution defers any ad hoc consideration of plan amendments until the Shaping Bremerton
process is completed, projected to be in the spring of 2003.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
/t~o4e., 'Po approve Resolution No. a~ff7 to temporarily defer all non-emergency amendments to the
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director of Planning and Building
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director of Planning and Building
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED_ TABLED_ APPROVED_ DISAPPROVED_ AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~.,.
37
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.):
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.):
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: There is a possibility that applications for plan amendments could be
submitted to the City with an expectation from applicants that the City will consider the amendments in 2002.
Any attempt on the City's part to process these applications would create conflicts with the Shaping Bremerton
plan update process and confuse the public that the City is attempting to attract to that process.
There are insufficient staff resources to conduct both a city-wide plan update process and a concurrent plan
amendment process. Non-pas. sage of this resolution would promote confusion within some sectors of the
community regarding the City's official position on how revisions to the Plan will be congidered between now
and the spring of 2003.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: The
resolution relieves the Department of Community Development from the additional duties and uncertainties that
would likely accrue from applications for plan amendments that could be submitted during the Shaping
Bremerton plan update process.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
RESOLUTION NO. ~S--7
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of' the City of'
Bremerton, Washington, deferring all non-emergency amendments
to the City of. Bremerton Comprehensive Plan to facilitate the fall
review and evaluation of' the Comprehensive Plans in accordance
with the Growth Management Act of 1990.
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of 1990 requires each city to
consider proposed amendments and revisions to the comprehensive plan no more
frequently than once every year (RCW 36.78.130); and
WHEREAS, Element K, Section 2(B) of the City of Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan provides that the comprehensive plan shall be amended no more
frequently than once per calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has not, by ordinance or resolution,
established a formal time period or schedule for reviewing and processin§ proposed
comprehensive plan amendments; and '":
WHEREAS, the City has not reviewed proposed comprehensive plan
amendments on an annual basis or on a consistent schedule; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, cities are required to review, update
and revise their comprehensive land use plan and development regulations on a comprehensive
basis by September 1, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature, during the 2002 legislative session, pursuant to
Bill SSB5841, extended this deadline for such comprehensive review to December 31, 2002 for
certain cities, including the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has initiated a proces, s for comprehensive plan
reviews to comply with the December 1, 2004 deadline; and
1
~ ~ Comprehensive Platt
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it would be inappropriate to consider
proposed comprehensive plan amendments at this time independent from the comprehensive
review currently undertaken and to do so might result in plan amendments that are further
modified or altered during the comprehensive review to be completed by December 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it would be more appropriate to receive
and consider proposed comprehensive plan amendments from the public and consider the same
during the public input process of the comprehensive plan review currently undertaken by the
City rather than through the more formal comprehensive plan application process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that it would be in the best interest of
the City and its citizens to defer applications for proposed comprehensive plan amendments and
that only emergency amendments requiring emergency consideration as set forth in Element
K(2)(C) of the Comprehensive Plan be considered and acted on prior to the completion of the
City's comprehensive Comprehensive Plan review; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. All non-emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals are
hereby deferred until March 1, 2004 and the City staff shall not receive and/or begin processing
the same until said date.
SECTION 2. Emergency Comprehensive Plan amendments of a neighborhood-
or community-wide significance shall be proposed to the City Planning Commission which is
hereby appointed and who shall serve as the Council Growth Management Committee until such
time as the city council may make new appointments to the same. Such proposals shall be
considered in accordance with the provisions of Section K(2)(C) of the City of Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan.
Comprehensive Platt
SECTION 3. Severabilit~. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington this __ day of ,20
APPROVED by the City Council the __ day of ,2002.
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Bremerton this day of
,20
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. L~OVICH, City Attorney
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, the __ day of
,20
R:\LEGAL\Resolutions\Comprehensive Plan Resolution.doc
3
Comprehensive Platt
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: , ,~, .....
BMC Chapter 21.02 (the Zoning Code) by providing the DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DCD
regulatory measures to promote the adaptive reuse of public ORIGINATOR: Chris Huqo, Direc~.l/~/L-''-_ -
and semi-public buildings. DATE SUBMITTED: March 21, 2002
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS'
DCD Director:~ o PC Findings & Conclusions
City Attorne~ o PC Minutes 3/20/01 & 7/17/01
City Clerk:"~'-,~~. ×~.~ o Staff Report
Fiscal'
&
Budget Councd CQm~-~x'~j_~,~;.-?.~'-,. o Ordinance to amend Zoning Text
Operations Comm.: ~'.~ ,,~. ....
ENDORS~~T , I ON __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL.., PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR ~L PRESIDENT _L"-~.,_~e,-Z~.~c-~/?'
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Bremerton School District has initiated Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments intended to
promote the reuse of public and semi-public buildings that are no longer needed to serve their original primary
purpose, provided that a new use is compatible with the surrounding planned environment.
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted public hearings, adopted Findings &
Conclusions at their July 17, 2001 meeting, and recommended City Council approval. The Council approved
the related Comprehensive Plan Amendment on August 1,2001. The Council must conduct a public hearing
prior to its final decision and action on the proposed Ordinance in order to implement the zoning text
amendment. It should be noted that the attached zoning text indicated as "revised" has been refined at the
suggestion of the City Attorney to better address the compatibility issue, It is recommended that the revised text
be approved.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to pass the attached Ordinance # J'~7 ~' on second reading.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Huqo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AM E~D~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:~ ·
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: '-;.z' ~' "/
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
'!0. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the proposed ordinance is not approved, the city will lose the capability of allowing obsolete
public buildings to be utilized for activities that are compatible with their surroundings,
resulting in vacant structures, demolition of substantial buildings, and a lack of revenue-
generating opportunities for tax-supported entities such as the Bremerton School District.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The proposed amendment will create no operational changes for the city.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Ordinance
File
Site Visits
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Zoning Code, Chapter
21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, by adding a new section,
Section 21.02.315 entitled "Adaptive Reuse of Public and Semi-
Public Buildings" to allow certain uses in surplus public and semi-
public buildings, subject to approval of a Special Use Permit that
demonstrates compatibility of uses with the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, the Bremerton School District has initiated Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code amendments that would allow the reuse of surplus public and semi-public buildings
for certain uses, provided that those uses would be proven compatible with the surrounding area
and subject to a Special Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, fire stations, libraries, churches, and park buildings, in addition to
schools are common to residential neighborhood settings and occasionally become surplus; and
WHEREAS, such buildings are often substantial structures that became an
integral part of a neighborhood setting and can be put to useful purposes after they are declared
surplus for their originally intended use; and
WHEREAS, the absence of a provision in the Zoning Code allowing for adaptive
reuse would be likely to result in the demolition of such buildings when and if they were
declared surplus; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Text amendments on March 20, 2001, continued the
hearing, and on July 17, 2001 adopted Findings and Conclusions in support of its
recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (File # PLO 1-0010) and
Zoning Code Text Amendment (File # PL01-0011); and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment on
August 1,2001, but not the Zoning Text Amendment, which was apparently withdrawn to allow
for refinement of language; and
WHEREAS, a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for both the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zoning Code amendment on March 17, 2001; and
Zoning
WHEREAS, The Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on April 10,
2002 to accept the public comments pertaining to the proposed Development Regulation
Amendment to consider the Planning Commission recommendation; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A new section is hereby added to Bremerton Municipal Code,
Chapter 21.02 to read as follows:
21.02.315 ADAPTIVE REUSE OF PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
(a) Purpose: The intent of this section is to provide opportunities for
occupying functionally obsolete public and semi-public buildings that are otherwise structurally
sound with new uses to extend their economic life. However, this opportunity shall not be
granted at the expense of adjacent land uses. In considering the appropriateness of any proposed
occupancy,, consideration shall be given to the relative intensity of the proposed use compared to
the intensity of the planned land use environment, as well as to minimizing negative effects of
traffic, parking, noise .and other operational conditions on surrounding properties.
(b) When the need for a certain public or semi-public building in' any zone no
longer exists, the building use may be converted to those uses listed in the zone in which it is
located, except that when it is located in any residential zone, it may be changed by special
permit to a use allowed in Figure 140, Professional Office (PO) Zone, Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
and the following listed uses of Category 11: consultants, computer assistance and training (but
not repair), office/business assistance services, and general offices. To qualify for the special use
permit, the public or semi-public facility must have been constructed for the stated public or
semi-public use and operated as such use for a minimum of five years.
(c) The special use permit shall not be granted unless the applicant establishes
that the proposed use, when appropriately conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding
residential uses. The Administrative Hearing Examiner may impose conditions to ensure
compatibility. The conditions may include, but are not limited to, restrictions on hours of
operation, location and amount of parking, types, size, density and location of landscaping
buffers and berms, and restrictions and/or conditions for noise attenuation.
Zoning
(d) For the purposes of this section, "public and semi-public buildings" shall
include only the following facilities: public schools, fire stations, libraries, churches, hospitals,
and post offices.
SECTION 2. 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.
SECTION3. 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 day of ,2002
PASSED by the City Council the 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 Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ,2002
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2002
ORDINANCE NO. ..
R:\LEGAL\Ordinanccs~Zoning Ordinance 3-22.doc
3
Zoning
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
PL01-0011: Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment to provide the
regulatory measures for the adaptive reuse of public and semi-public
buildings.
FINDINGS:
1. A proposed new Comprehensive Plan policy for adaptive re-use of public
and semi-public buildings expresses the community's interest in extending
the economic life of these buildings.
2. The pending new policy states an appropriate balance among the
community's interests in economic activity, resource conservation, and
neighborhood preservation.
3. The pending policy provides adequate guidance for the regulation of public
and semi-public buildings that are proposed for adaptive re-use' in
neighborhood settings.
4. The proposed zoning text amendment provides that adaptive re-use of
public and semi-public buildings will be allowed only by special use permit
to insure that new occupancy does not create undue operational impacts 'on
the surrounding neighborhood.
5. The proposed zoning text amendment limits new uses to those residential
and non-residential uses that are considered to be the most compatible with
residential neighborhoods.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed zoning text amendment will directly implement the pending
new Comprehensive Plan policy to encourage adaptive re-use of public and
semi-public buildings that is compatible with existing neighborhoods.
2. The proposed amendment meets the consistency requirement of the
Growth Management Act.
3. The proposed amendment's reliance on the special use permit process,
including public hearings, is an appropriate method to insure that
community interests in compatible development are satisfied.
Approved by the Bremerton Planning Commission on~ 17 ,~ /~)[
Attest: ~ U
own judgment and come up with a decision.
David St. Pierre, Assistant City Attorney indicated for clarification to the public that these are
legislative matters. The fact that they have closed in the past and possible decided that they
needed additional information is allowed with legislative actions as o~en as they wish. They
could hear this matter every planning commission for the next 10 years if they wish. This is a
legislative matter and not a matter that affects an individual project so by opening the meeting
for additional testimony today they have in fact cured any defects that the same petitioner had
indicated had occurred before. Should they decide to close now, that would be it.
Mr. Coombes noted that any development that occurs on the site regardless of the zone would
be subject to storm water control, erosion control, buffers to adjacent residential zones and those
would all be considered at the time of development.
Open to the Public (Comments of a neutral nature) - none
Testimony on this item was closed. They will be deliberating on this item on April 10 or 17.
9. PL010010 Regarding the Bremerton School District Comprehensive Plan Policy Text
Amendment Application to amend the land use sections of the comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Dingfield rescued herself from this issue.
Ron Carpenter, Bremerton School District asked if Chairman Kosusko would rescue himself
from this issue due to prior statements regarding this issue that implied his mind was made up.
Chairman Kosusko stated he would rescue himself from this issue.
Commissioner Kennedy took over the meeting - a quorum still exists.
Mr. Coombes showed a copy of the amended text on the overhead projector which reads
"adapting the use of public and semipublic buildings. Promote the reuse of public and semipublic
buildings that are no longer needed to serve their original primary purpose providing that any new
use is consistent with the surrounding planned environment".
Commissioner Boyd asked if a motion to approve was necessary.
Mr. St. Pierre said that this was just like everything else on the agenda tonight.
Vice Chairman Kennedy stated they were just taking testimony.
Ron Carpenter, Bremerton School District Facilities Director stated this is being submitted by
the city planning staff for the Bremerton School District stated this is needed to accommodate use
of many public and semipublic buildings in the community. The Bremerton School District
would like to work with the community to use its viable buildings when they are done with them.
Planning Coramission Meeting -March 20. 2001 Page 15 of 20
Open to the Public (Public in Favor of this project) -
Terry Kesner, 3408 Forest Dr. NE, Bremerton indicated that this building is part of the fabric
of Manette. It would be terrible to see it tom down. The building has a great future ahead of it.
The Navy and Bremerton School District have maintained it nicely. It fits into the neighborhood
and the building should be given a second chance. We should keep what we've got and keep this
building.
Open to the Public (Public Opposed to this project) - none
Mr. Coombes clarified that this is not site specific but is city wide.
John Dickinson asked if the schools or other public buildings would be eligible for HUD money
for improvement so that a regional recreational complex could be generated. To him, he thinks
this would be a better utilization of the properties.
Ron Carpenter stated that underneath the existing state laws, the school board cannot just hang
onto surplus property but must sell it to someone. Property cannot be given away to the
citizenship.
Testimony was closed. Deliberation would be scheduled for April 17.
Commissioner Dingfieid and Chairman Kosusko returned to the meeting.
10. Regarding the City of Bremerton Park Ave. Zoning Map Amendment A~plicatiOn..i
PL01-007 .
Mr. Coombes indicated this is being done to bring the zoning in line with the comprehensive
plan designation. The comprehensive plan designation is MU which is Mixed Use and the area is
the East side of Park. t s one lot deep and there ~s an alley behind ~t from the corner of Pacific
between 6th and Park. The Northeast comer of 6th and 11th is already zoned commercial and the
southeast corner of 11th and Park is already zoned commercial as well. This is brining in linc the
other areas designated in the comprehensive plan as MU to a mixed usc zone.
Open to the Public (Public in Favor of this project) - none
Open to the Public (Public Opposed to this project) - none
Testimony closed. Deliberation will be April 10 or 17.
11. Regarding the Olympic College campus zoning map amendment application. PL00-0047.
Mr. Coombes indicated the comp plan designates this as school, and they want to bring the
zoning in line with that. There are 5-6 parcels between Lincoln and the Chester right of way
which was vacated to the college north of 13t~. There is one additional parcel on the west side of
Lincoln in the middle of the block between 13th and 14th. The comp plan states that that whole
block west of Lincoln would eventually conform in zoning as is proposed for these specific sites.
plamung Commission Meeting- March 20. 2001 Page 16 of 20
Draft Minutes for Approval DRAFT
Planning Commission Meeting
May 1, 2001
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:43 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present xvere: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Berkowitz, Commissioner Boyd, Commissioner
Coburn, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified.
NOTE: Commissioner Moshay entered the meeting at 6:07pm
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Hugo asked that item 7 be deferred PL00-0047, Special Use Permit Application for Olympic
College until May 15th.
A motion was made by Commissioner Berkowitz and seconded by Commissioner .Kennedy to
approve the agenda with the recommended revision that item 7'be deferred until May 15. Called
for a vote: Berkowitz: yes; Boyd: yes; Coburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes;
Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved.
IV. Approval of Minutes
T~vo sets of minutes were presented. The Februa~ 20 minutes on page 5, Commissioner Dingfield's
comments and Commissioner Kosusko's comments have been contused. There is still an item that says
one of the commissioners which sro:fid be Commissioner Dingfield. At the top of the page Chairman
Kosusko asked if consisted" should be "consistent"Pt The same thing happened on the next quote from
Mr. Hugo. Commissioner Kennedy moved that the February 20 minutes be approved as revised
and the minutes of the April 17 meeting be approved. Commissioner Kosusko seconded the
motion. Called ~'or a vote: Bo,d: yes, Berkowitz: yes; Cobum: yes, Dingfield: yes; Kosusko: yes,
Kennedy: yes, Coburn: yes. Minutes approved.
V. Public Meeting
1. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda):
Chairman Kosusko described how the public hearing portion of the meeting would be conducted.
May I,£00~, Page
2. Hearing:
Chairman Kosusko noted that the first two items are continued items where testimony has been
previously closed.
Mr. Hugo asked that testimony on these t~vo items be reopened. The request will be to set the public
hearing for the next regular meeting and to allow testimony tonight if there is any present in response'to
the advertised notice.
Commissioner Dingfield excused herself.
Chairman Kosusko indicated that he would stay until they started hearing testimony and will then
excuse himself also.
Mr. Hugo stated that there is a proposal by the Bremerton School District to sell the Manette School to
another owner for another use. The initial proposal is essentially a change to the comprehensive plan
land use map. This presented difficulties as it had the appearance of being a spot zone but the School
District had been advised by the department staff that this was the way to go before Mr. Hugo's arrival.
Mr. Hugo advised a proposed policy and zoning code text amendment as another solution which would
allow reuse of public and semipublic buildings. According to Growth Management, there must be a
policy in support of regulatory actions. The last para~aph of the staff report indicates that the 95 Comp
Plan includes no policies to support adaptive reuse. The proposed policy addition is intended to provide
an initial foundation for the zoning code text amendment to allow adaptive reuse under the conditions
proposed including the requirement for a Special Use Permit pursuant to a public heating process to
ensure that issues of compatible use and development are addressed. The policy language proposed is to
promote the reuse of public and semipublic buildings that are no longer needed to serve their original
primau purpose provided that any new use is consistent with the surrounding planned environment. We
propose to add that to Element E, Land Use under section 3A in the Comp Plan. The policy has
relevance to several~owth management act goals including_ goat 1 - urban ~owth. goal ~" - reduce
sprawl, goal 3 - transportation. 4 - housing, 5- economic development, and 13 - historic preservation.
The proposed zoning code amendment proposes to add a new section to the Bremerton Municipal Code.
21.02315 that limits the range of uses that these buildings could be used for and indicates that the special
permit could only be approved by public hearing and a finding that the building is suitable tbr the
proposed use. A Determination of Non-Sig-nificance was issued for this on March 17, 2001. The criteria
for revision of comprehensive plan amendments were pointed out - only the first criteria seems to apply
in this instance. This regulation also proposes to meet the consistency rule tbr the zoning amendments.
Chairman Kosusko asked rbr clarification of some of the allowed t:ses.
Mr. Hugo indicated that the public could comment on the suggested uses and the commissioners could
make suggestions to expand them or narrow' them as they see fit.
Chairman Kosusko indicated that public testimonv on the item would be reopened and be sought on
5lay, I5 at the regularly scheduled meeting.
No one xvas present who wished to give testimony on this item at this time.
Commissioner Kennedy moved that testimony on items 1 and 2 be reopened and be taken on May
15, 2001. Commissioner Boyd seconded the motion. Call tbr vote: Berkowitz: yes; Boy& yes;
Coburn: yes, Dingfield: excused; Kennedy: yes; Kosusko: yes.
