HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/01 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JULY 25, 2001
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. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
7. MAYOR'S REPORT
8. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
9. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments limited to 3-minutes)
10. NEW BUSINESS
,,,,,.-A. Professional Services Contract with Miller & Miller Consulting Services for review of Public
Works & Utilities Department (#AB01-162)
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS - RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 2825, Regarding Recovery of Fees for Securing the Building on the j ~L
Property located at 1320 N. Callow Avenue (#AB01-163)
B.Resolution No. 2826, Regarding Recovery of Fees for Securing the Garage on the
Property located at 2229 Winfield Avenue (#AB01-164)
jC. Resolution No. 2827, Regarding Recovery of Fees for Securing the House and Garage on
the Property located at 1935 N. Callow Avenue (#AB01-165)
,,,,,,D. Resolution No. 2828, to consider an Application to Amend Special Use Permit for
Emmanuel Apostolic Church to increase the previously approved Childcare capacity from ,.~
41 to 56 children; and revise the Approved Site Plan to reflect the relocation of the
daycare's outside play area (#AB01-166) - Quasi-Judicial Hearing
AGENDA CONTINUED ON BACK ....
12. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & APPEALS
A. Ordinance No. 4770 (Second Reading), Amending the Official Zoning Map from Medium
Density Residential (CBR) to Parks & Schools for properties northwest of the intersection
of Chester Avenue and 13th Street, and two parcels along the west frontage of Lincoln
Avenue north of 13th (#AB01-158) - Quasi-Judicial Hearing
B. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending the Comprehensive Plan to include a new Land Use
Policy allowing Front Yard Setbacks of new residential development to reflect the
established setbacks of existing structures along the same street frontage (#AB01-167)
C. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending the Comprehensive Plan, to include a new policy to
promote the adaptive reuse of public and semi-public buildings (#AB01-168)
D. Appeal of a SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued at the request of the
City's Planning & Building Department, to amend the Development Standards by
modifying Open Space Requirements (#AB01-169)
E. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending the Zoning Code Text by modifying Open Space
requirements of any development having a total gross area greater than one-acre (#AB01
170)
F. Appeal of a SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued at the request of
Albertsons, Inc. to amend the Development Standards by reducing the Parking Ratio for
Food Stores and Supermarkets (#AB01-171)
G. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending the Zoning Code Text by relaxing the parking ratio
requirements for Food Stores, Markets, and Supermarkets (#AB01-172)
13. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE REGULAR MEETING, COUNCIL WILL RECONVENE IN THE
CONFERENCE ROOM FOR A STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS "COUNTYWIDE PLANNING
POLICIES" WITH MARY McCLURE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF KITSAP REGIONAL
COORDINA TING COUNCIL (KRCC)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 25, 2001
SPEAKERS LIST
If your question may require a written response, please include your mailing address.
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE TOPIC
6.
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Reminder: The Next Council Meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 1st
PROCLAMATION
yVJHEREAS, the third annual "The Gathering" is to be held in
Bremerton August 3-5, 2001; and
¥~/HEREAS, "The Gathering" is of a special significance in fostering the
kindred spirit of the African-American community and to pay tribute to the
history of the past, the present, and the future of the Black community of
Bremerton; and
~X~HEREAS, it is fitting that the citizens of this city join in an
observance that underscore The Gathering of African-American families past,
present, and future residences of Bremerton;
NOYV~, THEREFORE, I, Lynn S. Horton, Mayor of the City of
Bremerton, do hereby proclaim the first weekend of August as the reunion
of
"THE GATHERING"
to be held in the city of Bremerton and encourage all of our citizens to join
in this observance which confer the contributions that former African-
American families built, enriched and strengthen the foundation of
Bremerton in addition to keeping the spirit alive.
SIGNED this 25th day of July 2001.
Lynn S. Horton
Mayor
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: July 25. 2001
Professional Services Contract with ORIGINATING DEPT: Audit Committee
Miller & Miller Consulting Services ORIGINATOR: Wayne OIsen, Audit Committee Chair
For review of Public Works & Utilities DATE SUBMITTED: July 18. 2001
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
Professional Services Contract
Exhibit A: Scope of Wor
FiSCAl/'&' ~0D~ET C(~MITTEE CHAIRMAN
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
ENDORSEMENT~ INFORMATION I'1 APPROVED BY COUNCIL PR~E;'SID~FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR ~ "~'; Y"-/~
, COUNCIL PRESIDENt,,/'
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The Audit Committee wishes to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with the firm of Miller &
Miller Consulting Services to provide a management review of the Public Works & Utilities Department.