Commissioner Dingfield re-entered the meeting.
3. PL00-061 Loveless Brook Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map
Amendment Application.
Chairman Kosusko indicated that this item is to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation from
VG with a concurrent zoning map change to GB, General Business, for the eastern 600 feet of the
property into MU Mixed Use with current zoning map change to Mixed Use for the remaining Portion of
the property.
Commissioner Moshay entered the meeting at 6:07.
Lee Wyatt, Planning Dept. Senior Planner, indicated the applicant has requested amending the
original application that they had in from General and Highway Commercial to CG with a time current
zoning map amendment to general business for the eastern 600 feet of the property and Mixed Use with
concurrent zoning map change to MX for the remaining portion of the property. The project is a little
under 10 acres which is currently low density residential on the back half, the front portion of the
property is general commercial highway. In the original request, there was no verbiage addressing the
front 600 feet of the property and the applicant's amended request is for a concurrent comprehensive
plan map and official zoning map amendment. The proposed comp plan amendment would extend the
G-C classification by 400 feet to approximately 600 feet west of Wheaton Way which would be an
additional 200 feet past the portion that is already desig-nated commercial general highway. The back of
the property would then be changed From low density residential desig-nation to mixed use. The
concurrent official zoning map amendment would rezone the front 600 feet of the property from single
family residential to General Business and like the comprehensive plan amendment, the west portion of
the property would then be rezoned from single family residential to mixed use. There is one single
family residence in approximately the middle of the property. [frs fairly heavy forested around the
perimeter.
Commissioner Boyd asked if this would mean the all of the first 60!) feet along Wheaton Way ~vould be
business.
Mr. Wyatt stated that was correct but it xvould only apply to this parcel.
Chairman Kosusko indicated testimonv would be limited to 3 minutes each.
William Palmer, Land Use Planning Consultant, representing the Loveless Brook applicants. Asked the
cornmissioners to mrn their attention to page ~0 or' the staff' report. The conclusion is that the proposed
discovered that other directors have had the same issue on other projects. It's been a standing issue in the
community for some time so this project did not initiate this discussion in the City of Bremerton.
Public Testimony on this item was closed.
Commissioner Kennedy stated she is pleased to see that the staff has brought this issue forward and they
have done a great job in cleaning this up.
Commissioner Kennedy moved that the commission approve the Planning And Building
Department 2001 text amendment PL01-001? regarding required buffers and yard setbacks.
Commissioner Boyd seconded the motion.
Chairman Kosusko stated he was confident that this is a separate item which has been a problem that
has existed within the code for some while.
Call for the vote. Berkowitz: yes; Boyd: yes; Coburn: yes; Dingfield: abstain; Kennedy: yes; Moshay:
yes; Kosusko: yes.
4. PL010010 Bremerton School District Comprehensive Plan policy text amendment
application to the land use section of the comprehensive plan to facilitate adaptive reuse of
existing outsource public and semi-public buildings city wide.
Commissioner Dingfield recused herself.
Mr. Hugo indicated the staff had made a full staff report previously, and they have nothing new to add
on the policy proposal.
Rod Carpenter, Bremerton School District Facilities Director indicated that this has appeared before the
council before. There are many public and semipublic buildings in the city that have some life left to
them and this will allow an opportunity for these buildings to be used in a compatible situation if they are
located in a residential district. This was brought to the forefront because of the Manette school building
which was used by the Navy for many years as an office building and is still a viable building.
Testimony Open to the Public.
Open to the Public (Public in Favor of this project) - none.
Open to the Public (Comment that are neutral in nature) - none.
Testimony was closed to the public.
Commissioner Berkowitz moved that the application PL 01-0010 for policy text amendment by the
Bremerton School District be approved. Commissioner Boyd seconded it.
Chairman Kosusko indicated that he ~elt this was the appropriate avenue ~'or public buildings.
Planning Commission meeting May 15, 2001 Page 9 of 17
Commissioner Kennedy indicated she was in favor of the amendment as consistent with guidelines of
GMA, this takes existing buildings and put them into reuse which encourages in-fill development in the
existing urban areas without destroying or tearing down something and also allows reuse of a building no
longer suitable for its original purpose.
Chairman Kosusko indicated the items discussed by Commissioner Kennedy were under goals 1 and 2
and goal 3 transportation, measures to promote in-fill development through adaptive reuse and urban
revitalization, housing as well and further goal 5 - economic development -increasing the city's
economic base by attracting in-fill development so over and over the GMA talks about in-fill
development. Also, historic preservation, goal 13.
Call for vote. Berkowitz: yes; Boy& yes: Coburn: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes.
5. PL01-0011 Bremerton School District zoning code Text Amendment Application to provide
for regulatory measures for the adaptive reuse of public and semipublic buildings city-wide.
Commissioner Dingfield recused herself.
Mr. Hugo indicated the staff had made a complete report at the last hearing.
Ron Carpenter, Bremerton School District Facilities Director indicated that most of this text has been
recommended by Mr. Hugo so he would defer discussion on that to Mr. Hugo.
Open to the Public (Public in Favor of this project) · ~'
Terry Pessner, 3408 Forest Dr., Bremerton stated that one of the areas they are looking at is day care
for 12 or fewer kids. There is no private sector that can turn that around as it is too few children. He
asked that they consider the 12 or fewer kids limitation on that.
Open to the Public (Comment that are neutral in nature) none.
Open to the Public (Public opposed to this project) - none.
Testimony closed to the public.
Chairman Kosusko asked what determined what uses were allowed and not allowed.
Mr. Hugo stated that he looked at the types of uses within the zones and looked at each one in terms of
traffic it might generate and when traffic would primarily occur. He took out things that looked like they
would generate traffic throughout the day.
Chairman Kosusko asked about the day care requirement issue which ,,vas raised.
Planning Commission meeting .'via,,' [5. 200[ Page [0 of 17
Someone stated that a special use permit would be required for 13 or more children.
.~lr. 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; Coburn: 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 staff has 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.
Commissione~" 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; Boyd: yes; Coburn: 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 closed 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 Max' i~, 200~ Page ~ ~ af !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: Cockburn: 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:
a. 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 findings and conclusions for PL01-0010 as written. Commissioner
Kennedy seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: abstained;
Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Amendment adopted.
b. 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 findings and
conclusions for PL01-0010 as written. Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion.
Called for a vote: Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: abstained; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and
Kosusko: yes. Amendment adopted.
c. 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 findings and conclusions for. PL01-
0010 as written. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Called for a vote:
Cockburn: yes; Dingfietd: abstained; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes.
Amendment adopted.
Planning Commission Meeting July 17. 2001 Page 5 of 7
57
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
ST,AFF REPORT
PROPOSALS: Policy to allow adaptive reuse of public and semi-public
buildings.
Zoning Code text amendment to provide the regulatory
measures for adaptive reuse.
DATE OF REPORT: APRIL 23,2001
APPIJCANT OR PI~OPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): Bremerton School District (PL01-0010;
PL01-0011)
C:ONTACT: Chds Hugo, Director- Planning and Building Department; Phone: 3601478-5243
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal will apply to t~e entire city.
BACI(GROUND: Every community has an array of buildings that exist to serve
specialized community functions. Many of these are public and semi-
public buildings that are located in residential neighborhoods to provide
local access to services and activities - schools, fire stations, libraries,
churches, and park buildings are common to neighborhood settings in
almost every city.
The existence of these facilities is recognized as an inherent part of the
neighborhood fabdc, but changes in urban growth, the emergence of
new technology, and changes in community nccds and expectations can
make these buildings obsolete for their use or no longer viable for
service in their location. In most cases, these public or semi-public
buildings were built to high construction standards with very durable
materials such as brick, concrete, stone and steel. As such, they
represent a valuable structural resource to adapt to new uses that still
serve community needs, either public or pdvate.
Cities that recognize the value that these buildings represent in terms of
remaining economic life and conservation of construction materials find
ways to give the buildings a new life by allowing uses not other,vise
permitted in those locations. These new uses are limited to activities that
pose minimal environmental and operational impacts on the surrounding
areas. Such adaptive reuses are becoming increasingly popular as a
strategy to support the revitalization of older urban areas.
The 1995 Comprehensive Plan includes no policies to support adaptive
reuse. The proposed policy addition is intended to provide an initial
foundation for the Zoning Code text amendment to allow adaptive reuse
under the conditions proposed, including the requirement for a special
use permit pursuant to a public hearing process to insure that issues of
compatible use and development are addressed.
PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT: The following new policy is proposed to add
to Element E. Land Use, Section 3.A.:
Promote the reuse of public and semi-public buildings that are no
longer needed to serve their original primary purpose, provided that
any new use is consistent with the surrounding planned environment.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT:
Proposed new section, BMC 2~.02.315 - When the r~eed for a certain public or
semi-public building in any zone no longer exists, the building may be converted
to those uses listed in the zone in which it is located, except that when it is
located in any residential zone, it may be changed by special permit to a use
allowed in Figure 140, PO zone, Sections 1., 2., 3., 4., 6., and the following listed
uses of Section 11: Consultants, Computer assistance and training (but not
repair), Office/Business Assistance Services, and General Offices. The special
permit may only be approved after pubtic heanng and a finding that the existing
building is suitable for the proposed use and that the proposed use is not unduly
detrimental to the surrounding properties. To qualify for the special permit
headng, the public or semi-public facility must have been constructed for the
stated public or semi-public use and operated as such use for a minimum of five
years.
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 allowing reuse of public and semi-public
buildings that no longer are suitable for their odginal purpose.
Goal 3. Transportation: Measures to promote infill development through adaptive reuse
and urban revitalization also help promote efficient transportation systems.
Goal 4. Housinq: Adaptive reuse of schools and other public and semi-public buildings
for housing adds to the availability and affordability of housing.
Goal 5. Economic Development: Increasing the city's economic base by attracting infill
development through adaptive reuse adds market opportunity for new economic
enterprise.
Goal 13. Historic Preservation: Adaptive reuse is a cost-effective mechanism to
preserve historic buildings by providing new economic opportunities for the structures.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was issued
for this non-proiect action in accordance with WAC 197-11 on March 17, 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 cdteda are listed on page 2.
of Element K. -).
The cdteria as presented are pnmadly relevant to map amendments, not policy
amendments - only the first criterion seems to apply to'this policy amendment and is
addressed in the discussion of GMA compliance above. However, the published cdteda
are the only ones adopted to apply to decisions of this type.
ZONING CONSISTENCY: The approval criteria for amendments to the Zoning Code text
relate to internal consistency. The proposed zoning text amendment is intended to
implement the proposed adaptive reuse policy and maintain regulatory consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment must also be found to be consistent with all
other provisions of the Zoning Code.
ORIGINAL
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
.HEARING EXAMINER ORDINANCES
~9 J~-~ q7 ~ ~D ~ 7 ?~ FOR AGENDA O~& 04/24/0~2
~ -- '. · _ ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
~ ORIGINATOR: Roger Lubovich
~'~'~>~ ~*-~Xl~l"x~3 ) DATE SUBMITTED: 04/09/02
2. CLEARANCES:
3. EXHIBITS: Ordinances
'~
CITY ATTORN.E . .~-'---~.~
CITY CLE~~'x~...c_~._ _ . _J.
CQMMU~IT~Y~IE~_ E_E_E_E_E_E_E_E_E_~DP~NT D~CTOR
EN~~~~N ~PROV~ ~Y ~CIL P~SIDENT FOR SUBMITT~:
YORr
4. SU~Y STATE~NT ~D ~QUI~NT FOR CO~CIL ACTION:
On Octo~r 17~ 2001, Ord~ce NO. 4778 was adopted estab~s~g the position of He~g Ex~er. S~ce
adoption oft~t ord~ce, it was dete~ed that addkio~l code revisio~ were necess~ to ~plement the
he~g ex~er process ~ ~tended. A review of the cky code ~d other ord~ces ~d regulations ~ now
been perfomed. Proposed for consideration ~d adoption ~e two comp~on ord~ces t~t ~e b~icaBy
housekeep~g me~es. The ~st ord~ce, NO. 47q7, meMs the SMre~e Master Proem ~d the second
odmce, NO.~8, meMs c~pter 2.13 relat~g to the he~g ex~er, the zomg code Tkle 21, ~d
v~ous other tkles of the Brememon M~cipal Code. These ord~ces mend ~d updme the A~trmive
He~g Ex~er process ~d proced~es for conduct~g he~gs, ~g decisiom ~d reco~endatiom ~d
he~g appea~ ofad~strative decisiom to estab~sh a comprehemive He~g emer syste~
8. ~CO~NDATION:
2) a. To pass ordinance NO.47] 7 on second reading. /0 ~
b. To pass ordinance NO.4 7~(~ on second reading.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED _ TABLED _ APPROVED _ DISAPPROVED _ AMENDED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.):
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.):
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES
7. RESEARCH SOURCES
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Sections (c)(2) and (c)(4) of
Chapter 7 of the City of Bremerton Shorehne Master Program
relating to appeals of administrative decisions regarding shoreline
substantive developments, and providing for appeals of such
decisions to the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to
Chapter 2.13 BMC.
WHEREAS, the current provisions of Chapter 7 of the City of Bremerton
Shoreline Master Program relating to appeals of administrative decisions on applications
for shoreline substantive development permits provides for appeals of such to go to the
City Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City has recently established a hearing examiner system
to hear matters including appeals of administrative decisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update it's Shoreline Master Program
provisions to allow for appeals of administratige decisions on shoreline substantive development
permits to the Admihistrative Hearing Exam.iner; NOW THEREFORE, -:'
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, 'WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section (c)(2) of Chapter 7 of the City of Bremerton Shoreline
Master Program relating to the review process for shoreline permits is amended to read as
follows:
(2) Review Process:
In general, shoreline permits are reviewed by the City using the same procedures
used for zoning permit applications. However, additional public notice may be required by the
Shoreline Master Program. The procedure for processing shoreline permits is as follows:
a. Proposal Requiring Zoning Approval: If a proposal
requires a zoning permit, variance, rezone or site plan review for development to proceed: The
shoreline permit will be reviewed using the same procedure as the applicable Zoning Ordinance
authorization.
Shoreline ]taster Program
b. Proposal Not Requiring Zoning Approval: If a proposal
does not require any formal zoning approval for the development to proceed; and
1) A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is
required: The permit application will be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or
denied by the Director of Community Development.
2) A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Variance
Permit is required: The permit application will be reviewed and approved, approved with
conditions, or denied by the ia!mining Co~an/ssiop~dministrative Hem'ina Exan~iner pursuant to
Chapter 2.13 BMC.
SECTION 2. Section (c)(4) of Chapter 7 of the City of Bremerton Shoreline
Master Program relating to final action or applications for shoreline permits is amended to read
as follows:
(4) Final Action
a. A decision by the Director of Community Development
the m ....~ .... r, ....:~°;^~ shall become final unless a --,~-t .... t fer r~ ~, r; .... an appeal is filed to
the Administrative Hearin~ Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2. l 3 BMC within fourteen (14)
calendar days of the date of the decision, ,.o
b. A '~'~: ~:
,,c,,.,, .... An open record decision, or a decision on appeal
by the ~ Counc~IAdministrative Heahng Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC shall
become final unless a Request for Review is filed with the Shorelines Hearings Board, as
prescribed in RCW 90.58.180.
3 A Request for Review ~y be filed dkectly with the Shorelines Hearing Board at the option of ~e applicant, as
provided for in RCW 90.58.180.
SECTION 3. Severabili~. If ~y 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 potion of this Ordinance and the s~e shall remain in full
force and effect.
Shoreline Master Program
SECTION 4. 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 dayof t~r;t ,2002
PASSED by the City Council the 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 Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ,2002
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2002
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Shoreline Master Progam Amendment.doc
Shoreline Master Program
ORDINANCE NO. 4~7 ~ ~
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 2.13 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code relating to the Administrative Hearing Examiner
and further amending various Chapters of the Bremerton
Municipal Code as they relate to the Administrative Hearing
Examiner process and procedures for conducting heatings, making
decisions and recommendations and hearing appeals of
administrative decisions, including provisions relating to the
Planning Commission, Chapter 2.12, the Municipal Court Heating
Examiner, Chapter 2.62, business licenses, Chapter 5.02,
regulatory licenses, Chapter 5.03, right-of-way use permits,
Chapter 11.03, Uniform Building Codes, Chapter 17.04, Uniform
Fire Code, Chapter 18.01, subdivisions and plats, Chapter 20.04,
Shoreline Development, Chapter 21.04, SEPA substantive
authority, Chapter 21.12 and further amending various provisions
of Chapter 21.02 relating to land use applications including
processing of applications, public heatings on land use
applications, decisions of land use applications, notices of
decisions, development agreements, ..annexation zoning, PUD
applications, special use permits, variances, rezones, exceptions to
development regulations, amendments to development regulations,
site plans, violations of'the Zoning Code, wetlands and stream
applications, and appeals of various land use decisions.
WHEREAS, the City Council recently adopted Ordinance No. 4778 establishing
an Administrative Hearing Examiner system for the purpose of conducting open record hearings
and making recommendations or decisions on various land use applications, conducting appeals
of administrative determinations and performing various other functions; and
WHEREAS, following adoption of Ordinance 4778 and a comprehensive review
of the Bremerton Municipal Code, it was determined that numerous other provisions of the
Bremerton Municipal Code needed to be amended in order to resolve conflicts of provisions,
inconsistent applications of processing of land use applications as well as other matters including
appeals and to further establish a more comprehensive system for processing these matters;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1
Administrative Hearing Examiner
SECTION 1. Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 2.13 entitled "Administrative
Hearing Examiner" is hereby amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 2.13 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXAMINER.
2.13.020010 Purpose.
The;-+~-~-~ purpose; ..... ~; .....^.~.;.;~+...+;.,~,_, .... ; ..... ,x ..... ; ......... 4';~- of this
chapter is to:
(1) Sep~ate the l~d use regulato~ ~nction from the land use plying
process;
(2) Ensure procedural due process ~d appe~ance of himess in regulato~
hemngs ~d decisions;
(3) Provide ~ efficient ~d effective l~d use regulmo~ system which
inte~ates the public he~ng and decision-m~ing processes for l~d use matters;
(4) Provide for consistency ~d predictabili~ in decision m~ing ~d the
application of policies ~d regulations adopted by the ,ih,.
(5) Provide a fo~ for conducting public hearings required by the Breme~on
Municipal Code and han~q: ......... ,~ ~.c ~,--:_: .... +~ ...... ++ .......... : .... ~.
(6) Provide a forum for hemng appeals of administrative decisions and other
matters as established by the Bremerton Municipal Code.