Miller & Miller Consulting Services was successful in reviewing the Administrative Services
Department with process improvements. The Audit Committee therefore recommends the approval
of this Professional Services Agreement with Miller & Miller Consulting Services for an amount not to
exceed $38,000.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to approve Professional Services Agreement with Miller & Miller Consulting Services for review
of the Public Works & Utilities Department for an amount not to exceed $38,000.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION At 0A
PULLED [] TABLED ri APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED ri AMENDED ['1 D :
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
11, AGENDA BILL NO:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
No management review will be made of this department.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Potential improvements in efficiencies and effectiveness of processes will most likely offset cost
of the review as evidenced by similar review of the Administrative Services Department.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
[Public Works and Utilities Review.]
The City of Bremerton ("City") and Miller and Miller Consulting Services, P.S.
("Contractor"), referred to collectively as the "Parties," enter into the following Agreement for
professional services:
I. Scope: The Contractor will perform the services set out in the Scope of Work, which is
attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. The Scope of Work may be modified only
pursuant to Section VI. D. of this Agreement. If the Scope of Work provides for unspecified
additional services the City may request, such services shall only be performed upon the express,
written request of the City.
II. Term: This Agreement commences on August 1 and terminates on December 31 unless
another date is substituted pursuant to Sections VI. D. or VIII.
III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the
City shall pay Contractor in an amount not to exceed $38,000.00. Contractor's charges and bills
shall conform to the fee schedule attached and incorporated herein by this reference.
The Contractor shall submit regular billing statements describing services rendered and
the amount charged for each service. The descriptions shall conform to and fall within the
categories set out in the Scope of Work. Upon receipt of a conforming billing statement, the
City shall promptly process payment.
Contractor shall not perform work beyond the Scope of Work, nor shall be compensated
for such work, unless the Scope of Work or amount of compensation is modified pursuant to this
Agreement. Additional services shall be compensated for only if requested pursuant to Section I
and shall be compensated as set out in the request or, if the request does not so provide, as set out
in the attached fee schedule.
If a billing statement does not conform to this Agreement, the City may withhold
payment until the statement is brought into compliance. Such withholding does not relieve
Contractor of its obligations under this Agreement.
IV. Relationship of Parties: Contractor is skilled in the matters addressed in the Scope of
Work and is performing independent functions and responsibilities within its field of expertise.
Contractor and its personnel are independent contractors and not employees of the City.
Contractor and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the City's employees
and other contractors.
As an independent contractor, Contractor is responsible for its own management. The
City's administration and enforcement of this Agreement shall not be deemed an exercise of
managerial control over Contractor or its personnel.
Bremerton/[Contractor]
[Project Name]
Page 1 of 4
3
As an independent contractor, Contractor is responsible for payment of all taxes and
licensing fees necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. These taxes and fees
include but are not limited to State industrial insurance, B&O, State professional licensing, and
City business licensing. If any taxes or fees due the City have been declared delinquent, the City
may withhold the delinquent amount, plus any additional charges arising from the delinquency,
from any payments due Contractor.
V. Insurance and Hold Harmless: Prior to the commencement date of this Agreement,
Contractor shall provide Certificates of Insurance to the City's Risk Manager verifying the
following coverage: 1) a professional liability policy ("E&O") providing coverage of $500,000
for errors and omissions committed by Contractor while performing its obligations under this
Agreement, and 2) a comprehensive general liability ("CGL") policy providing coverage of at
least $500,000 per occurrence and including bodily injury and property damage. The CGL shall
name the City as an additional insured. Both policies shall remain in full force and effect, and
provide coverage for the full term of this Agreement. Insurer shall provide the Risk Manager
with 30 days' written notice of any cancellation or change of coverage of either policy.
Contractor shall be solely responsible for the acts and failures to act of its personnel
which arise in any way out of performance of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials and employees from and against all
liability, loss, damages, and expenses, including costs and attorneys' fees, resulting from actions,
claims, and lawsuits arising or alleged to have arisen, in whole or in part, out of or in
consequence of the acts or failures to act of Contractor, its employees, its subcontractors, its
agents, or its assigns in the performance of this Agreement. The City and Contractor have
specifically negotiated Contractor's waiver of its immunity under Title 51 RCW, which is hereby
waived for purposes of Contractor's indemnification and hold harmless of the City, including the
duty to defend. This provision shall be inapplicable to the extent such action, claim, or lawsuit is
judicially found to arise solely from the acts or failures to act of the City.
VI. General Conditions:
A. Reports and Information: When requested by the City, Contractor shall furnish
periodic reports and documents on matters covered by this Agreement. The reports and
documents shall be furnished in the time and form requested. Contractor shall maintain
accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to
substantiate all billed amounts.
B. Entire Agreement: This Agreement and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement
between the Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or
oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement.
C. Severability: Should any part of this Agreement be found void, the balance of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
D. Modification: This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by
both Parties.
Bremerton/[Contractor]
[Project Name]
Page 2 of 4
E. Notices: Notices shall be in writing and delivered to the following addresses:
City Address Contractor Address
City Auditor's Office Miller and Miller Consulting Services, P.S.
239 4th Street 4240 West Cramer Street
Bremerton, WA 98337 Seattle, WA 98199-1005
F. Waiver: Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a
waiver of that provision. Waiver of any right or power arising out of this Agreement shall not be
deemed waiver of any other right or power.
G. Compliance with Laws: Contractor shall comply with all applicable Federal, State,
and local laws in performing its obhgations under this Agreement.
H. Choice of Law and Venue: This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws
of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement
shall be brought in Kitsap County Superior Court.
I. Attorneys' Fees: The substantially prevailing Party in any litigation arising out of this
Agreement shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs.
VII. Nondiscrimination: Contractor shall not discriminate in employment or services to the
public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, or disability,
except for employment actions based on bona fide occupational qualification.
VIII. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated, at will, by either Party upon 30 days'
notice to the other Party. This Agreement may be immediately terminated for cause by a Party if
the other Party substantially fails to perform through no fault of the terminating Party, and the
non-performing Party does not commence correction of the failure of performance within five
days of the terminating Party's sending notice to the non-performing Party. Upon termination
the City will be entitled to reports showing the status and/or all work products, independent of
their stage of completion or preparation format, of all items listed in the Scope of Work current
through the termination date.
CITY OF BREMERTON CONTRACTOR
By: By:
its: its:
Bremerton/[Contractor]
[Project Name]
Page 3 of 4
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:
By:
its:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
RECEIVED FOR FILING:
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
Bremerton/[Contractor'[
[Project Name]
Page 4 of 4
City of Bremerton, Scope of Utilities Department Review
APPROACH TO THE SCOPE OF WORK
We believe this project's staffing, workload, organizational structure,
business processes, policies, use of technology and service delivery
mechanisms objectives will be obtained by a consulting process that first
looks to how the various activities should work and then look to policy,
organization and staffing alternatives to best accomplish the newly designed
processes. Our consulting process has proven to identify untapped
efficiencies and potential gaps in quality. Furthermore, once the potential is
recognized, we work with front line staff in each affected department to
develop the best support framework to realize the potential. Our
methodologies and work plan are focused on the answers to these and other
questions:
· What are your staff's activities and why?
· How much time do they spend on these activities?
· How often and how long does information flow or stop?
· How is work managed? What is the span of control of various levels
of management?
· How do departmental barriers aid or detract from efficiency?
· Do information systems enhance or detract from efficient operations?
The results of the study are analyzed and, if available, compared against
benchmarks to communicate the potential in the current system. Once the
potential is recognized, the Iow value activities are targeted for revision. At
this point the support infrastructure is reviewed to determine the best
environment to accomplish the new streamlined process. The recommended
environment may include organizational realignment and policy changes.
Our planned approach to be used for this project was briefly described in the
preceding section. This section will list the tools that we expect will achieve
the desired outcomes. The detailed work plan will be developed and
presented to the City after the orientation meetings described in our work
plan are held and the results of past studies have been reviewed.
The information required to fully analyze the current situation will be
obtained through a combination of personal interviews, focus group
sessions, time tracking studies, review of available statistical data and
performance indicators and review of measurements of input, output and
resources used. The resulting assessment of current practices will be
presented at one of the status meetings for feedback.
We will also use a technique that tracks the detailed "movement" of
information whether it be in paper or electronic form to identify how many
times information is "touched" in how many different workgroups. In
connection with this technique, we review the integration of management
information systems and workspace configurations.