2.13.020 Creation.
The position of the Administrative Hearing Exmniner (also refen'ed to in this chapter as
"hearing examiner" or "examiner") is hereby created. The Administrative Hearing Examiner
shall review and inte~ret land use regulations; conduc~ hearings, render decisions. ~d make
recommendations on land use applications; hear appeals from administrative orders,
recommendations,, pegBits, decisions or deten~inations made by a city official as set tbrth in this
chapter, and review and hem' other matters as provided ~br in the Breme~on Municipal Code and
other ordinances. The term "administrative hemn~ exanfiner" shall likewise include the
examiner pro tern.
2.13.030 ~.Appointment and removal.
2
Adminis~ative Hearing Examiner
The Administrative Hearings Examiner shall be appointed by the Mayor subject to
confirmation by the City Council. The appointment may be made as a contract employee or as
an independent contractor TC+~.~ A ,~;,~;~.~,,~;,~ U~;~,~ ~ .... ;~ ;~., ~a ...... ~ ...... ~b~e ~'
~,~:~n ...... ,~o~; .... , .... : ......,~o, fo ....... ~' d on conditi
.............. a v ................ . ................r a te~, ......v .... at an ons
detemined appropriate by the City Council. ~;n ~o~, ...... ~ .......;n ~:... ~ ..... ; .... r~ pro
~ ............. . ..... vv. ~v~~ by "~'~,.~ c.,~..~.,.~ The Examiner(s) pro tern shall be selected by
pl ~,,~;~: ~ ...... c ..... ~';,-- ~,~'l-~ ~; .... ~ ........ ;'l in the
and serve at the easure of the Mayor ~,~ ........................
absence or the inability of the Administrative Hearing Examiner to act, or when expertise is
needed to hear a pm2iculm' matter, the examiner pro te:m shall se~we in place of the
Administrative Hearing ~Examiner and shall have all the duties and powers of the Admin:istrative
Heating Examin er. The Admi:ni strative He~in ~Exam inet m ay be term inated in accordance
with the con~act temps. ~ Exminer pro rem may be temainated by the Mayor at will.
2.13.040 Qualification and removal.
Examiners shall be appointed solely with reg~d to their qualifications for the duties of
their office and will have such training and experience as wiI1 quali~ them to conduct
administrative or quasi-judicial hemngs on regulato~ enactments ~d to disch~ge the other
f~ctions confe~ed upon them. Examiners shall hold no other elective or appointive office or
iti ith th City fB ~. ~ .... ;~' '
pos onw e o reme~on ............ pro .........
2.13.050 Improper influence, conflict of interest and appearance of fairness.
No city official, elective or appointive, shall attempt to influence the Administrative
Hemng examiner in ~y matter officially before him so as to constitute misconduct of a public
office under Chapter 42.20 RCW or a violmion of the appe~ce of himess doc~ne. No
member of the council shall pa~icipate in any proceedings on appeal from the Administrative
Heating Examiner's decision if to do so will constitute a conflict of interest or violation of the
appearance of fairness doctrine. The Administrative Heating Examiner shall conduct all
3
Administrative Hearing Examiner
proceedings in a manner to avoid conflicts of interest or other misconduct and to avoid violations
of the appearance of fairness doctrine. If such conflicts or violations cannot be avoided in a
particular case, the examiner shall assign an examiner pro tem to act in his absence.
2.13.060 Organization, rules.
The Administrative Heatings Examiner is empowered to adopt rules for the scheduling
and conduct of hearings and other procedural matters related to the duties he is required to
perform. The rules shall include any procedural rules for conducting heatings as set forth in the
Bremerton Mu1 c a o e, ........................... u?an +1. L. 1zl~,...; .... 17. .....; .....fill...
· ~.~ ............................ : ..... k. The rules shall provide for the process to be effective
and efficient while assuring that the participants are afforded an opportunity to present their case
without unnecessary emphasis upon formal procedure. The examiner shall have the authority to
subpoena witnesses, and to the extent necessary to assure a fair hearing and to afford each party
the opportunity to present their case, may allow limited discovery if it is not unduly burdensome,
will not unnecessarily delay the proceedings, and the information is not otherwise available.
2.13.070 Jurisdiction.
(1) The Administrative Hearing Examiner shall have jurisdiction over-to:
(a) conduct hearings, render decisions, make recommendations m~d to
hear appeals of administrative decisions on land use applications as specified in Title 21 of the
Bremerton Muni cip al Cod e, as amen d e d, .... ,,-~ .... ~. ,.,~, ....... ,,~-~ ~.~, , ~. ...... ; ..... ~ ,^
(-3-)- (b) :F-o conduct public hearings on all Local Improvement Districts .....
~ ............. n; ..... 4~,... Utility Imp
.... ~, ........ . ............ and Local rovement Districts .....~ .... ~.~ ~;-,,1 ,.~..;,.4 .........
4
Administrative Hearing Examiner
~..j .......hear an appeal of a department director's administrative
decision iswhen provided ~ ..... ~'~ ip ' '
......... re in the Bremerton MunJc al Code then any other p~ts~on
~ ......~ '~;~ *~ appeal
(d~hear code enforcement matters pursuant to provi sion s of the
~BremmIon Municipal CodeTo~..~=.,~,,~' ""=..~ open ....... ~ .... ~=-'4,'; ...... ~1;~ ~=~,a ........... ;.~ b5
(e) conduct public heatings when required under the provisions of the
State Environmental Policy Act; conduct open record public heatings or closed-record appeals in
accordance with the provisions of the Bremeaon Municipal Code; conduct such other hearings
as the city council may from time to time deem appropfiateTe hear ...... ~o ..c ~..:~: ......~ ~
(~hear such other matters as may be desi~ated by the Breme~2on
Municipal Code and/or the City Council.
(2) It is the intent that all quasi-judicial appeals of lm~d use decisions, which have
prior to the enactmen.t of this chapter been heard by the city council an~or the planning
commission, now be heard bv the administrative hem'in~ eXaminer pursuant to this chapter, and
to the extent other provisions of the Bremet~on Municipal Code are inconsistent, jurisdiction for
such quasi-judicial appeals will be with the administrative heahng examiner unless othmxvise
required by state or federal law.
(3) Un]ess othe~vise indicated, all other references in the Breme~on Mtmicipal
Code to "heahng exmniner" shall not mean the municipal court hearin~ ex~m~er except tbr
those matters established pursuant to Chapter 2.62 et'the Breme~on Municipal Code over which
the mt[tlicipa] cottlt bearin~ examiner w ill have j urisdictio~.
2.13.080 Duties.
The Administrative Hearing Examiner shall have the Followin~ duties with respect to
applications of matters submitted be~bre him or her.
Administrative Hearing Examiner
(l) ,4ppeals of administrative decisions/determinatio~is. The Administrative
iHearing Examiner shall hear open record appeals of administrative decisions/determinations
subm.itted bel:bre him or her, prepare a record thereof, and enter findings of fact and conclusions
based upon these facts, which findings and conclusions shall represent final action unless
appealed as specified in Section 2.13.140 BMC. for the following:
(a) Appeals of all Type I land use administrative decisions as set :forth in
BMC 21.02.840.
(b) Appeals of all T_.vpe II land use administrative decisions as set forth in
BMC 21.02.845.
(C) Appeals of Business License denials, revocations and regulations as
authorized pursuant to Title 5 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
(d) Appeals of right-of-way use pemfit application decisions made
pursuant to Chapter 11.02 BMC.
(e) Appeals of administrative decisions on shoreline substantial
development permits pursuant to Section 21.02.935(b)(5) BMC and Chapter 7(c)(4) of the City
of Bremerton Shoreline Master Pro,'am.
(f) Appeals of administrative decisions on short subdivisions and plats
pursum~t to Section 20.04.100 BMC.
(g) Appeals of administrative determinations applying the Uniform
Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Unitbrrn Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings and the Bremerton [-lousing Code pursuant to Section 17.04.070 BMC.
(h) Appeals of administrative determinations applying the uni'tbnn Fire
Code pursuant to Section 18.01.100 BMC.
(2) Decisions of the ,,tdministrative Hearit~g Examiner. The Administrative
Hearing Examiner shall receive and exmnine available information, conduct open record public
hearings, prepare a record thereof: enter findings of fact mid conclusions based upon these hots,
and render a decision, which decision shall represent the final action on the application, unless
appealed, as specified in Section 2.13.140 BMC tbr all T'fpe [II land use applications as set t:orth
in BMC 21.02.850.
(3) Recommemtatioas O.['the ~dmiaistrative t-~,~aring Exarni~er. The
Administrative Hearinu Examiner shalI receive and examine available intbnnation, conduct op_~
6
Administrative Hearing Examiner
pre-decision public hearing_~ prepare a record thereof and enter findings of fact a2~d conclusions
based upon those f~acts, together with a recommendation to the city council, for the following:
(a) All T~e IV applications as set for in BMC 21.02.855.
(b) Local Improvement Districts and utility Local Improvement District
formation and assessments pursuant to Chapter 11.04 BMC and Chapters 35.43 and 35.44 RCW.
2.13.090 Applications.
A~lications for all matters to be heard by the Administrative Hearing Examiner relating
to the zoning code set forth in Chapter 21.02 BMC shall be filed with the Department of
Community Development. Applications for all other matters to be heard by the Administrative
Hearing Exmniner Shall be filed with the City Clerk. When it is found an application meets the
filing requirements of the effected Department, the application shall be accepted. The
Administrative Hearing Examiner shall be responsible for assigning a date for the public hearing
for each application. Hearings on project permit applications are subject to the notice and hearing
r..e.quirelnents set forth in the Bremerton Municipal Code.
2.13.100 Open record public hearing.
(1) Before rendering a decision or recormxaendation on any land use application_~
the Administrative Hearing Exanfiner shall hold one (1) open record public hearing thereon.
(2) For all applications, notice of the time and place of the public hearinz shall be
given as provided in the ordinance governing the application. If none is specifically set fotlh,
such notice shall be given at least ten. (10) working days prior to such hearine.
(3) The Administrative Hem'in~ Examiner shall have the power to prescribe rules
and regulations tbr the conduct of hearings t~n4er ~his chapter and also to administer oaths, and
preserve order.
2.13.110 Decisions and recommendation.
(1) The Administrative Hearina Exmniner's recommendation or decision may be
tO grm~t or deny the application, or the Administrative Hearing Examiner max/recommend or
require of the applicant such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the Administrative
Hearing Examiner finds necessary_ to make the application compatible with its environment, with
~3pplicable ~.~at¢ laws, and to cam.' out the objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan, the
zoning.code, t!je subdivision code, and other codes and ordinm~ces o[' the city. Conditions,
modifications and restrictions which may be imposed are, but are not limited to. additional
7
Administrative Hearing Examiner
setbacks, screeninas in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants, easements and
dedications of additional road rights-of-way. Performance bonds or other financial assurances
may be required to insure compliance with conditions, modifications and restrictions.
(21) In regard to all Type IV applications set forth in Chapter 21.02.855 BMC,
Administrative Hearing Examiner*s findings and conclusions and recommendation shall be
submitted to the city council, ~vhich shall have the fi:nal authority to act on such. applications. Thc
hearing by the Administrative Hearing Examiner shall constitute an open record pre-decision
hearing befbre the final decision is made by the city council. The Administrative Hearing
Examiner shall file its recommendation with the city council at the expiration of the period
provided tbr reconsideration, or ifreconsiderat:ion is accepted., within ten (10) working days after
the decision on reconsideration.
(3) When the Administrative Hearing Examiner renders a decision or
recommendation, the Administrative Hearing Examiner shall make and enter written finding5
from the record and conclusions therefrom which support such decision. The decision shall be
rendered within ten (10) working days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings, unless
a longer period is mutually a~eed to on the record by the applicant and the Administrative
Hearing Exarniner. The copy of such decision, including findings m~d conclusions, shall be
trm~smitted by first class mai], to the applicant and other parties of record in the case requesting.
the same.
(4) In the case of Shoreline Substantial Development permits, pursuant to
BMC 21.02.860(d)(4), appeals shall be decided within thirty (30) calendar days of filint~ of the
a~ppeal.
2.13.1.20 Reconsideration.
A party of record believing that a decision or recormncnd.ati, on of the Administrative
Hearing Examiner is based on en'oneous procedures, eh'ors of law or fact, or the discovery of
new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hem'ing, may make a written
:request for reconsideration by the Administrative Hearing Examiner within five (5) workin~ da_y5
of the date the decision or recommendation is rendered. This request shall set fbrth the speci tic
errors or new i:n:[bnnation relied upon by such appellant, and the Administrative Hearint~
Examiner may, after review of the record, take f'urther action as he or she deems proper. Ifa
8
Administrative Hearing Examiner
request for reconsideration is accepted, a decision is not final until after a decision on
reconsideration is issued.
2.13.130 Appeal of decision.
(1) Any party who feels aggrieved by the decision or other final action of the
Administrative Hearing Examiner ma,,: submit an appeal within twenty-one (21) calendar days
from the date the final decision of the Administrative Hearin~ Examiner is rendered to the
Superior Court or to another designated t~)rum.
(2) No appeal may be made from a recommendation of the Administrative
Hearing Examiner.
2.13.140 City Council action.
(1) Any application requiring action by the city council shall be taken by thE-,
adoption of a motion, resolution or ordinance by the city council. When taking any such final
action, the city council shall make and enter findings of fact from/he record aa~d conclusions
therefrom which support its action. The city cotmcil may adopt all or portions of the findings and
conclusions fi-om the Administrative Hearin~ Examiner's recommendation.
(2) The action of the cit.v council, approving, modifying, or rejecting a
recommendation of the Administra:tive Hearing Examiner, shall be final and conclusive." '
Appellants have twenty-one (21) calendar da:rs from the date of city council action to file an
appeal with. the superior court.
2.13.150 City administrative staff are to be considered a person or party.
iFor the purpose of iBM C 2.13.140 and B.M.C 2.13.150. the c ltv' s admi. nistrative sta [T
shall be considered a "person" and/or "patty" and shall have the same rights as any other person
or party to make requests :for reconsideration to the Administrative Hearing Examiner or to
appeal decisions of the Administrative Hearing Examiner to superior court or to another
desi,~ated formn.
SECTION 2. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 2.62.040 relating to the
Municipal Court Hearing Examiner is amended to read as follows:
2.62.040 Judges pro tempore, Court Commissioners - Municipal Court
Hearing Examiner.
Administrative Hearing Examiner
Pursuant to RCW 3.50.090 the presiding municipal court judge may designate one or
more persons as judges pro tempore to serve in the absence or disability of the elected or duly
appointed judge of the court or in addition to the elected or duly appointed judge when
administration of justice and the accomplishment of the work of the court make it necessary.
The qualifications of a judge pro tempore shall be the same as for judges as provided under
RCW 3.50.040 except that a judge pro tempore need not be a resident of the city or county in
which the municipal court is located. A judge pro tempore of Bremerton Municipal Court shall
receive a salary for each hour in which the judge pro tem serves at a rate equivalent to the hourly
salary of the Bremerton Municipal Court Judge. The municipal court judge may appoint one or
more court commissioners under RCW 3.50.075.
To utilize the services of judicial officers of the court for the purpose of hearing contested
matters relating to the interest of the City and its citizens and the operation of various
departments of the City, the office al'municipal court hearing examiner is created in the
municipal court.
SECTION 3. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 2.62.045 relating to the
Municipal Court Heating Examiner is amended to read as follows:
2.62.045 Municipal Court Hearing Examiner - Procedure - Appeal.
The municipal court hearing examiner shall have jurisdiction to receive and rule on
appeals by aggrieved appellants of administrative decisions after a written complaint has been
denied by the Department Director or designee. Appeals to the ~municipal court
hearing examiner from any final administrative decision covered by the provisions of this
chapter shall be made within seven (7) working days from the date of appellant's notification of
the decision. Date of mailing shall be considered date of notification. Appeals shall include the
appellant's name, address and telephone number, the written decision being appealed and the
municipal code section establishing the appeal. Appeals shall be accompanied by a filing fee,
pursuant to Chapter 3.01, which shall be refunded if the appellant substantially prevails. The
Municipal Court Judge shall adopt rules for scheduling and conduct of administrative hearings.
Enforcement of the administrative decision being appealed to the municipal court hearing
examiner shall be stayed during the pendency of an appeal which has been properly and timely
filed provided there is not imminent threat to the public's safety and welfare.
10
.,~.,,,--/~ Administrative Hearing Examiner
The municipal court hearing examiner's decision shall be final and conclusive unless the
appellant or the City files for a Writ of Certiorari in Kitsap County Superior Court within thirty
(30) days. Procedures of this section including filing fee, and appeal of the municipal court
hearing examiner's decision shall apply unless different procedures are specified in the ordinance
establishing the administrative appeal.
The municipal court hearing examiner shall have jurisdiction to hear and rule on
complaints referred under the City's Code of Ethics, T-iOe-3-Chapter 2.96 BMC, and to receive
and rule on appeals of administrative decisions specified in the following Titles of the Bremerton
Municipal Code:
(1_2) Health and Sanitation, Title 6;
(2_3) Animals and Fowl, Title 7;
(34) Peace, Safety and Morals, Title 9;
(45) Traffic, Title 10;
(56) Municipal Utilities, Title 15
All references to hearing examiner in Chapter 2.96 and these titles shall mean municipal
court hearing examiner.
SECTION 4. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 5.02.310 relating to business
licenses is amended to read as follows:
5.02.310 Appeals.
Any taxpayer aggrieved by the amount of the fee or tax found by the Treasurer to be
required under the provisions of this chapter may file a written appeal with the office of
theadministrative hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC within seven (7) working
days from the time such taxpayer was sent written notice of such amount. Such notice shall also
contain the taxholder's appeal rights. The determination appealed from shall be regarded as
prima facie correct. The examiner may reverse or modify an action of the Treasurer and
ascertain the correct amount of the fee or tax due if the Treasurer's determination violates the
terms of this chapter or is contrary to law.
11
Administrative Hearing Examiner
SECTION 5. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 5.02.360 relating to business
licenses is amended to read as follows:
5.02.360 Revocation of Business License Conditions.
The Treasurer may revoke or suspend the business license issued to any person engaged
in business activities within the City who is in default in any payment of any license fee or tax
owed under Title 3 or 5 of the Bremerton Municipal Code; or who shall fail to comply with any
of the provisions of this chapter; or where any licensee or employee of the licensee is engaged in
any conduct which violates any state or local laws or ordinances at the licensee's place of
business, and of which the licensee has actual or constructive note; or upon the recommendation
of the county health department that such business is being managed, conducted or maintained
without regard to proper sanitation and hygiene. In the event the Treasurer shall suspend or
revoke the license, (s)he shall cause to be served upon the licensee an order by certified mail
which states the reasons therefore and the licensee's appeal rights. Such revocation or
suspension shall take effect seven (7) working days from the date of receipt of notice by certified
mail from the Treasurer unless the licensee files a written ap~'eal with~ the
administrative hearing examiner before the effective date of the Treasurer's administrative
decision of revocation or suspension. A licensee who has been licensed in the preceding license
year may continue to engage in the activity for which the license is required, pending decision by
the administrative hearing examiner, unless the Treasurer determines that a clear, substantial and
imminent hazard to the health, safety, welfare, privacy or property of any person would result.
The administrative decision appealed from shall be regarded as prima facie correct. The
administrative hearing examiner shall hear the appeal pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC and may
affirm or deny the Treasurer's decision to suspend or revoke a license. The decision of the
administrative hearine examiner shall be final unless appeal of the decision is filed~mdev4tMG
~ pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC.
SECTION 6. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 5.03.070 relating to regulatory
licenses is amended to read as follows:
5.03.070 Appeal to Hearing Examiner.
~rcmc~on Municipal Court The Administrative Hearing Examiner shall have jurisdiction
to receive and rule on appeals from applicants aggrieved by the City Clerk's decision to revoke
12
Administrative Hearing Examiner
77
the regulatory license of a business or person licensed above after a written complaint has been
denied by the department.
The administrative appeal under this chapter shall be conducted according to procedures
fw "nTM^ ~ '
o ,: ,u ~,~,~},~, e,~m~Chapter 2.13 iBM(;.
SECTION 7. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 11.02.310 relating to right-of-
way use permits is amended to read as follows:
11.02.310 Appeals.
An applicant whose application has been denied or permittee whose permit has been
revoked pursuant to this chapter must first request the Director to reconsider or reverse the
decision. If the Director denies the request, the applicant or permittee may appeal the decision to
the C-i~Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC-2~fig2¢45.
SECTION& Bremerton Municipal Code Section 17.04.070 relating to uniform
building codes is amended to read as follows:
17.04.070 A .... ~ n ..... a~
Appeals of administrative determination~ applying the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Plumbing Code, ' ' ' ~ , Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and
the Bremerton Housing Code shall be heard by the Administrative Hearing Examiner, wlvo~e
~:~;~. ~...u ,.~ finalpursuant to Chapter 2 13 BMC.
SECTION 9. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 18.01.100 relating to the Uniform
Fire Code is amended to read as follows:
18.01.100 Appeals ........
Appeals of administrative detemfinations ~pplying the Uniform Fire Code, City of
Bremerton Fire Sprinkler Code, City of Bremerton Fire Alarm Code and City of Bremerton False
Fire Alarm Code shall be heard by the Administrative Hearine Examiner pm~uant to Chapter 2.13
SECTIONIO. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.04.100 relating to short
subdivisions and plats is amended to read as follows:
13
Administrative Hearing Examiner
20.04.100 Procedure Appeal to Administrative Hearings Examiner.
} ....... apphcant aggrieved by the decision of the planning director may request a
reviewm~ appeal, of that decision, byto the Administrative Hearing Examiner. Such
vequestappeal must be in writing on a form to be provided by the City and delivered to the
Planning Department, with the applicable appeal fee, within five (5) working days from the date
of the Planning Director's Decision. Such appeal shall be heard by the Administrative Hearing
Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2 13 BMC ....... "~ .......
SECTIONll. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.040 relating to land use
decisions is amended to read as follows:
21.02.040 Basis for Discretionary Decisions.
Goals, policies and objectives contained in the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and other
adopted documents that have been incorporated into this code by reference, shall be used for
guidance by City staff, .t_h,ck&d_~l)i_t~j~.L!;~:~is:_.[:[~?~.!~gJ:5,_x...'_az~.!:)~.r,....il;e P ~lm~ommiss:i(m, and the
City Council when processing applications and making discretionary land use decisions.
SECTION12. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.060 relating to zoning
of annexed properties is amended to read as follows:
21.02.060 Zoning Upon Annexation
If annexed property has not previously received a zoning designation as part of
comprehensive planning under RCW 35.13.177 and 178, the annexed property shall be
administratively assigned provisional zoning under the City designation most similar to the
former County zoning. A -[~mmmg-C~mm~/ssio~,~-hearing to review provisional zoning shall be
conducted bv the Planning Commission or Administrative hearing examiner, as applicable,
within sixty (60) days under procedures for rezone petition at no cost to the property owner.
SECTION 13. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.070 entitled
"Definitions" is hereby amended by adding a definition for Administrative Hearing Examiner to
be inserted in said section in alphabetical order and to read as follows:
14
Administrative Hearing Examiner
ADMINISTtL-STIVE HEARING EXAMINER. A person appointed pursuant to Chapt__e.r_
2.13 BMC to review and interpret land us regulations; conduct hearings, render decisions, and
make recommendations on land use applications; hear appeals from administrative order_~s
recommendations, pe. nnits, decisions or detenni:nation.5 made.by a city official as set forth in this
Chapter; and to review and hear other matters as provided for in the Bremerton Municipal Code
and other ordinances. The term "administrative hearing examiner" shall likewise include the
examiner pro tern. As used in this Chapter. "Administrative Hearing Examiner" shall not mean
the Municipal Court Heating Examiner established pursuant to Chapter 2.62 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code.
SECTION 14. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.070 entitled
"Definitions" is hereby amended by amending the definition of Special Use Permit to read as
follows:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT. A permit which must be acquired before a land use that is
listed in the Land Use Tables as "SUP", and not permitted "outfight", can be constructed or
approved in those zones· Some uses that are not listed at all in the Land Use Tables may be
approved ~--' *~ m..,~,,;,,., c- .... ;~,.; ..... through the SUP process·
SECTION 15. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.150 relating to unlisted
uses is amended to read as follows:
Section 21.02.150 UNLISTED USES.
(a) Any land use that is NOT mentioned in Figure 120 or Figure 140 shall be
considered an "Unlisted Use".
(b) If the Unlisted Use is clearly similar to a use that is listed in Figure 120 or
Figure 140, the Director may make a written administrative determination as to which zone(s)
and through which approval process the Unlisted Use may be permitted.
(c) If the Director finds no similar uses already listed, finds the proposed use
to be sensitive or controversial, finds the use to have potentially adverse impacts, or is unable to
arrive at a clear administrative determination, the requested use shall be considered for approval
· ,~ ................. A&mmstratl'~e Hearing Examiner through the Special Use Permit
by the P4anmna c, ........ ;~; ..... · . , · ,~
process.
15
~ ~) Administrative Hearing Examiner
SECTION 16. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.160 relating to front
yards is amended to read as follows:
Section 21.02.160 FRONT YARDS.
(a) Through Lots: Through lots have two (2) front property lines with a front
yard on each of two parallel or approximately parallel streets.
(1) Each front yard shall be subject to the front yard setback
requirements of its zone.
(2) The Director may .....
l¥ont :et~ack requirement ~:r' desi~at4n-g-designate one street frontage a Rear Lot Line, provided
the following are true:
i. More than one contiguous lot is involved, unless the entire
frontage consists of one property;
ii. The majority of the lots and/or structures within the block
or other area being considered are clearly oriented in a similar direction away from the side being
considered for designation as the Rear Lot Line.
(3) Orientation of the lot or structure shafi be considered and the
portion of a lot facing views or waterfront may be considered the parcel's Front Lot Line, in
which case the property's only street frontage could be designated its "rear".
(b) Comer Lots: All lot lines abutting public streets are considered to be front
lot lines and front yard setbacks shall apply. A comer lot having frontage on more than one
street will have more than one front yard area, the depths of which will be determined by the
front setback requirement of that zoning district. Refer to the illustrations in Figure 070(c) for
further clarification.
16
Administrative Hearing Examiner
(c) Intrusions into Required Setbacks: Structures shall abide by the required
front yard setbacks except as follows:
(1) Eaves, cornices, awnings, bay windows, architectural appendages,
fireplaces, chimneys and permitted signs may project not more than two (2) feet into the front
yard setback;
(2) Front yard setback requirements shall not apply to decks,
platforms, and porches that do not exceed thirty inches (30") in height above the finished grade;
except that raised decks, high or enclosed porches, balconies or similar architectural appendages
that extend more than thirty inches (30") above finished grade may project not more than six feet
(6') into the front yard setback.
(3) Fences, free-standing walls, steps, walks, and driveways.
SECTION 17. Bremerton Municipal Code Section21.02.300 relating to mineral
resource extraction provisions is amended to read as follows:
Section 21.02.300 MINERAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION PROVISIONS.
(a) Purpose: . .
(1) To preserve opportunities for mineral extraction by establishing
performance standards to mitigate the impact of such uses.
(2) To protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public by
establishing performance standards for the operation of extractive industries and for the
appropriate reclamation of the site.
(b) Allowable Location of Mineral Extraction: The removal for purposes of
soil, sand, gravel, quarried stone, or ore may be allowed in any zoning district by a special use
permit.
(c) Review for Special Use Permit: In addition to standard application
requirements, the owner or agent of the quarry shall submit to the Planning Department copies of
all documents submitted to the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources.
(d) Performance Standards:
(1) A non-climbable fence, a minimum of eight (8) feet in height, shall
be installed around any mineral extraction site and all of its accessory operations.
17
~ ~ Administrative Hearing Examiner
(2) When property is adjacent to developed residential property,
streams, lakes, or public rights-of-way, a view-obstructing screen of vegetation at least four (4)
feet in height at planting and attaining not less than eight (8) feet in height within three years
shall be planted. When conditions of soil and terrain make landscaping impractical, a fence eight
(8) feet or wall providing a complete visual barrier shall be installed.
(3) Upon termination of quarrying operations at any pit that exceeds a
depth of five (5) feet, either the pit shall be back filled to a minimum slope of one (1) foot
vertical, to one (1) foot horizontal; or a non-climbable eight (8) foot fence shall be erected and
maintained around the pit m ...... ; .... c~ ....:,.,,; ............... ;.~ ~,.,~,.~ ..... ;~,. ~. ,.~ ...... , ....... .; ...... c
(4) Required minimum distance from adjacent property that is
developed shall be in accordance with the following:
Parks,
Recreational,
Facilities,
Residential,
Commercial, or
Environmentally Industrial
Sensitive Lands Land Uses
To structural 100 feet 20 feet
edge of pit,
excavation,
or stockpiling
of materials.
To crushing 300 feet 200 feet
of rock,
processing of
stone, gravel
or minerals.
To any Determined 400 feet
blasting, on a case
by case
basis.
18
~ Administrative Hearing Examiner
(5) When a pit exceeds a depth of twenty (20) feet, all dense
undergrowth shall be removed from the soil cover for a distance of fifty (50) feet from the edge
of the pit.
(6) Neither smoke, dust, dirt, fly ash, other airborne particulate matter,
toxic or odorous gasses, liquid or solids shall be emitted in quantities from a quarry site as to
adversely affect adjacent property.
(7) BMC 6.32 shall be observed.
(8) A landscaping and site reclamation plan shall be required to restore
the site after quarrying activities are completed.
SECTION 18. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.330(f) relating to
prohibited signs is amended to read as follows:
(f) Prohibited Signs: The following signs are prohibited within the City
limits of Bremerton and shall be subject to removal through amortization or other means:
(1) Strobe lights and signs co.ntaining strobe lights or any other
flashing, moving or animated features that are visible beyond any property line. Readerboard or
message center signs that change copy' no more frequently than two second intervals, and
time/temperature signs are exempt from this provision.
(2) Signs placed or painted on any motor vehicle or trailer that is not
operable and routinely used to transport or provide the goods or services being advertised, or that
is parked with the primary purpose of providing a sign that would not otherwise be allowed.
(3) Any private sign placed within a public right-of-way, on a public
sidewalk, or overhanging a public right-of-way; except that signs overhanging a public sidewalk
may be permitted if there is a minimum of eight feet of vertical clearance between the sidewalk
and bottom of the sign. (Publicly-owned or installed signs not included).
(4) Any sign that is determined by a ..... .~ ~ ............................ ~
r,,~.,,,.,,,,,o,,,,,,,;oo; ...... ,,, r,:,,,,~ ,~: Council the City Et]gineer to be a hazard to public safety due to its design,
materials, physical condition, or placement.
(5) Signs painted, attached to, or otherwise supported by rock.
formations, utility poles, trees, or other plant materials.
19
?~t Administrative Hearing Examiner
(6) Bench signs, when installed within the public fight-of way. When
on private property, the size of a bench sign will be counted toward the total allowable sign area.
(7) Portable signs within any public right-of-way, and when
obstructing a pedestrian walkway, bikeway, or driveway on private property.
SECTION 19. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.350 relating to PUD
applications is amended to read as follows:
21.02.350 Outline of the PUD Process
A PUD application is reviewed by the City in a two-part process; review of a preliminary
plan, followed by review of a final plan. The purpose of this process is to minimize development
costs prior to a City determination of the acceptability of the preliminary plan for a PUD.
(a) Part I: The steps involved in the Preliminary Plan review are:
(1) City staff and applicant discuss concept at pre-
application conference.
(2) City staff conducts neighborhood meeting, if required
by the Director, to discuss the concept plan.
(3) Applicant submits Preliminary PUD application.
(4) City staff conducts technical review of the proposed
PUD plan and prepares staffrep0rt.
.~.~:[Bj~3..~r_reviews the proposals, as presented in the staff report and accompanying
2.13 BMC..:
(6) .P4mmm.g ................ G~u!u.iss.i~mAdm in istrat:ive [tearing
Examiner_ makes recommendation for City Council action.
hea~:i~d-makes ~.~25~d_..£~s:.~X~.t_decision on the Preliminary PUD Plan.
(b) Part II: The steps involved in the Final Plan review are:
(1) Applicant submits Final PUD application.
(2) Director takes action on the Final Plan.
2O
0c-~ Administrative Hearing Examiner
OD
(3) Plans that include a rezone, combination of zones,
subdivision, or other matters that require City Council approval will go to the City
Council for final action consistent with the initial PUD decision.
(4) Record with Kitsap County Auditor.
SECTION 20. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.390(c) relating to PUD
applications is amended to read as follows:
(c) No response within the given time frame, when a response is necessary,
may delay scheduling of the public meeting on the application before the :P4~mn~i-~
Gomm4s~Administrative Hearin~ Examiner.
SECTION21. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.400 relating to PUD
applications is amended to read as follows:
21.02.400 tala~a.ni~g.-..gomm:issio~Administrative Hearing4 Examiner
Recommendation
After technical review of the proposal, the l~:[~:mi~.~-G.(mumssio.u Administrmive [~-tearim.~
Exmniner shall conduct an.9_pen "~tcc. c.' ')~d' public hearin~, to consider the [>reliminar(, PtrD :~nd an~
subdivision, rezone, combinat:ion of zones, or other matters that req3tire CounCil approv:~l. ~,X fter
the hearin~ the Administrative ~[tearin~ ~Examiner shall prepare findings anti conclusions 2)r the
~293[[)Xi[~5.fit_).¢f':{.~gd'3!'.~lt_2.B=..d].all-reco~endi.!!g City Co~cil approval, approval with conditions,
SECTION 22. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.410 relating to PUD
applications is amended to read as follows:
21.02.410 City Council Action
(a) :IZhe Ci,~:~.Gotm~i4~h.~t-c-o~d~cq- tl~e-~t~-~yt,~.t.~e_.[~e~.~siu~e>~ms~d.e:r_~,4~e
....................... ~-~ ........... After eo.udu.etmg--+h.~-,~.¢-[i.e---{,e, ivm?aud...considehng the recommendations
21
C~t Administrative Hearing Examiner
shall approve, approve with conditions, deny or remand the Preliminary PUD plan. Written
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law shall support the Council's decision.
02e) Action on the Preliminary PUD Plan shall include the overall layout,
circulation, and densities as a guide to preparation of the Final Plan which will be processed
administratively.
SECTION23. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.420 relating to PUD
applications is amended to read as follows:
21.02.420 Appeal to Superior Court
Any party of record may ;initiate an appeal-o~' the City Council's decision to Superior
Court within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the Council's decision in accordance with the
SECTION24. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.450 relating to PUD
applications is amended to read as follows:
21.02.450 Appeal of Director's Determination.
(a) Any party of record may appeal to the Administrative Hearine Examiner
pursuant to Cra'pt:er 2.13 BMC, the determination of the Director that the Final PUD Plan,
including any minor amendments, is not in conformance with the Preliminary Plan that was
approved by the City Council. Written notice of appeal must be filed w¥Cithin fourteen (14)
calendar days from the date of the Director' s determination, ,, ,, .................... t~}- ..........
(b) The heating exminer shall uphold or reverse the Director's dete~ination.
The decision of the hearing exminer shall be final.
The Director's dete~ination of lack of subst~tial confo~ce, or subsequent ratification of that
dete~ination by the he~ng ex~iner shall require the P~ applicant to bring the Final Pl~ into
subst~tial confo~ance with the Prelimin~ Pl~, or submit a new Prelimin~ Plan.
SECTION 25. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.490(d) relating to open
space development standards is amended to read as follows:
(d) Open Space:
22
t)~ Administrative Hearing Examiner
6/
(1) A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of a PUD
shall be dedicated as common open space. Open space shall be provided for active as well as
passive recreational activities, and for the preservation of existing natural site amenities
whenever possible. Open space shall not include:
i. Streets, alleys, and other fights-of-way.
ii. Vehicular drives, parking, loading and storage areas.
iii. Required buffering and landscaping for parking areas; nor
iv. Perimeter setback areas of the PUD project.
v. Interior setbacks that may be required to separate buildings
or that apply to buildings on individual lots within the PUD.
vi. Small remnants of land that are not physically, visually, or
functionally related to the project's overall open space plan.
(2) Open space and supporting facilities intended for recreational use
shall be designed and located to not adversely impact surrounding land uses, especially existing
residential uses.
(3) Open space and its intended uses shall be clearly designated on the
site plan. At least two-thirds of the open space area shall be suitable for active recreational
purposes. The City will base its acceptance of these areas on their dimensions, useability,
location, slope, and physical improvements. Tot lots, playgrounds, picnic areas, sports courts,
and open grassy multi-purpose fields are examples of active open space areas, whereas a steep
slope natural area traversed by a hiking trail might be considered partially active but mostly
passive.
(4) The locations of natural site amenities shall be considered when
planning for open space, siting buildings and other structures, routing underground services, and
determining finished grade levels and areas to be paved. Natural amenities might include rock
out-croppings, ravines, groves of trees, ponds or streams. Up to one-third (1/3) of property
intended to satisfy the open space requirement can be unsuitable for recreational purposes if
consisting of existing natural site amenities.
(5) When a PUD is constructed in phases, common open space shall
not be less than fifteen percent (15%) of the total area developed in each phase and must be
23
Or) Administrative Hearing Examiner
completed in accordance with approved specifications at the time of completion of each phase of
the PUD.
(6) Provisions shall be made for the perpetual maintenance of all
common open space areas.