MILLER & MILLER CONSULTING SERVICES, P.S. 1
City of Bremerton, Scope of Utilities Department Review
The development of alternative solutions may also require the use of some of
these techniques, such as interviews and focus groups. Before we
recommend a preferred alternative we "test" the concept with various
individuals in various possible scenarios. If a preferred alternative does not
"pass the test" it is revised until it is implementable.
The benefit of engaging our firm is that you receive efficiency
recommendations in the context of our knowledge of local government
accountability expectations. As such, we focus on meaningful improvements
that complement accountability and control objectives. We have many client
experiences where our recommendations have eliminated many inefficient
procedures and have, at the same time, improved control over operational
objectives. We are confident that you will not find this combination of crucial
perspectives in other firms.
The draft report will contain the facts discovered, the analysis performed, the
conclusion reached and the recommendations. We usually utilize the
services of a client steering committee that has been involved in the periodic
status meetings to challenge the draft report and recommend changes to
better fit in with the culture of the City.
The following presents an outline of the proposed workplan. The planned
project schedule and related anticipated costs are presented following the
workplan outline. Our experience suggests that the workplan needs to
remain flexible throughout the project to address the City's needs and
concerns.
Phase I: Scope, Timeline and Project Definition
1.1 Orientation Sessions. The orientation sessions with
departmental directors and division managers representing Utilities will
be scheduled as soon as possible after the notice to proceed has been
issued.
1.2 Preliminary Information Collection. Information such as prior
studies, workflow diagrams, organization charts and Council Resolutions
will be obtained and studied in designing the detailed workplan.
1.3 Scope and Timeline Development. Detailed project scope and
timeline will be developed based upon the results of the activities
described above. This activity will include the identification of the
evaluation criteria to be used to evaluate organizational structure,
workload, processes, technology and staffing.
Phase 2: Research Current Process Capabilities at~d Service Needs
The following processes will focus on the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Utilities but may also include the interactions with various departments.
Process improvement effort will not be directed to all of the department's
activities. The specific processes that we expect to be targeted for review in
this study include the following:
MILLER & MILLER CONSULTING SERVICES, P.S. 2
City of Bremerton, Scope of Utilities Department Review
· Work order processing and consistency of work scheduling, including
routine and preventative maintenance. Coordination between water
resources and maintenance and operations.
· Grant management, project tracking, costing and cash flow
forecasting.
· CIP planning process and timing.
· Utility billing.
· Administrative support services within the department, software and
programming development.
· Overall organizational and cost structure.
2.1 Determine Organizational Objectives. Service level and
resource utilization objectives will be defined so that process and
organizational realignment will be designed to fully address these
objectives.
2.2 Interview Appropriate Staff. Interviews of appropriate staff to
determine the current process, workflow and potential recommendations
will be conducted.
2.3 Document Current Workflow and Procedures. Prepare an
information flow diagram to identify redundancies and downtime in the
current processes. Historical workload statistics and future projections of
workload changes will be briefly reviewed. The impact of the use of
technology will be addressed at this stage.
2.4 Time Study. A time tracking study may be necessary to
determine what activities consume the majority of staff time. These
inputs will be compared to the outputs or outcomes and, if applicable,
compared to benchmarks of similar efficiency measures from other
organizations.
2.5 Analyze Risks and Procedures in Relation to Objectives. This
analysis compares the existing procedures to the stated objectives to
determine the risks that current processes do not meet these objectives.
2.6 Identify Recommendation Targets. Based upon the results of
the activities described above the inefficient or ineffective activities are
targeted for recommended revision or elimination.
Phase 3: Develop Recommendations
3.1 Develop Process Alternatives. There is often more than one way
to address areas where objectives are not currently being met. This
project activity accumulates various alternatives and combines them in
comprehensive change scenarios. The groupings of alternatives are then
presented in a comparative analysis, listing the pros and cons of each, to
facilitate the decision making process.
3.2 Analysis of the Alternatives, Impact on Organizational
Alignment. The groupings are analyzed to determine the organizational
alignment required to effectively implement the recommendations.
MILLER & MILLER CONSULTING SERVICES, P.S. 3
City of Bremerton, Scope of Utilities Department Review
Feasibility of changes in the context of the City's culture and abilities is
considered.
3.3 Focus Groups, Obtain City Feedback on Alternatives. This
project activity is designed to expose unintended consequences of the
proposed recommendations.