(7) The total requirement for active open space may be reduced by no
more than twenty-five percent (25%) through the provision of a recreation building, swimming
pool, or similar major recreational facility that, m t~e '~v ....................... e ............... ~, will
better provide for the needs of the residents without significantly detracting from the project's
appearance or environmental quality.
SECTION 26. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.700(b) relating to
landscaping of one or two-unit developments is amended to read as follows:
(b) No landscaping provisions are required for any residential development
consisting of one- or two-unit structures, except by PUD, special use permit or plans-in-lieu of
the underlying_ zoning requirements, or as.,.~ ...... ; .... ~ 55' ,~.~..,. ~m....~,l..l~;-,~ '~.~.,,,.....,o,.,_;~- ~'--' '~,.~ Ci~
SECTION 2Z Bremenon Municipal Code Section 21.02.830(b) relating to
mo~ization of non-confo~ing uses is mended to read as follows:
(b) ~itiation of~o~ization:
(1) ~ monization action may be initiated by the Director of
Community Development; Mayer ............ e ......................... ; Council:and approved by
the Administrative Heating Examiner.
(2) The City Council shall approve a proposed amoffization action
prior to any notification or other action.
SECTION 28. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.830(0 relating to
appeals of the Directors decision regarding non-conforming uses is amended to read as follows:
(f) Appeal of Director's Determination:
24
Ox Administrative Hearing Examiner
(1) An appeal to o__fthe Director's determination may be made to the
....... ~ ~,ss~Administrat~.e Hc,r~ in= Exdmmcr ursuant Chapter 2.13 BMC4~
ng-C?o~ ............................................................. p to
~ ~ ........ ;,h ,h ........ , ........ ~ ......... +.; .... , ;. ~a~ ~, r~o c~n within fou~een (14) days of
issuance of the Directors decision.
~ Exam~ ~cr shall
(2) The ¢latmi~g-47-omm.i:s~mAdministrative Heat'in-
sustain the decision of the Director if, following a public hearing, it dete~ines that one or both
of the following conditions apply:
(i) That the nature of the use is such that it can be altered or
te~inated so that the prope~y can be used in confo~ance with the uses pe~itted in the zone in
which it is located; or
(ii) That the nonconfo~ing use is detrimental to the public
health or safety, or is a public nuisance.
SECTION29. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.840 relating to Type I land
use applications is amended to read as follows:
(a) Actions: The following permits and approvals involve direct applica.t, ion
of adopted codes and standards with many of the decisions made; .... *'~ "' '" '~
.......... t ..... yadmm~strauvclv at
the customer counter. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B 140. the City has determined that these permits
and approvals present special circumstances that warrant a different review process, as describec__3
in subsection (b) herein and. therefore, are excluded fi'om project permit review under
Chapter 36.70B RCW. This different review process applies only when the following permits
m~d approvals are either catet~oricallv exempt or where enviromnental review has been
completed in connection wiIh other project pemfit applications.3'Se decis~on'3 are admini'~trativc
(1) o..;~,; ........ ~ .<~ pe~its.~(,deleted)
(2) Home occupation.~ (*deleted)
(3) L~d uses pe~itted outfi~t.
~(4) Bound~ line adjus~ent.**
~(5) Minor ~endment to approved P~.
25
o~ Administrative Hearing Examiner
(-7--)(6) Minor amendments to other permits.
6g-)(7) Temporary emergency wetland or stream permits.* (*deleted)
(8)
t~j ............ v ........ s less than 2 acres.
(9) Grading less than 100 cu. yds.
(10) Landscape plan.
(11) Site Plan Review.**
(12) Recreational vehicle 90-day permit.
(13) Building permits.**
(b) Review Procedure: The above permits and approvals are not subject to
the requirements for determination of completeness, consolidated permit processing, notice of
decision, and 120 day processing requirements as set forth in BMC 21.02.870, BMC 21.02.895,
and Chapter 36.70B RCW. * A boundary line adjustment is not a land use permit or approval
decision under this Chapter but is only reviewed in coniunction with a related land use
application. ** Denotes land use applications that are subject to the determination of
completeness and 120-day processing requirements.
(c) m~wj Final decision: The Director's decision shall be final.
,,~; ..... ~ c .......... e,f appeal
(d) (e-)~Appeai: Type I decisions may be appealed to the Administrative
Heating Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of the decision. The heating examiner will conduct an open record appeal heating. (See
Figure 840).
SECTION30. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.845(a) relating to Type II
land use applications is amended to read as follows:
(a) Actions: The following permits and approvals require limited public notice.
Pre-decision comments are encouraged and the Director may approve with conditions, or deny the
request.
(1) Short Subdivision (short plat).
(2) SEPA Determination.
(3) Wetland or stream assessment.
(4) Wetland or stream development permit.
(5) :¢m4mae~. Env. Area Determination.
26
~, Administrative Hearing Examiner
(6) Administrative Special Use Permit.
(,_78) Design Review. (exempt from 120 day processing
requirement)
(~9) Plan or Code Interpretation.
(~-1-4)) Minor alteration of approved plat.
SECTION31. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.845(d) relating to Type II
land use applications is amended to read as follows:
(d) Appeal: Type II decisions may be appealed to the Administrative Hearing
Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of
decision. The hearing examiner will conduct an open record appeal hearing.
SECTION32. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.850 is hereby repealed
in its entirety and there is hereby created a new section 21.02.850 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code relating to Type III land use applications, to read as follows:
21.02.850 Type HI Administrative Hearing Examiner Decisions.
(a) Actions: The following actions may be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied, or remanded 'by the Administrative Hearing Examiner pm'surest to Chapter
2.13 BMC following an open record public hearing, unless noted otherwise.
(1) Final Subdivision Plat.
(2) Variance.
(3) Non-administrative Special Use Permit.
{e) Decision Format: Ts~e [[I decisions shall be made in writin~
supported by findings of t'act and conclusions o~' law.
(t) Final Decision: Type IH decisions are made by the Administrative
Hearint~ Examiner and are final when issued for purposes of appeal.
(g) Appeal: T.vpe [1I decisions may be appealed [o Superior Court
within the twenty-one (21) calendar days fbllowine the date of issuance of the decision.
27
Administrative Hearing Examiner
SECTION33. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.855 is hereby repealed in
its entirety and there is hereby created a new section 21.02.855 relating to Type IV land use
applications, to read as follows:
21.02.855 Type IV City Council Decisions.
(a) Actions: The following actions may be approved, approved with
conditions, denied, or remanded by the City Council following an open record pre-decision
public hearing by the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC, unless
noted otherwise. Public notice is required for T510e IV actions. Recon'nnendations will be
provided by the Administrative Hem'in~ Examiner to the City Council following a public
hearing. Staff may conduct additional neighborhood meetings when required or when otherwise
warranted by the Director for public information or data gatheting purposes. An asterisk (*)
denotes actions that are exempt from the 120-day permit processing requirement.
(1) Preliminary Subdivision Plat.
(2) Vacation. of' existin~ subdivision.
(3) Planned Unit Development (PUT)).
(4) Major amendment to a PUD.
(5) Binding Site Plan... '
(6) Rezone for specific properties or small area.
(7) Development Agreement. *
(b) Decision Format: Type IV decisions shall be made by motion,
resolution, ordinance, or other fo~qn appropriate to that particular decision and suitable for
recording.
(c) Final Decision: Type IV decisions are made by' the City Council
fbllowing the Administrative Heating Examiner's open pubic heating and are final when issued
tbr purposes of appeal.
(d) Appeal: Type I'V decisions may be appealed to Superior Court
within the twenty-one (21) calendar day appeal period, or on the effective date of the ordinance,
whichever is loneer.
28
Administrative Hearing Examiner
SECTION 34. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.860 relating to
shoreline permits is hereby recodified as 21.04.100 BMC and is further amended to read as
follows:
Section 21.02.86004.100 Shoreline Decisions.
(a) Actions: The following are subject to the requirements of Bremerton's
Shoreline Master Program but shall be decided within 120 days. Recommendations and hearings
shall be conducted as described in the "Permit Processing" table that follows.
(1) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
(2) Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
(3) Shoreline Variance
(4) Shoreline Permit Revisions
(5) Shoreline Master Program Amendments
(b) Decision Format: Completion of a prepared form or statement of
findings, conclusions and the decision of the approving body. Adoption of and amendments to
the Shoreline Master Program shall be made by ordinance.
(c) Final Decisions:
(1) Sul~stantial Development Permits and amendments to existing
permits are decided administratively, in the same manner as other Type 1I permits.
(2) Conditional Use Permits and Variances are decided by the
Planning Commission and may be approved, rejected, or modified by the Department of
Ecology. A neighborhood meeting or study session is optional.
(3) All Shoreline Permit decisions must be submitted simultaneously
to the applicant, the Department of Ecology (DOE), and to the attorney general. DOE may
approve or disapprove the permit.
(4) Shoreline Master Program Amendments are decided by the City
Council and may be approved, rejected, or modified by the Department of Ecology.
(d) Appeals: An appeal of the local shoreline permit decision may be filed
with the Administrative Hearing Examiner !Sr~t pursum~t to Chapter 2.l 3 BMC as provided
herein, with a second appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB), or may be filed directly
with the SHB.
29
Administrative Hearing Examiner
(1) Decisions on Substantial Development Permits may be appealed to
the Administrative Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the decision,
and considered in an open record appeal hearing, or
(2) Those decisions listed in (d)(1) above or the Administrative Hearing
Examiner decisions on appeals of earlier decisions, may be appealed to the Shoreline Heatings
Board by filing a Petition for Review within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of the
Department of Ecology's review and decision.
(3) The decision of the Department of Ecology pertaining to the
adoption of, or amendment to, the Shoreline Master Program may be appealed to the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearing Board per RCW 36.70A.250 through 320.
(4) Appeals to the hearing examiner shall be decided within (30) thirty
calendar days of the filing date. Appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board will be decided within
180 calendar days.
SECTION 35. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.870(h) relating to
processing of land use applications is amended to read as follows:
(h) Notice of Application: This notice shall be issued for Type II;-a~d~III and
}',,~ project permit applications, within 14 days of the Determination of Completeness. It is not
required for Type I c,r p,r applications, nor for other exempt project permits. (See ~u
SECTION 36. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.870(i) relating to
processing of land use applications is an~ended to read as follows:
(i) Public Meeting: If not specifically required for a particular permit, the
Director may initiate a public meeting to be conducted by City staff, the P4m~h-~g
(?~.mmissi~m~:~J-~2i~i-s~[r.a.!~i~J..~l-q:.'~!5J?~..~.-~`~.~.~)2i..[~.~: neighborhood organization, or other appropriate
body.
SECTION 37. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.870(i)(c) relating to
processing of land use applications is amended to read as follows:
(c) Notice: Shall be posted in accordance with Figure 8
30 ~"
95/ Administrativ~ Hearing Examiner
SECTION 3& Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.870(k) relating to
processing of land use applications is amended to read as follows:
(k) Notice of Public Hearing: Notice for all applications that require a
public hearing and all appeals that will be heard in an open record hearing shall be given public
notice at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, as provided in Figure 895(a)Secticn
24 c~
SECTION 39. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.880 relating to public
hearings is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 40. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.890(a) relating to
decisions on land use applications is amended to read as follows:
(a) Final Decision on all Type A-,H, and 1/I, m~d iV decisions shall be made
within 120 days of the City's acceptance of a complete application, unless mherwise exempted
~['9.~!.._t!_~.~...~l~_~9...d_~v~!'_e.~.~!i!'_em_~e:g[~ (Issuance of a Determination of Completeness is not necessary
for Type I applications.)
SECTION 41. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.890(b)(1) relating to
decisions on land use application is amended to read as follow:
(1) A period during which the applicant has been requested to correct
plans, perform required studies, or provide additional information. The clock stops at the time
the applicant is notified of the requests and resumes when the request has been satisfied,~-~-
SECTION 42. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.900(e)(2) relating to
development agreements is amended to read as follows:
(2) A development agreement shall be approved as a Type _I.57[[iI
decision by the City Council following an open record public hearing by thc Administrative
31
Administrative Hearing Examiner
SECTION 43. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.905(c) relating to special
use permits is amended to read as follows:
(c) Procedure: A c-~:.,~ ~ ,o~ o .... ;~; ........... 4 :~ v .... ~. the
~},'~'-',-, '~ .............. i, ............ accordance ,-~;~
Administrative S~ does not require a public he~ng and is processed as a T~e H application.
A S~ that may have si~ific~t impacts beyond the i~ediate site, that is of neighborhood or
community-wide interest, or that may be of a sensitive or con~oversial nature, may be classified
a Non-administrative S~ by the Director and processed as a T~e m application. The Director
may convert a T~e 1i SUP application to a 'I?~e III SUP application at any time prior to a
decision on the application.
SECTION 44. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.910(c) relating to
variance is amended to read as follows:
(c) Procedure: A Variance is processed as a Tv~_e III decisionin accordance
SECTION 45. Breme~on Municipal Code Section 21.02.915 relating to special
exception from development regulations is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 46. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.920(b) relating to
rezones is amended to read as follows:
(b) Applicant: The following may initiate a Rezone:
(1) Private party: The owners, or their designated agents,
representing at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the assessed valuation of the area proposed
for rezoning.
(2) City: The Bremerton Planning Commission ...... ..~ c.; .... ~ r- ......... ...... ;~ may
initiate an area-wide P~rezone upon pa~age of a ...... ~""; .... c; ..... ,
SECTION 47. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.920(c) relating to
rezones is amended to read as follows:
32
On Administrative Hearing Examiner
//
(c) Procedure:
(l) A single-parcel or small area rezone is a quasi-judicial action that
is processed a_.s__.~L][5~p.~_~[~__d.~_ts~9_[~ .pm'suant to Section 21.02.855.; ......... ~ ......... ;**' the
SECTION 4& Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.925(a) relating to
development regulation amendments is amended to read as follows:
(a) Authority: The City Council may approve by passage of an ordinance, a
change to the text of any City of Bremerton development regulation, including the Zoning
Ordinance, large area amendments to the Zoning Map, Shoreline Master Program, Sensitive
Areas Ordinance, and others. These are T-ype4~ legislative decisions and exempt from the
processing, timing, and other requirements for quasi-judicial permits.
SECTION 49. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.925(b) relating to
development regulation amendments is amended to read as follows:
(b) Appli
cant:
~a ................ ............. age,,~, or ....... ~,U~.Any, interested p~y may initiate an amendment to a development
regulation:
SECTION 50. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.930(0(3) relating to site
plan reviews is amended to read as follows:
(3) An administrative decision on a Site Plan may be appealed to the
[~ ....... ~-ge~m ......-~e',tAdmmlstiatix ~. Hearirm Exanfincr pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC.
33
OO Administrative Hearing Examiner
SECTION 51. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.935(a) relating to
appeals is amended to read as follows:
(a) Finality of Decision: Cb) Those land use and development decisions that
are subject to administrative appeal shall become final unless an appeal is filed within the
d i~m~ dti fil th pp 1''~''~ .... (~'~'~ ..... .c..o,-h.~,.c.~..~,~.:,..;~.; ..... ,~,,~.~.,, .... r+~.~
es ate meto e ea ea ........ .... ,.~j ...................... . ....... , ................
,~_, A Zoning Ordinance h-* .... '~'; ........ ' ........ ~ at ~.: ..... ';
SECTION 52. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.935(b) relating to appeals
is amended to read as follows:
(b) ^ ..... ~"~-~ Appeal of Decisions:
' (4) .;~.T'~e..T'W U ~,.,;..,. ~ ..... ; ..... ~;,.; .......... ~ ,-, .... ,~.~ +,.
Unless othenvise provided, appeals to the Administrative Hearin~
Examiner must be filed within fomleen (14) calendar days of the administrative decision and
appeals to Superior Coul1 must be filed within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the decision o f
the Administrative Heating Examiner or the City Council as applicable.
SECTION 53. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.935(c) relating to appeals
is amended to read as follows:
(c) P~'~zies ............. Standmg to Appeal:
34
O~ Administrative Hearing Examiner
II
(1) Except for T_vpe I decisions, oOnly parties of record mayhave
standin, g to initiate an appeal to ,t,~,,,~ -,-~,,~-,~u~ .... ~,,,~~' .... ;-~ ~ j~o~'r ..... ! ~,,~ -~-m P~ies of record shall
include:
~(i) The applic~t.
~(ii) ~yone who p~icipaed in a public meeting on the
applicaion.
~(iii) ~yone who submi~ed ~en coments conce~ng the
applicaion (excluding persons who have only si~ed petitions or mech~cally produced fo~
le~ers).
(2) Only applicants of l~d use applications have st~ding to appeal
Type I decisions on such applications.
SECTION 54. Bremeaon Mmcipal Code Section 21.02.935(d) relating to appeals
is mended to read as follows:
(d) Time to File Filin~ an A~eal: An ........ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~;": ..... ~;,,~ u .... ; ....
........... ~ ............... vv,J ,~ ~vv ................................s ............ appeals
~must be delivered to and received by the Depaament of Co~i~ Development (DCD) by
mail, personal deliver, or by F~ before 5:00 PM on the last business day of the appeal period.
(see: Computation of Time, section (0 below).
SECTION 55. Bremeaon Municipal Code Section 21.02.945(c)(2) relating to
violations of the Zoning Code is ~ended to read as follows:
(2) ~ order shall be obeyed i~ediately, no~ithst~ding the filing of
~ appeal to hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC must be filed within fbuilecn ~
calendar days following posting of the cease and desist order or as othem, ise stated in the order.
SECTION 56. Bremenon Municipal Code Sections 21.02.945(d) relating to
violations of the Zoning Code is ~ended to read as follows:
35
Administrative Hearing Examiner
/90
(d) Revocation:
(1) A revocation action may be initiated by the Director of Community
Development. P, provided, final action shall not be taken by the Director of Community
Development until after a public hearing is held.
(2) The Administrative Hearing Examiner may revoke a variance,
administrative variance, special use permit or administrative special use permit.
SECTION 57. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.12.200(e) relating to
SEPA substantive authority is amended to read as follows:
(e) Applications not requiring a final decision by the City_Council that are
conditioned or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official, shall be appealable to the
Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC. Such appeal may be perfected
by the appellant by giving notice to the responsible official within ten (10) days of the decision
being appealed. The hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be an open record appeal.
However the decision of the SEPA Official shall be presumed correct.
SECTION 58. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.22.140(a)(2)(ii)(3)(B)(ii')
relating to wetlands is amended as follows:
pursuant to Chapter 2.13 BMC issues a decision (permit) specifying conditions of approval, and
SECTION 59. Bremerton Municipal Code Sections 2.12.090 through 2.12.140
relating to comprehensive plans are hereby recodified as Chapter 21.06 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code and amended as follows:
Chapter 21.06
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
2-~-2~21.06.010 Powers And Du.qc~ Comprehensive Plans - Generally.
The planning commission may recommend to the council the adoption or preparation of
coordinated comprehensive plans for the physical development of the municipality. For this
purpose, the council in such measure as is deemed reasonably necessary or required in the
interest of health, safety, morals and general welfare, upon recommendation by the planning
36
//~ / Administrative Hearing Examiner
commission, by general ordinance or resolution, may regulate and restrict the location and use of
buildings, structures, and land for residences, trade, industrial, and other purposes; height,
number of stories, size, construction and design of buildings and other structures; the size of
yards, courts and other open spaces on the lot or tract; the density of population; the setback of
buildings along highways, parks, or public water frontages; and the subdivision and development
of land; and may encourage and protect access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The
planning commission may recommend to the council the adoption of coordinated comprehensive
planning objectives and regulations which implement these objectives to protect environmental
resources, sensitive environmental areas, and the shorelines of the city. The planning
commission may also propose to the council the adoption of a plan for the disposal of hazardous
waste.
~. ....... 21.06.020 Comprehensive Plan - Objectives.
All regulations shall be worked out as parts of a comprehensive plan or plans which
provide for the physical and other generally advantageous development of the community.
Coordinated comprehensive planning objectives shall include encouraging the most appropriate
use of land throughout thc municipality, lessening traffic congestion and accidents, secu.ring
safety from fire, providing adequate light and air, preventing overcrowding of land, avoiding
undue concentration of population, promoting a coordinated development of the unbuilt areas in
the city, encouraging the formation of neighborhood or community units within the community,
securing an appropriate allotment of land area in new developments for all the requirements of
community life, conserving and restoring natural beauty and other natural resources, encouraging
and protecting access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems, and facilitating the adequate
provision of transportation, water, sewage, and other public uses and requirements, including
protection of the quantity and quality of groundwater used for public water supplies.
2.12.11021.06.030 Comprehensive Plan - Recommendations Of Commission.
The commission may recommend to the city council the adoption of the comprehensive
plan as a whole or may recommend parts of the plan by successive recommendations; the parts
corresponding with the geographic or political sections, divisions, or subdivisions of the
municipality or with functional subdivisions of the subject matter of the plan. It may also prepar~
and reconmlend any amendment or extension or addition to the plan. Before the recommendation
of the initial comprehensive plan to the municipality, the planning commission shall hold at least
37
Administrati')e Hearing Examiner
/00.
two public hearings, giving notice of the time and place by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the municipality. A copy of the ordinance or resolution adopting the plan or any
amendment, duly certified as a true copy by the clerk of the municipality, shall be filed with the
county auditor. A certified copy of any map or plat referred to or adopted by the ordinance or
resolution shall also be filed with the county auditor.
2.! 2.! 2021.06.040 Restrictive Districts.
The planning commission may recommend to the city council that the municipality be
divided into districts in order to further any of the articulated public welfare zoning objectives set
out in this chapter. The planning commission may also establish official maps or development
plans for the whole or any portion of the municipality as may be deemed best suited to carry out
the purposes of this chapter. Within such districts, the commission may regulate and restrict the
erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings, structures, or land.
2.12.13".21.06.050 Comprehensive Plan - Amendments, Supplementations Or
Modifications.
(a) The planning commission may propose amendments, supplementations or
modifications of the comprehensive plan or planning regulations to the council. The planning.
commission should first conduct a heating pertaining to the proposal.
(b) The planning commission may consider proposed amendments,
supplementations or modifications of the comprehensive plan or planning regulations. The
planning commission should conduct a hearing about such proposals and report its
recommendation regarding the proposal to the council within ninety days of the time that the
proposed amendments, supplementations or modifications were entertained before the planning
commission. The council, pursuant to a public hearing, may affirm, modify, or disaffirm any
such recommendation of the planning commission.
g-A-gA4021.06.060 Ratification By Council - Appeal.
The planning commission may recommend to the Council the adoption of comprehensive
plans and regulations for the physical development of the City. Such recommendations must be
ratified by the Council before the plan or regulation becomes effective.
38
Administrative Hearing Examiner
SECTION 60. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02 Appendix Figure 840 is
hereby repealed and there is hereby created a new Appendix Figure 840 as set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.
SECTION 61. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02 Appendix Figure 895(a)
is hereby repealed and there is hereby created a new Appendix Figure 895(a) as set forth in Exhibit
B attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.
SECTION 62. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all applications for
which a required heating has not yet been held as of this Ordinance's effective date.
SECTION 63. 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 64. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect, ahd be in force
ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided .by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the /'7.//./ dayof )~ ~F';/ ,2002
PASSED by the City Council the day of ., 2002
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
Approved this day of ,2002
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
39
Administrative Hearing Examiner
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ,2002
EFFECTIVE the day of ., 2002
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGALXOrdinances~Iearing Examiner Ordinance-new.doc
40
[ 05" Administrative Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT A
PERMIT PROCESSING SUMMARY Figure 840
Administrative Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner City Council
DECISIONS Decision Open Hearing and Pre-Decision Closed Record
Decision Open Hearing Decision
Recommendation
Type I Decisions (without notice)
BMC 21.02.840
· Sign permits * * (on appeal)
· Home occupation * * (on appeal)
· Land uses permitted outright * * (on appeal)
· Boundary line adjustment * * (on appeal)
· Minor amendment to approved PUD * * (on appeal)
· Minor amendments to other permits * * (on appeal)
· Temporary emergency wetland or * * (on appeal)
stream permits
· Clearing less than 2 acres * * (on'appeal)
· Grading less than 100 cu. yds. * *(on appeal)
· Landscape plan * * (on appeal)
· Site Plan review * * (on appeal)
· Recreational vehicle 90-day permit * * (on appeal)
· Building Permits * *(on appeal)
Type II Decisions (notice required)
BMC 21.02.845
· Short Subdivison * *(on appeal)
· SEPA Determination * *(on appeal)
· Wetland or stream assessment * *(on appeal)
· Wetland or stream development * *(on appeal)
permit
· Env. Area Determination * *(on appeal)
· Administrative Special Use Permit * *(on appeal)
· *(on appeal)
· Design Review .
· Plan orCode Interpretation ' *(on appeal)
· Minor alteration of approved plat *(on appeal)
Type III Decisions
BMC 21.02.850
· Final Subdivision Plat *
· Variance *
· Non-administrative Special Use Permit *
Type IV Decisions
BMC 21.02.855
· Preliminary Subdivision Plat * *
· Vacation of existing subdivision * *
· Planned Unit Development * *
· Major amendment to a PUD * *
· Binding Site Plan * *
· Rezone for specific properties or small * *
area
· Development Agreement
Title 21 Appendix
~NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
z_-q.
Determination Notice of ~O
DECISIONS of Notice of Open Record Notice of Notice of Appeal Notice of --~
Completeness Application Public Hearing Decision Decision
Type I Decisions ::;0 ~-~
· Sign permits No None No No No No r'll,~
· Home occupation No None No No No No
· Land uses permitted No None No No No No
outright
· Boundary line No None No No No No
adjustment I1'!
· Minor amendment to No None No No No No Z
approved PUD -'-I
· Minor amendments to No None No No No No
other permits
· Temporary No None No No No No ITl
emergency wetland X
or stream permits ::!::
· Clearing less than 2 No None No No No No
acres
· Grading less than 100 No None No No No No
cu. yds.
· Landscape plan No None No No No No
· Site Plan review Yes None No No No No
· Recreational vehicle No None No No No No
90-day permit
· Building Permits Yes None No No No No
appeals to
Type II Decisions Hearing Examiner
· Short Subdivision Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
· Admin. SUP Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed O_~
· Minor Plat Amend. Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
· Wetland assessment/ Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
permit
· SEPA Determination Yes No No Some cases Yes If appealed
· Env. Area Determin. No No No Yes Yes If appealed
· Design Review Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
· Interpretation No No No Yes Yes If appealed
Determination Notice of Z
DECISIONS of Notice of Open Record Notice of Notice of Appeal Notice of O
Completeness Application Public Hearing Decision Decision
-Type III Decisions appeals to court
1,, Final Subdiv. Plat Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A,,,
· Variance Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A
· Non-admin. SUP Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A rrl
Type IV Decisions
· Rezone Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes ITl
· Develop. Agreement Yes No Yes No N/A Yes
· Prelim. Subdiv. Plat Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes Z
· Binding Site Plan Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes --'1
· Vacation of Subdiv. Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes
· Planned Unit Dev. Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes
· PUD Major Amend. Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes
Shoreline Decisions
· Sub. Dev. Permit Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
· Cond. Use Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes If appealed
· Variance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes If appealed
· Permit Revision Yes Yes No Yes Yes If appealed
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: April _2~,/?_002
BMC Chapter 21.02 (the Zoning Code) by providing regulatory DEPT. OF ORIGIN:
measures that will promote in-character, urban infill and ORIGINATOR: Chris Huqo, Director
efficient use of land by allowing front yard setbacks of residential DATE SUBMITTED: April 16, 2002
development to reflect established setbacks of existing structures.
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
DCD Director:,~~~~ ~s-~-F~ ,"q-'~;;~,,,~i;-,.Sc ~
City Attorney: ",,./~'~~-,.~-~~-~ ~ o PC Minutes March 29, 2002
City Clerk: "-~ --/ ~--'~ ~/ o Staff Report
Fiscal & Budget Council Comm.: '~-,>~ ~'~"---,.~,~--~ o Ordinance to amend Zoning Text
Operations Comm.: ~
~ / - - - r
MAYO~ ~OUNCIL PRESIDENT ~.~~
4, SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
A substantial number of residential structures in Bremerton were constructed prior to the adoption of current
setback requirements. In some neighborhoods, the pattern of non-conforming front (street side) setbacks has
become part of the unique character of the City. The Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan
encourage the efficient use of land and smaller lots, and in some instances, decreased front setbacks are an
appropriate way to promote such efficiency and consistency with existing character.
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing and adopted Findings &
Conclusions at their March 29, 2002 meeting, and recommends City Council approval. On July 17, 2001 the
Planning Commission recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding this matter. The
City Council conducted a public hearing on August 1, 2001 and approved the Plan Amendment. The Council
must conduct a public hearing prior to its final decision and action on this proposed Ordinance that will implement
the Plan Amendment.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to approve the attached Ordinance # on first readinq.
Move to pass the attached Ordinance # on second reading.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hu.qo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hu.qo
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION I~j~~~{~S~~~
PULLED ~ TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED A
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: ~S ~ --.~r '''~ ,.'. ~'m q,
8. AGENDA BILL NO.'
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the proposed ordinance is not approved, opportunities for compatible residential infill
development in some older neighborhoods will be diminished.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The proposed amendment will create no operational changes for the city with the possible
exception being residential infill development in older neighborhoods that might not be
possible without approval.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Ordinance
File
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of'
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Zoning Code, Chapter
21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, by adding a new section,
Section 21.02.160 (d) entitled "Maintenance of Traditional Front
Yards" to the front yard setback of new residential development to
reflect the established setbacks of existing structures by allowing
setback averaging, subject to certain criteria.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is comprised of numerous neighborhoods that
were developed prior to the adoption of current setback requirements and some of those
neighborhoods consist of relatively small lots; and
WHEREAS, in some of those neighborhoods, the pattern of nonconforming front
(street-side) setbacks has become part of the unique character of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
encourage the efficient u~e of land and smaller lots in urban areas; and
WHEREAS, in some instances the ability to conform to established setback
patterns that may not be in compliance with current regulations will promote efficient land use
and enhanced compatibility with existing development patterns; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment supporting compatible residential infill development on July
17, 2001 and recommended approval of that plan amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Planning
Commission recommendation and approved said plan amendment on August 1, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject
zoning code amendment on March 29, 2002 and has recommended approval of that amendment:
and
Il { Setback Averaging
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on April 24,
2002 to accept public comments pertaining to the proposed Development Regulation
Amendment to consider the Planning Commission recommendation; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHiNGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAiN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A new section, Section 21.02.160(d) entitled "Maintenance of
Traditional Front Yards" is hereby added to Bremerton Municipal Code, Chapter 21.02 to read as
follows:
(d) Maintenance of Traditional Front Yards: In SF zones, if properties with
either a house or garage/carport that is set back from the street less than the front yard
requirement of the zone represent sixty percent (60%) or more of the lineal feet fronting one side
of a street within a numbered block, the average set back of these existing non-conforming
structures establishes the minimum front yard for all properties on the block, subject to the
following provisions:
(1) No structure need be set back more than five (5) feet further than a house or
garage/carport on an adjoining lot, and
(2) Regardless of(d)(1) above, in no case shall the minimum front yard set back be
less than five (5) feet.
SECTION 2. 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 3. 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.
Setback Averaging
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2002
PASSED by the City Council the 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 Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ., 2002
EFFECTIVE the day of ., 2002
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community DevelopmentXZoning Ordinance 4-11 .doc
/ [~_.~ Setback Averaging
CITY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
2002 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
PROPOSAL: Proposed Zoning Code text amendment to add a new section to
BMC 21.02.160 (Front Yards) to promote in-character, urban infi[l
development and efficient use of land by allowing the front yard
setback of' new residential development to reflect the established
setbacks of existing structures.
DATE OF REPORT: January i0. 2002
APPLIC.~NT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBER): City of Bremerton (PL02-000I)
CONTACT: City. of Bremerton Department of Community Development
(360) 478-5275
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This,proposal applies to all property within the City. of Bremerton that
is'26ned SF-1. SF-2. or SF-3.
BACKGROUND:
A substantial number of structures and buildings in Bremerton were constructed prior to the
adoption and enforcement of current laws and regulations peixaining to setback standards and now exist as
non-conforming structures. In many cases, setback standards were not an issue when they were built.
These long-standing conditions are part of the Ci.ty's character.
The Growth Management Act goals and the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan encourage the
efficient use of land for urban developtnent. For residential use. this suggests that smaller lots, a higher
proportion of lot coverage, and decreased setbacks are appropriate in some neighborhood settings.
Madrona Point and Shore Drive are examples of older, established neighborhoods where these
characteristics are prevalent.
As the communi~ continues to grow and strives to attract new residents to these older
neighborhoods, revised development regulations are needed to guide compatible inllll development of
residential properties. This is particularly critical for the front yard setback that is the most visible site
characteristic viewed from public streets. Until a more co,nprehensive assessment of appropriate
development standards for infill residential development is conducted, a policy to maintain traditional front
vards will help insure that the new infill development fits the character of the area.
On July 17. 200 t the Planning Commission adopted written findings recommending approval of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment that supported a Zomng Ordinance amendment to address the above
circumstances. The City Council conducted a public hearing on this plan amendment and adopted it on
August t. 200 l.
STAFF REPORT - Compatible Residential Infill Zoning Text Amendment
JanuaD' 10, 2002
Page Two
This proposed zoning text amendment implements that plan amendment in that it provides a
regulatory, mechanism that will allow the averaging of front yard setbacks under certain circumstances in a
manner that will promote compatible residential infill development.
'PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT:
Amend BMC 21.02.160 by adding a new section that reads as follows:
"(d) Maintenance of Traditional Front Yards. Within SF zones, when rift5.' percent or more of
the lineal feet of properties fronting one side of a street within the same numbered block has structures set
back from the street less than the front yard prescribed for the zone and the majority, of the existing
setbacks are within a six-foot variation, then the average setback of those structures within the six-foot
variation establishes the front yard for new construction, except:
(1) no structure need set back more than two feet further than a structure on any adjoining lot: and
(2) no front yard can be less than five feet."
SEPA STATUS:
On April 29, 2001 a Determination of Non-significance was issue, d regarding the subject
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning text change. That DNS was published and circulated
pursuant to State law and the Bremerton Municipal Code. NO comments were received pursuant to that
SEPA process and no appeal was filed.
DECISION CRITERIA:
in order to approve a zoning text amendment, it must be found to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the amendment must be internally consistent with the balance of the zoning code.
The following findings of fact are pertinent to the subject code amendment:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The Comprehensive Plan. in the "Planning Goals" Section (Element C), Goal # 1 (Urban
Growth) Goal D ~page 2) reads: ".~curtmtze the City .s existing m-jill development potential to
ensure the most eJficlent use of existing utili.(v-inJ'rastructure and./~c~litlex. "
2. [n "Element G - Housing". Section E ('Housing Strategies. Table G~I), the Comprehensive
Plan lists as--Pnonty Housing Strategies~' tpage 15'1 the following:
"I. Revise Development Standards: .t. fodi~(b site planmn~g,building dextgn requirements
($etbac/x'x. street widths, etc. ) or allow performance based improvement standards to increase
JIexibilit? ~n housing deveiopment. Reduce minimum site improvement standards Idrainage,
street, pavement, parking etc.) to reflect actual projected usage and needs."
"4. Encourage Infill Development: Develop incenm,'es to encourage ",w/ill" development oj'
vac~t .~'ltex ~n developed ~weas ~nd rede~.'elopmen1,4.t'ex~3'ting .s'tte.s'. Give priorip,.~ to programs
providing financial assistance to support infill homeownership.
STAFF REPORT - Compatible Residential In.fill Zoning Text A~nendment
January, 10, 2002
Page Three
3. On August l, 2001, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing
the averaging of front yard setbacks under certain circumstances (File # PLO 14)016). The
Planning Commission had recommended approval of this amendment on July 17, 2001.
4. The subject zoning text amendment allows averaging of front yard setbacks in SF zones,
subject to certain limitations including a requirement that a majority of front setbacks within
a block be non-conforming, that there be some consistent' in these non-conforming setbacks,
that setback patterns on adjoining lots be given priority,, and that in all cases a minimum five
foot front yard must be provided.
5. Many neighborhoods and districts in Bremerton were develgped prior to the enactment of
current development standards, and many structures and properties within these areas are non-
conforming to these standards.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed zoning text amendment will allow residential infill development that is
consistent with established development patterns in certain circumstances, with an emphasis
on compatibility, with existing t¥ont yard setbacks.
2. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in fact
implements a plan change approved by the Ci~' Council on August l, 2001.
3. The proposed text amendment is internally consistent with 'the balance of the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. The proposed text amendment promotes the public intereit and poses no adverse impacts to
the community,.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the background, findings of fact. and conclusions articulated above, it is
recommended that the subject zoning text amend~nent be approved.
Minutes for Approval
Special Planning Commission Meeting
March 29, 2002
I. Call to Order
In the absence of Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Dingfield agreed to act as Chair.