3.4 Final Recommendation for the Preferred Alternatives. The
results of the activities described above are used to develop the preferred
alternative.
Phase 4: Reporting
The following are the steps in the report issuance process. Many of the
sections such as findings and recommendations will have already been
prepared from the project activities listed above.
4.1 Finalize Findings and Conclusions. The implementation plan is
developed with City staff during this phase.
4.2 Draft Report. Copies of the draft report are provided to the City for
review and approval.
4.3 City Meeting to Review. A meeting is proposed to review the draft
report and obtain any requested revisions.
4.4 Finalize Report Including City Modifications. Modify the report to
incorporate City revision.
4.5 Publish Reports. Sign and publish final reports.
Miller & Miller, P. S. is owned by its two shareholders and uses
subcontractors when the needs arise. This structure provides the highest
level of flexibility. Decisions regarding resource allocation is made by our
shareholders. We have established a reputation for delivering substantial
work effort in very short time frames. Because we use only experienced
professionals to provide our services, work product is delivered very quickly.
Since our owners perform all of our services, work product is not delayed by
the pyramid structure of review and supervision as is common with much
larger firms. The chart on the following page presents the proposed time
schedule and the related costs for each task in the workplan.
MILLER & MILLER CONSULTING SERVICES, P.S. 4
City of Bremerton, Scope of Utilities Department Review
1.2 [Pretininarylnforfr~onCollection ' -- I -- ]Oi- 11650
1.3 '-~(~l:)e and ~qmeline Devetqormnt ~ 5~ --' 825
-- ]q~ase z: ~esearch Current Process Capabiiities and,I i
Service Needs i 7/2/011 7/31/01i
2.2 Inte~iewstaff, Job Task Analysis _/ 40 6,600
2.3- Bo~rTErt Current Workflow and Prooedu'es I ! I 25* 4,125,
2_31 ~Jlci~Sn-cai Workload Statistics, Future Projections T ,F- ~8[ -1,~-~
2.32 !Techr~ Irrpads i i 8i 1,320
2.4 Ti me Tracking i ' '
2.5 Analyze Risks and Prcx:edLres in Relation to Objectives ': ' ~8~' =I;320
276- . Indentify I~!!c~:l~n-enda~on Targets ,,
- , Phase 3: Dev~op Reooiiii-~f~or~ ! 8/1/01 8/1~01
3.1 ! Dev~op Prooess Alterna~ves ! 1~ %650
- ~" Anal~s of the Alternatives, Impad on Organiz~onal ..... t
I
3.2 iAlignrnent ] 10{ 1,650
3.3~ .... -F°cus Group, City Feedback ~Altematives ~ I --' 12 ~1,980
3.4 Relinlnary Recon, endation for Preferred Alternatives / 10 1,650
I ,
REPO~i lNG 8/15/01 9/15/01~- .... ' '
4.1 Finalize Findings and Condusions i , 10{ 1,650
~:3 --](~J~'y JVJee(Jr'lg to Review 4
~.5-~i-sh-FeP°ds_ , - J .....
The estimate of effort assumes a high degree of assistance from city
personnel. In addition to the professional service time, there will be a minor
amount of out of pocket costs incurred under this project. We propose to
conduct this project for professional fees not to exceed $37,000 and out of
pocket costs not to exceed $1,000.
MILLER & MILLER CONSULTING SERVICES, P.S. 5
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing FOR AGENDA OF: Ju,ly 25~ 2001
Resolution # 9~ ~ ~..~ , regarding recovery of fees for ORIGINATING DEPT.: Fire Dept.
securing the building on the property located at 1320 ORIGINATOR: Al Duke
N. Callow Avenue. DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANCEfl~ (Comm/e~t ~a back if 3. EXHIBITS:
,.eccssary) / ,1 I VI f
Fire Chief: ~d~,,,-~~ 1. Resolution # ~,8 0,5
City Clerk: ~~~ 2. Clerk Report
~~-'~-/~~~-~ 3. Photos
ENDORSEMENT X' INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDE~R SUBMITTAL:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT /~.~./ //~..~,
On May 7, 2001, Public Works secured the building located at 1320 N. Callow Avenue after the
owner, Scott Wilcox, failed to do so as ordered. Water service had been disconnected to the building by
Bremerton Municipal Utilities, and the house was occupied by vagrants. The cost of this action,
including administrative fees, totaled $1,466.67. Council must now decide if the fees are just and
reasonable and how they should be collected.