Commissioner Kennedy, the Vice Chair had a weak voice. The meeting was called to order by Acting
Chairman Dingfield at 5:37 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Bucldngham, Commissioner Cockburn; Commissioner Dingfield,
Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Nelson, and Commissioner Wood. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Dingfield introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Cockburn
and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to approve the agenda as written. Called for a vote:
Buckingham: yes; Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: abstain; and Wood: yes. The
agenda was approved as written.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The January 15, 2002. minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner Dingfield. She then
asked if there were any comments on the minutes. There was one question regarding the identification
of some of the public testimony. ~t was verified bv Commissioners Dingfield and Kennedy (both
present at the January 15, 2002, Meeting) to be John Hall - recording secretary made note of it. A
motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy to approval of the minutes for the January 15, 2002,
as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cockburn. Called for a vote:
Buckingham: abstained; Cockburn: yes: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: abstained: and Wood:
yes. The motion carries - the minutes were approval as submitted.
V. Public Meeting
Chairman Dingfield moved directly to the public meeting portion.
A. Call to the Public tpublic comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Commissioner
Dingfield seeing no public moved on to [he Public Heanng portion of the meeting.
B. Public Hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page [ of [2
1. PL02-0001 - Front Yard Averaging. Proposed zoning text amendment to add a new
section to BMC 21.02.160 (Front Yards) to promote in-character, urban infill
development and efficient use of land by allowing the front yard setback of new
residential development (in SF Zones) to reflect the established setbacks of existing
structures. (City of Bremerton)
Commissioner Dingfield introduced this item and turned the floor over to Mr. Hugo.
Mr, Hugo stated that this item was introduced to the commission in the January meeting.
The proposal is to address the traditional character of Bremerton that represents a city
that grew over a number of years when there weren't either affective regulations or
established regulations and there were needs to get a lot of residential development in the
community. This set a patter of a lot of development happening very tightly on sites with
garages and houses and other structures being fairly close to the street. The thinking of
the future of an urban area that will always be urban and respect for people who have an
interest for infill development (coming into an existing lot or improving an existing lot)
where the character of the street is represented by this traditional building forum of
structures built fairly close to the sidewalk. This is being proposed as a way to promote
that kind of infill development that fits in with the existing streetscape of the
neighborhood.
It is a proposal to apply anywhere in the City. This discussion started with a policy
discussion last fall as part of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The
Commission did recommend this policy to the City Council for adoption - which is to
promote in-character urban infill development and efficient use of land by allowing the
front yard setback of new residential development to reflect the established setbacks of
existing structures. That is now the policy in the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted
in the City Council's annual Comprehensive Plan update last fall.
Now the implementing ordinance to realize this whole idea that was presented in one
form on January 15, 2002. With your direction, some modifications were made. He then
read the current proposed language:
"An ordinance amending BMC 21.02.160 to add a new section:
(d) .Maintenance ofTradit:ional Fron't Yards. tn SF Zones, if properties with either a house
or garage/carport that is set back from the street less than the front yard requirement of
the zone represent sixty percent or more of the lineal feet fronting one side of a street
within a numbered block, the average set back of these existing buildings establishes the
minimum front yard for all properties on the block, subject to the following provisions:
(l) No structure need set back more than five feet further than a house or
garage/carport on an adjoining Iot. and
(2) Regardless of fl). in no case shall the minimum front yard set back be less than
five feet."
What this lan~oua~oe is trying to say is. you look att what the development pattern is - take
an average of it and then you get to setback new development or re-development in the
front yard [o that new average set back line. There are a couple of conditions that ~f
everything is built closer than five feet from the street - that doesn't matter. In every
Plannint~ Commission :'vleetin ~ March 29. _t)-'W', Paze z" of I2
case the set you must setback at least five feet. Mr. Hugo then gave several examples.
You wouldn't have to get more than five feet further back from adjoining setbacks even
if the average is further back than that - say 12 feet.
Mr. Hugo stated that in past public comment, there continues to be a lingering thought
that this is designed to only deal with a couple of environments in the City where there
are shoreline property ownerships. That is not the intent, even though places like Shore
Drive and Madrona Point do have a characteristic development pattern of a lot of
structures close to the street. That is not the only place in Bremerton that this exists.
There are a lot of parts of west Bremerton where there are also streets with structures
close to the street. This is intended to deal generically with all those situations in the
City. This was the intent from the beginning. When we talk about the front yard, we are
only talking about the front yard in the zoning sense - not in the shoreline regulation
sense. 21.02.160 is in the Zoning Code, not in the Shoreline regulations. It is not the
other front yard that would apply in any shoreline environment.
He then entered the following written public comment into the record:
a. Letter from Dana R. Hamar, 511 Shore Drive. dated January 30, 2002. One of the
statements in this letter is, "I submit to you that everybody's concerns have been
suitably addressed no matter how frivolous." This is an indication that at that
time he was satisfied that the proposal could go forward.
b. Letter from Roland Cooke & David Gnndstaff, dated March 13, 2002. This letter
is signed by several citizens. Mr. Hugo could not read the signatures, but read the
addresses [1147 Shore Drive, 1005 Shore Drive. 1017 Shore Drive and
Shore Drivel. This is a letter supporting this proposed amendment and asking the
Commission to approve it.
c. Letter from Helen Miller, dated February 19, 2002. In her letter she is taking
issue with the proposal and asking that you not act on it because the policy itself
is currently under appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. I believe
that I reported to you in the past that it was the City Attorney's guidance to the
Commission that while that appeal is being considered by the Hearings Board that
the City could continue its business and implement a regulatory amendment to be
consistent xvith that policy that is under appeal.
d. Letter from John Hall, dated February 19, 2002. His letter is objecting the
amendment.
e. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. John Didio, dated February [9, 2002. This letter is
asking the Commission ro deny the zoning amendment.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if there were any' questions r'rom the Commission for
Mr. Hugo.
Commissioner Cockburn asked it' [here are requirements regarding what can be in [he
five I-'oot setback, example: iF it is all concrete - is it still considered a front yard.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 , Page 3 of [2
Mr. Hugo replied that there is no requirements about what can be done - other than as a
front yard you are not supposed to park your car in a front yard. (Commissioner
Cockburn asked further that if you concreted it, it would - in affect be a parking space.)
Mr. Hugo stated that you are not supposed to park in your front yard and actually, five
feet is not really enough to get a car out of the street. This proposal doesn't change any
of the other City requirements for development of property. It only changes the depth of
the yard. Until the City adopts a new development standard for streets that would require
at least a 3-foot or preferably a 5-foot pedestrian buffer strip (a planning area for street
trees) and then a sidewalk behind that in a new development or significant re-
development - that will provide a five foot pedestrian zone off the street and this 5-foot
setback would still accommodate that kind of sidewalk improvement. It maintains five
feet of walking space outside of the street although there might not be a formal curb or
sidewalk installed.
Commissioner Buckingham asked if there any language that accounts for parking on
new development in this type of circumstance.
Mr. Hugo replied that parking would have to be in a garage or carport that was at least
five feet back. Commissioner Buckingham asked further if there is language that
requires that in relation to this proposal.
Mr. Hugo said that the other parking limitations still apply. You cannot park in any'
setback area, and any place that you are permitted to park has to be improved for parking.
In this case, it means that it has to be in a garage or carport and setback at least 5-feet
from the street. The initial pro, posal, back in January, didn't really identify which
structures we were talking about. So there was some concern about other utility'
buildings and in the end for new development or re-development, it was our assessment
on listening to the Commission and other comments, that the only things we want to deal
with is the primary uses for residential (house and primary accessory structure, which is
where you put your car).
Commissioner Buckingham stated that in the minutes from previous meetings/hearings
on this there was some confusion regarding the difference between the waterfront front
yard and the street side front yard. [ don't see that even in the revised version of this
provision that there is clear language separating the two. [s there some other language'?
Mr. Hugo said that the reason for that is that the shoreline requirements are not in the
zoning code at all. Front yards are discussed throughout the zoning code but we never
say that these are not the t:ront yards in the shoreline. No place in the zoning code do we
make that distinction because the way that front yards are defined in the zoning code only
make them appty to the zoning code. [n the Shoreline regulations it says that there is
another yard - it is a yard that applies on the water side and it is ONLY discussed in the
Shoreline regulations.
Commissioner Buckingham confirmed bv stating that what Mr. Hugo is saying is that
delineation is natural just between whether we are talking about a street-side ~ssue or the
shoreline issue.
Commissioner Kennedy stated chat the ordinance does say it is setback from the street.
It is the front yard.
Plannin.o~ Commission Meeting_ March 29, _00_ Page 4 of 1".
Mr. Hugo explained further that the section that is put in relating to front yards in
general always talks about the street side. You might have two front yards in the zoning
code - but that is ~vhen you have a through lot and it fronts on parallel streets. The yard
discussion in the zoning code context can be fairly complex but it is always related to
streets and in the shoreline it is always related to the water.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Hugo.
Hearing none she then opened this hearing to public comment of a neutral nature,
positive and/or negative nature. Seeing none she then closed the hearing to public and
opened it back to the commission for discussion, comments, and/or motions.
Mr. Hugo noted for the record that because of the glitch in the quorum on the February
meeting that there were quite a few people here that verbally testified and that is why we
have so many comments in written form. Everyone that commented verbally or in
writing were notified by letter about the problem that happened that night and invited to
either appear or submit new testimony. That letter went out several weeks ago.
Commissioner Dingfield confirmed that the commissioners received a copy of that letter
and letters that were submitted on or before the February meeting have been included in
our packets and are part of the public record for this special meeting in March.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Nelson to approve the revised language for PL02-0001 - Front Yard Averaging
Zoning Text Amendment. [Mr. Hugo clarified for the Commission, if you are
approving this proposal - you are recommending it to the City Coundi.] Called for a
vote: Buckingham: yes: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Nelson: yes; and
Wood: yes. The agenda was approved as written.
2. PL02-0003 - Plans-In-Lieu. A text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (BMC 21.02)
to establish procedures and decision criteria to approve development plans in lieu of
compliance with zoning standards on the basis of superior or innovative design mat
results in specific public benefit. (City of Bremerton)
Commissioner Dingfield introduced this item and turned the floor over to Mr. Hugo.
Mr. Hugo stated that this item was first introduced in January, 2002. The idea came up
because of a perceived need to have some flexibility in the regulatory environment where
it is clearly evident that the public will benefit by a different form of development on a
pamcular site. There is something already like this in the Bremerton Municipal Code - it
is a pro~,ision that [ didn't like from the first time [ got here because it seemed too
arbitrarv. Flexibility always dances around the problem of: [s it guided bv the
application of discretion with objective cnte~-ia or is it just the misuse of discretion in an
arbitrary way? What we have now is "Special Exceptions". As it is written in th.e zoning
code. '~ . is to apply to those cases where you want a deviation from standards where
there is not an existing physical hardship" {which is what the variance is
Tradiuonally, the variance mechanism ~s one of the most misused tools in the zoning
books and in the zoning toolbox. Var/ances are misused because people think that it
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page 5 of 1.2
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: April 24, 2002
BMC Chapter 21.02 (the Zoning Code) by providing the DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DCIZ)' ,-,,. J
regulatory measures allowing flexibility and innovative design ORIGINATOR: Chri~-~uu,q~r
pursuant to a "Plan-in Lieu". DATE SUBMITTED: April 16, 2002
2. CLEA~NCES: (Comment on back if necessa~) 3. EXHIBITS:
DCD Director: ~~~ .... ., o
~ ~.~h]~ ~ ~-" .....
City Attorney' ~ ~~'
~ ~ .. '~ o PC Minutes 3/29/01
City Clerk: ~' , / o Ordinance to Amend Zoning Text
Fiscal & Budget Council Comm.: ~
Operations Comm.:
APPRO~~~
MAYOR~ - COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
There are situations when the strict application of the development standards adiculated in the Zoning Code
does not promote innovative design and allow land use that best se~es the public interest. There is a need for a
provision in the Code that will allow, after careful analysis, flexibility in the application of development standards
pedaining to setbacks, landscaping, and signage. Approval of a Special Use Permit will be required in order to
demonstrate that the public interest will be better se~ed by the application of this provision, which is defined as a
~Plan-in-Lieu."
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted public hearings, adopted Findings
Conclusions at a March 29, 2002 meeting, and recommended City Council approval. The Council must conduct
a public hearing prior to its final decision and action on the proposed Ordinance in order to implement the zoning
te~ amendment.
5. RECOMMENDATION'
Move to approve the attached Ordinance # on first readinq.
Move to pass the attached Ordinance # on second readinq.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFiCIAL:Christopher R. Hu.qo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Huqo
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED~ TABLED~ APPROVED DISAPPROVED..~'~IE~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.' c',:- 5¢~ ¢
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the proposed ordinance is not approved, the city will lose the capability of allowing needed
flexibility in applying current development standards pertaining to setbacks, landscaping, and
signage.
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The proposed amendment will create no operational changes for the city.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Ordinance ,.- ,
File
Experience with Land Use Applications
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Zoning Code, Chapter
21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, by adding a new
definition to Section 21.02.070 and a new section, Section
21.02.575 entitled "Plans-In-Lieu" to provide a mechanism to
allow certain flexibility and design innovation in the application of
setback, landscaping, and signage requirements.
WHEREAS, in the application of development regulations there occasionally are
situations where the literal application of zoning regulations does not result in utilization of land
in a manner that best serves the public interest and variance provisions are not a suitable method
by which to allow deviation from such zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, there is therefore a need for a provision in the Zoning Code that will
allow, after careful analysis, flexibility in the application of development standards pertaining to
setbacks, landscaping, and signage; and .
.WHEREAS, the proposed zoning code amendment provides that Special Use
Permit approval is required in the application of such flexibility, that only setback, landscaping,
and signage regulations may be addressed, and certain other parameters that must be met,
including a finding of public benefit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject
zoning code amendment on March 29, 2002 and has recommended approval of that amendment;
and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on April 24,
2002 to accept public comments pertaining to the proposed Development Regulation
Amendment to consider the Planning Commission recommendation; NOW THEREFORE,
Platt-In-Lieu
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.070 entitled
"Definitions" is hereby amended by adding a definition for Plan-In-Lieu to be inserted in said
section in alphabetical order and to read as follows:
PLAN-IN-LIEU. An agreement and plan that does not fully comply with all of the
development standards of the zone in which the development is located but is approved on the
basis of superior or innovative design or resulting public benefit. Such resulting plan in lieu of
compliance is the result of a thorough analysis of a site, its environs and alternate development
plans (including development in compliance with the standards of the zone), leading to a
superior development plan that provides more public benefits than would be obtained by full
compliance with the prescribed development standards. A plan-in-lieu is not a variance from the
zone regulations based on hardship or practical difficulty inherent in the site nor is it a procedure
to avoid meeting the public intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2. A new section, Section 21.02.575 entitled "Plans-In-Lieu" is
hereby added to Bremerton Municipal Code, Chapter 21.02 to read as follows:
21.02.575 PLANS-IN-LIEU.
(a) By special use permit, development plans may be approved that demonstrate
benefits in the public interest that exceed those that would accrue from development as
prescribed by the dimensional standards of the zone in which the project is located. Deviations
from the prescriptive standards of the code may only be approved for the following standards:
setbacks, landscaping, and sign regulations.
(b) Decision criteria: A plan-in-lieu may only be approved if it satisfies all of
the following criteria:
(1) Total site area within setbacks shal! be equal to or exceed that created by
adherence to the standard setbacks.
2
(2) Total area of landscaping shall be equal to or exceed that created by
adherence to the standard landscaping and buffer requirements.
(3) Total sign area shall be equal to or less than the allowed sign area
standards.
(4) There shall be a finding o£public benefit that is consistent with the goals
and policies of thc Comprehensive Plan. Examples of public benefit include but are not limited
to:
(i) reduction of setback adjacent to a street or other public right of
way in exchange for increased setback from a development-sensitive environment such as a
wetland or an existing incompatible land use;
(ii) reduction of landscaping in one area to create a more useable or
effective massed landscape area in another area;
(iii) an increase in the area of a single sign in consideration of
limitations on the size and number of signs otherwise allowed.
(5) The development plan shall not be inconsistent with the intent of any
provision of the Zoning Code.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sec'tions, 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 4. 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 day of ,2002
PASSED by the City Council the day of ., 2002
CAROL ARENDS, Council President
3
Plan-In-Lieu
Approved this day of ,2002
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of _, 2002
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2002
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development~lan-in-lieu 4-12.doc
4
Platt-In-Lieu
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Zoning Code text amendment to establish procedures and
decision criteria to approve development plans in lieu of
compliance with zoning standards on the basis of superior or
innovative design that results in specific public benefit.
DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 4, 2002
APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): City of Bremerton (PL02-0003)
CONTACT: Chris Hugo, Director- Department of Community Development
Phone: 360/478-5243
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal applies to the entire city.
BACKGROUND: The primary mechanism in the Zoning Code to allow flexibility in project
design is the Planned Unit Development (PUD). The current provisions for a PUD
project are cumbersome and complex. The Zoning Code also allows deviations from
prescriptive zoning dimensional requirements by a provision for "Special Exceptions,"
an authority assigned to the Director to grant "relief" from standards with no objective
basis.
Zoning as commonly experienced primarily seeks to provide a safeguard of public and
private interests. It lays down a common set of "protections" to preserve property values
and promote a basic set of development expectations by the public. However, zoning
rules cannot anticipate every site and context condition in the generic expression of
development standards - what is good for all may not be the best for any one.
The proposed Plans-In-Lieu mechanism allows the City's review of project plans to
consider the overall context of the project and allow adjustments to requirements that
will clearly produce a visible benefit to the surrounding area. This opportunity is limited
to three requirements: setbacks, landscaping, and signing. Through the special use
permit process, the Director and Hearing Examiner are given authority to approve a
development plan that meets specified criteria. Among these criteria is a requirement
that total setback and landscape area shall be greater under a plan-in-lieu and total sign
area shall be less.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT:
A. Add to the following definition to BMC 21.02.070 DEFINITIONS:
A plan-in-lieu is an agreement and plan that does not fully comply with all of the
development standards of the zone in which the development is located but is
approved on the basis of superior or innovative design or resulting public benefit.
Such resulting plan in lieu of compliance is the result of a thorough analysis of a
site, its environs and alternate development plans (including development in
compliance with the standards of the zone), leading to a superior development
plan that provides more public benefits than would be obtained by full compliance
with the prescribed development standards. A plan-in-lieu is not a variance from
the zone regulations based on hardship or practical difficulty inherent in the site
nor is it a procedure to avoid meeting the public intents of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Add the following new section to BMC 21.02:
21.02.575 PLANS-IN-LIEU
(a) By special ase permit, the Hearing Examiner may approve
development plans that demonstrate benefits in the public interest that exceed
those that would accrue from development as.prescribed by the dimensional
standards of the zone in which the project is located. Deviations from the
prescriptive standards of the code may only be approved for the following
dimensional standards: setbacks, landscaping, and. sign regulations.
(b) Decision criteria: A plan-in-lieu may only be approved if it satisfies
all of the following criteria:
(1) Total site area within setbacks shall equal to or exceed that created by
adherence to the standard setbacks.
(2) Total area of landscaping shall be equal to or exceed that created by
adherence to the standard landscaping and buffer requirements.
(3) Total sign are shall be equal to or less than the allowed sign area
standards.
(4) There shall be a finding of public benefit that is consistent with the goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Examples of public benefit
include but are not limited to:
i. reduction of setback adjacent to a street or
other public right of way in exchange for
increased setback from a development-
sensitive environment such as a wetland or an
existing incompatible land use;
ii. reduction of landscaping in one area to create
a more useable or effective massed landscape
area in another area;
iii. an increase in the area of a single sign in
consideration of limitations on the size and
number of signs otherwise allowed.
(5) The development plan shall not be inconsistent with the intent of any
provision of the Zoning Code.
DECiSiON CRITERIA: (As proposed in the ordinance)
ZONING CONSISTENCY: The approval criteria for amendments to the Zoning Code text
relate to internal consistency. The proposed zoning text amendment is intended to
implement the recently adopted adaptive reuse policy and maintain regulatory
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment must also be found to be
consistent with all other provisions of the Zoning Code.
/30
Mr. Hugo explained further that the section that is put in relating to front yards in
general always talks about the street side. You might have two front yards in the zoning
code - but that is when you have a through lot and it fronts on parallel streets. The yard
discussion in the zoning code context can be fairly complex but it is always related to
streets and in the shoreline it is always related to the water.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Hugo.
Hearing none she then opened this hearing to public comment of a neutral nature,
positive and/or negative nature. Seeing none she then closed the hearing to public and
opened it back to the commission for discussion, comments, and/or motions.
Mr. Hugo noted for the record that because of the glitch in the quorum on the February
meeting that there were quite a few people here that verbally testified and that is why we
have so many comments in written form. Everyone that commented verbally or in
writing were notified by letter about the problem that happened that night and invited to
either appear or submit new testimony. That letter went out several weeks ago.
Commissioner Dingfield confirmed that the commissioners received a copy of that letter
and letters that were submitted on or before the February meeting have been included in
our packets and are part of the public record for this special meeting in March.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Nelson to approve the revised language for PL02-OO01 - Front Yard Averaging
Zoning Text Amendment. [Mr. Hugo clarified for the Commission, if you are
approving this proposal - you are recommending it to the City Council.] Called for a
vote: Bucki. ngham: yes: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes: Nelson: yes; and
Wood: yes. The agenda was approved as written.
2. PL02-0003 - Plans-In-Lieu. A text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (BMC 2 :[.02)
to establish procedures and decision criteria to approve development plans in lieu of
compliance with zoning standards on the basis of superior or innovative design that
results in specific public benefit. (City of Bremerton)
Commissioner Din~eld introduced this item and turned the floor over to Mr, Hugo.
Mr. Hugo stated that this item was first introduced in January', 2002. The idea came up
because of a perceived need to have some flexibility in the regulatory environment where
it is clearly evident that the public will benefit by a different r'orm of development on a
particular site. There is something already like this in the Bremerton Municipal Code - it
is a provision that [ didn't like from the first time [ got here because it seemed too
arbitrary. Flexibility always dances around the problem of: Is it guided by the
application of discretion with objective criteria or is it just the misuse of discretion in an
arbitrary wav2 What we have now is "Special Exceptions". As it is written in the zoning
code." .. is to apply to those cases where you want a deviation from standards ,,,,'here
there is not an existing physical hardship" ~which is what the variance is
Traditionally. the variance mechanism is one or' the most misused tools in the zoning
i0ooks and in the zoning toolbox. Variances are misused because people think that it
zt)~)_ Pa~e
Planning Commission Meetin,- March 'eL '
means that you can vary any part of the zoning code - you can even vary the uses. The
variance in reality is a very narrow relief from a hardship exists on a property, not of an
individual's own doing.
For example: You have a lot in a piece of platted subdivision. You have the only
triangular lot, it was the residual piece of property. When you apply the setbacks that
everyone else can build under your lot doesn't have any buildable land left. Mr. Hugo
gave several other examples and stated that a variance applies to these types of
idiosyncrasies.
In places that don't like the discipline of worldng under the codes the variance
mechanism is so limiting that it doesn't provide any relief from political difficulties that
you have when you're doing code administration. The Special Exception was put in the
Bremerton Municipal Code some time ago to allow the Planning Director to get out of
political hotboxes. In Mr. Hugo's opinion this provision made the Planning Director too
powerful because it allowed the him/her to grant relief if someone couldn't fit into the
code requirements. Too arbitrary and not treating everyone equally.
One of the criteria for approval of the Special Exception is that you must show that the
property development will substantially benefit by the granting of the approval. If
someone is saying that they want less setback or more building height - of course the
development is going to benefit. You are going to get more on the site, it is a no brainer.
It is actually working against the whole intent of height limitations, setbacks, and lot
coverage and everything. The criteria are inherently contradictory to the whole intent of
the zoning code. ~Mr. Hugo stated that since he has been here in Bremerton, he has
refused to grant a single Special Exception. He said that he has talked to our attorneys
about it and they agree that the'Special Exception mechanism is not good.
However, it would be nice to have something that is more objectively' based. So, we are
proposing this PL02-0003, Plans-In-Lieu. It's like submitting development plans in lieu
of following the prescriptive standards of the code. The hope is that we have crafted the
mechanism properly ~ve could at least identify public benefits that would come out of this
deviation from standards and still stay within the realm of intent of the code.
He then read from the current proposal:
~'By special use pe~Tnit the hearing examiner may approve the development plans that
demonstrate benefits in the public interest that exceed those that would accrue from
development as prescribed by the dimensional standards or' the zone in which the project
is located. Deviations from the prescriptive standards of the code may only be approved
for the following dimensional standards: setbacks, landscaping, and sign regulations.
Proposed decision criteria are:
A Plan-In-Lieu may only be approved if it satisfies all the following criteria:
l) Total site area within setback shall be equal to or exceed that created by adherence to
the standard setbacks.
2) Total area of landscaping shall be equal to or exceed that created by adherence to tine
standard landscaping and buffer requirements:
3) Total sign area shall be equal to or less than the allowed sisn'area standard.
Planning Commission Meeting March _9, ,00~ Page
4) There shall be finding of public benefit that is consistent with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. Examples of public benefit include, but are not limited to:
a) reduction of setback adjacent to a street or other public right-of-way in exchange
for increased setback from a development sensitive environment such as a
wetland or existing incompatible land use,
b) reduction of landscaping in one area to create a more useable or effective mass
landscaping area in another area,
c) an increase in the area of a single sign in consideration of limitations on the size
and number of signs otherwise allowed.
5) The development plan shall not be inconsistent with the intent of any provision of the
zoning code."
Mr. Hugo explained the following in regards to Plans-In-Lieu:
* Since the set-backs must be equal to or greater than those as prescribed by the
standard - this doesn't give the applicant more developable area. May be granted a
smaller setback on one side but they would have to compensate somewhere else on
the site. The overall building footprint cannot get bigger.
* Since the total amount of landscaping must be equal to or greater than that prescribed
by the standard- you can't get less, there must be at least as much, even though it
may be in different places.
Mr. Hugo stated that he, as director, and the staff could follow these guidelines in
reviewing proposals that would go through an administrative review process.
He then asked the commission if they have discussed the Special Use Permit always
going through'the Heatings Examiner or was it changed. He explained tha{ there are two
kinds: One is done administratively and the other goes through the public hearing Process
to the Hearings Examiner. There was a short discussion on whether to have all Plans-In-
Lieu go through the Hearings Examiner or if the commission would rely on the other
criteria for all other Special Use Permits to apply to this as a Special Use Permit process.
Mr. Hugo explained how this works in the code:
Administrative Special Use Permits
· We send notice to surrounding property owners
· Provisions in the notice for appeals
o This would then automatically go to public heanng before Heanngs Examiner
· There is discussion of changing this to a letter request to go before Heanngs
Examiner
· The director, using his/her disc~'etion at the beginning of the process and direct it to
the Heanngs Examiner process.
Hear/n~ Examiner
· Advertising t'or public hearing
· Appeals would go to court.
Mr. Hugo explained that this is how the zoning code is already set up for ali classes of
Special permits.
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page 7 of i2
133
Commissioner Dingfield explained, for the benefit of the new commissioners that the
Hearings Examiner is a new function for Bremerton. The Planning Commission sat in a
quasi-judicial capacity by having the public hearings and make the decisions. The
applicants could then appeal to the City Council. No~v the Hearing Examiner hears all
the quasi-judicial hearings, making the final decisions and the appeals would go to court.
Now the Planning Commission and City Council functions are to set the policy
perimeters under which both the Planning Department and the Hearing Examiner
operator.
Mr. Hugo explained that the Planning Commission makes all the legislative proposals in
the community development environment to the City Council. All plans and all proposed
ordinances to implement the Comprehensive Plan go through the Planning Commission
and as the City gets more proactive, I plan to propose that all capital programs come
through the Planning Commission. Capital programs are the other part of
implementation - there is regulation and then there is spending. Then the Planning
Commission will certify all city capital programs each year.
Mr. Hugo said that was the end of the staff report on the Plans-In-Lieu proposal and that
there was no letters on this proposal and no public comment.
Commissioner Din~eld asked if there were any questions from the commission. \
Commissioner Buckingham asked if there was a definitive language regarding what
makes a project important enougl~.to put through the hearing process.
Mr. Hugo explained that no. He said that the only safeguard is the ability to appeal, and
there is still notice. We do the administrative pro.c, ess. If we did that.without notice, it
would be a problem. Then that would be a decision made that no one wag aware of until
it would be perfected and then be too late. The ability to appeal is an important
safeguard.
Commissioner Buckingham then asked if Mr. Hugo could give him some examples of
me Plans-In-Lieu (4 a and b).
Mr. Hugo gave the following examples:
l) Example of 4 a) - A project in a commercial district with a landscape requirement
that puts a landscape edge between two adjoining commercial properties - there is
something about their operational issues [size of the parcel, the way thev're trying
to accommodate parking, etc.] For this project they say they need another foot to
meet the minimum parking standards. So they may use this provision to ask if they
can reduce their rear yard landscaping by one foot and we will de more than that
where we have some more visible landscaping up front, on the street OR on the side
property line. which is against a residential project.
The prescriptive standards would not allow this. The Plans-In-Lieu would give the
director the flexibility to access that this would be a win-win situation and allow
them to submit plans l:or as requested.
2) Example oi:4 b)- A commercial development with 20 tenants, strip commercial
site. In this development each business is allowed their own ~-'ree-standing pole sign
Planning Commission Meeting March 29. 2002 Page 8 of 12
/3,/
going down the street. Instead the developer of the whole project request to put in
one larger, free-standing monumental sign and everyone's identity goes into that
sign. So instead of having 20 signs marching down the street, you have just one
larger sign at the entrance.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if there were any further questions. She commented that
this gives discretionary power to the Planning Director, but it is power that is not
inconsistent with the other kinds of discretionary powers that the director has. it becomes
a normal exercise in judgment with an automatic ability' for the public to request a
different type of hearing.
Commissioner Nelson commented that he agreed that the appeal process lends itself to a
fair way of handling it.
Commissioner Kennedy suggested a change in the language because it now implies that
it automatically goes to the Hearing Examiner. There was then a short discussion of
exactly how to revise it. As a result of the discussion, the first sentence should read as
follows, "By Special Use Permit, development plans may be approved that demonstrate
benefits in the public interest that exceed those that would accrue from development as
prescribed by the dimensional standards of the :,one in which the project is located."
Mr. Hugo explained further that the thing that distinguishes Plans-In-Lieu from the
Special Exception - the Special Exception actually allowed greater utilization of property
than the zoning controls would allow. This does not allow more use of property. You
are allowed to use the site in different ways, but you cannot use more of it. You cannot
do less landscaping, you don't have less setback area. and you don't get more signage.
This is an important distinction - it does not deviate from the overall intent of the zoning
?
code.
Commissioner Din~eld asked if there were :~ns' other questions of the Mr. Hugo.
Seeing none, she opened PL02-0003 to the public for any comments of a neutral, positive
and/or negative nature. Seeing none, she closed the hearing to the public and opened it to
the commission for deliberation and determination.
Commissioner Kennedy stated that in her opinion it is absolutely critical that we have
something in place that allows flexibility with some of the plans - but not so t'lexible that
it is perceived that there are no zoning ordinances, which has been the case in the past.
This also allows for public comment. This provision will be very important as we get
more commercial infill in the downtown area, and redoing some of strip malls. She said
she thought this would be a great thing because we can see a lot of landscaping - no more
footpnnt but maybe we could have .more landscaping and buffenng. Commercial areas
from the residential areas have aiwavs been an issue while trying to do commercial
development. This will be a wonderful tool that the Planning Department can use to
make it a win-win situation for the developers and their neighbors.
Commissioner Wood said that she thought this is a very Ioo_ical text and that it makes
sense for people to be creative in a positive ~vav to imt~rov'e the community. This is a
good thing. "
Planning Commission Meeting March 29.2()02 Page 9 of 12
Commissioner Dingfield stated that this is still keeping developments within the intent
of the zoning ordinances. This is not allowing deviations outside those, just allowing
more creative ways of using the same things. She also said that giving the director this
kind of discretion is not out of line at all, but is in fact part or his/her job.
Commissioner Nelson said that every piece of property certainly doesn't have the
perfect footprint and he thought that this provision will allow us some flexibility. He
believes that this will encourage people to develop properties that are not perfect and
gives us some discretion. The appeals process makes it fair for both the City, the
developers and private citizens that want to build.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson that PL02-0003, the Plans-In-Lieu, be
approved as modified. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kennedy.
Called for the question: Buckingham: yes; Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes: Kennedy: yes:
Nelson: yes; and Wood: yes. The motion carries.
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chair Report:
l.. No report from the chairman.
B. Director's Report
Mr. Hugo gave a brief Director's Report:
i. Comprehensive Plan Process - Staffine The department still doesn't have enough s~aff.
We are still overloaded on the current planning side. The building side of the department is
fine and housing and block grant is fine. The planning side is still weak. He stated that he
has received a commitment from the Mayor to add another two staff. He thinks it is great
we can build up the capacity of the Planning Department to support the goals and the
mission that the Commission has. Getting those people on board is still a challenge - we're
looking for the Planning Manager and a long-range planner, tn the interim we will trying
to keep Jim Svensson around, even though he is in retirement. The part time schedule
seems to be working for him and us.
2. New Zonin_~ Amendment - Senior Housine in the City This new zoning amendment
would allow senior housing in the City under different standards than regular multi-family
or regular sub-divisions. Many communities have provisions like this to vary some
standards like the number of parking stalls, availability of other facilities - to allow senior
!-~ousing into environments that wouldn't normally' aliow multi-famdy housing as long as it
doesn't interfere with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
3. Request to have City Council Stlspend Comprehe~si~'e P[a~* Amendments The City
.~Xttomev is working on a formal request to the City Council for some action bv the end of
the month. There has been some claim that on tine r'irst of .&phi the amendment cycle
officially starts - we cannot find any written ~'ecord that there is any official start date. This
request will ask the Council to take an action that wiil take care of w'hatever history that
Plannin,.z~ Commission Meetin~ March _"9. ,~. _~'{)~)~' Page 10 of 12
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA: April 24, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. (F~ RST READ ~ NG) ORIGINATING DEPT: Legal
AMEND I NG CHAPTER 2.04 of the BREMERTON ORIGINATOR: Roger A. Lubovich
DATE SUBMITTED: April 12, 2002
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATI,~IG TO CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS AND PUBLICATION OF C0UNCIL SALARY SCHEDULES
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back i£neccssary) 3. EXHIBITS:
--~-- ~ _ ORDINANCE NO.
~RC~ER A..L[~BOVICH, City
c AmM
MAYOR~/C~ ~ CO'Cra P~SmENT t:~ ~~'~Y
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
An ordinance amending Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to City Council
meetings and publication of council salary schedules. The proposed ordinance would allow the City
Council to utilize different formats for conducting its regular meetings rather than the agenda format set
forth in Chapter 2.04. It would also remove language relative to the publication of salary schedules
established by the Salary Commission.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to approve the proposed ordinance 0N F I RST READ I N~,.
[MAY 8, 2002] MOVE TO PASS ORDINANCE NO. ON SECOND READING.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Roger A. Lubovich
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION: lOn
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED ~-~ DISAPPROVED ~-~ AMEND
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.: i!~- ~5
137
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
None.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE ITEM 10(E)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code relating to the City Council by amending
provisions of said chapter regarding City Council meetings and the
publication of council salary schedules.
WHEREAS, the current provisions of Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code relating to the City Council provide for the conduct, time, and place of
City Council regular and special meetings and for council salary schedules; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the provisions relating to City
Council meetings in order to provide for conducting business meetings and study sessions and to
amend the provisions relating to publication of salary schedules established by the Bremerton
Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.04 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "City
Council" is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 2.04
CITY COUNCIL
2.04.010 TIME AND PLACE.
The time and place of the regular meeting of the City Council required by Charter
shall be each Wednesday at five-thirty p.m. at the Council Chambers or City Council Office,
City Hall, Bremerton, Washington. Provided, however, if such meeting day falls upon a legal
o ay, · .... , .........a;, ............ a primary oh ~, ....................... , .....~v ...... :
.;~.4+., ~r+~,~ c, ..... ;~ then pursuant to the Charter, such regular meeting .~,.n may be
rescheduled during the same week following the procedures for setting a special meeting as set
forth in section 2.04.020 below, except that public notice must be given one week in advance of
the meeting.
A regularly scheduled City Council meeting ska!! consist cf may consist of a
business meeting and/or study session or any other format as established by the city council.
, r~, {~ ~.,4~ ~r.~ Salute and '
5. Mayor'r, Report
7. Pub!lc Recognition
................ r, .............. and ~ ....h~.~on
......... ~ ........ upon
2.04.020 9P~ AND SPECIAL MEETINGS.
~.,r~ ...... -...,-~,~,+; ..... ~..,~'~ Pursuant to RCW 42.30.080, special meetings of the city
council sM!! may be held. in the Counc~! CMmbers after public notice has been given, at a time
an ace as spec n e no ce o race n ...... J,,*~ y .... , .........................,
2.04.030 P~COUNCIL SESSION.
The city council shall meet at 5:00 p.m. on the s~e day, immediately phor to the
regular wee council meetings o~, ......................... hereof for a precouncil session to
discuss the agenda for such regular meeting an~or other adminisCative matters.
2.04.040 COUNCIL MEMBER SALARY SCHEDULE.
Council member salary schedules shall be established and filed with the city
clerk by the Bremerton Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries pursuant to the Charter.
2
City Council
SECTION 2. 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 3. 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 day of ,2002
PASSED by the City Council the 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 Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ., 2002
EFFECTWE the day of ,2002
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\OrdJnances\City Council Ordinance.doc
3
CiO' Council