RECOMMENDATION:
I move that Council, by Resolution # ,2 ~ ,2fi , order that the fees incurred for securing the
building located at 1320 N. Callow Avenue be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien
against the property.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Al Duke
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: A! Duke
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED ~ TABLED ~ APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED ~ ~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
II
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs incurred for this action.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES.
The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
/3
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for securing the building located on the
property at 1320 N. Callow Avenue and determining means of collection.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for securing the building on the property located at
1320 N. Callow Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Uniform Code for the Abatemem of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by the
Bremerton Municipal Code, allows the City to recoup these costs either by personal judgment against the
property owner or as a lien against the property; and
WltEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just, and how they
should be collected; and has considered the report of charges filed by the Building Official and any protests or
objection filed; and
WltEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected as a lien
against the property located at 1320 N. Callow Avenue, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
1. That the abatement charges included in the report of the Building Official in the amount of $1,466.67
for the property located at 1320 N. Callow Avenue, Bremerton, attached hereto, are just and reasonable.
2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture abatement fees by filing a lien against
the property.
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,
20
JOHN LAW
Council President
BREMERTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
817 Pacific Avenue · Bremerton, WA 98337 · (360) 478-5380 · FAX (360) 478-7257
June 12,2001
Memo
To: Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk
From: Janet Lunceford, BDS II .~ ~
Re: 1320 N. Callow
On May 7, 2001, Public Works secured the house at 1320 N. Callow Avenue after the owner,
Scott Wilcox, failed to do so as ordered. Water service to the building had been disconnected,
and the house was occupied by vagrants. The costs incurred for this work, per the attached
interfund transfer and including administrative fees, totaled $1,466.67. I have scheduled a public
heating for July 25, 2001 for Council to determine how the fees should be collected.
· L~iT.=..~ ~ u ~ L~ ,'
INTERFUND TRANSFER !! ~. :'
t~j..jl JUN Il 2001
CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY DATE 06/06/2001 / L TRANSFER# 10~
COMPLETE THIS FORM. IN DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO ACC~Ep,~I,i~f:i~. -- 5_ -~,.J
Fire Department (Fund 108)
TO PWO-STREET DIVISION FROM Abatements/Demolitions
(REVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITU1LE DEPARTMENT)
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Charges per attached summary for: May 2001 BLAB
LABOR $2,792.69
EQUIPMENT $800.50
MATERIALS $1,044.48
SALES TAX $0.00
TOTAL $4,637.67
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
42-349.3900 $4,637.67 ,~',D. ~-,/,a0 ~,~ ---%--~[1 Iq -- 000~ ~0 ~. ~
~.~o~q-~/~-oo~ ti~. o
~&~. ~o$q- ~t~ -oO~O~
(Sign Here) ~ ~ (Sign Here)
REVENUE ARTMENT SU
EXPENDITURE DEPI~TMEN'[' SUPERVISO~
History
11.'25:11 AM CITY OF BREMERTON PWO-STREET DIVISION
Order #: SD510028 Title: BLAB-1320 Callow - Board-up. Status: S Labor Hours Estimate: 0
Project #: N4014280 Ancillary Operations Materials Estimate: $0
Customer: BLAB Fire Department (Fund 108) Abatements/Demolitions Equipment Estimate: $0
Work Type: AO ANCILLARY OPERATIONS Date Entered: 05/03/2001 12:00:00 AM
Supervisor: 0524 Colen Corey Date Updated: 06/06/2001 06:59:55 AM
Lead Employee: 0524 Colen Corey Date Targeted: 07/06/2001
Priority: 1 Date Assigned: 05/03/2001
Location ID: 1 UnsPecified Location Date Started: 05/07/1901
History#: 1 Unspecified Equipment Date Finished: 05/30/1901
Work Description
Board Up Structure Monday May 7 Check with Janet L before commencing work.
,amnN~ ~4o~4~s0 BLAB - 1320 Callow, board up.
$11205 No BLAB
0909 Brian Brewer 5.00 hr $165.00
0524 Colen Corey 3.00 hr $99.00
3013 '92 GMC 1-TON P/U 1.00 hr $9.00
0583 Mark A. Thompson 5.00 hr $165.00
3078 '95 1-TON CHEVY 5.00 hr $45.00
212885 Kitsap Lumber- 4x80SB 7/16" 1.00 in $81.67
e~oaoo~ ~o~n2so BLAB-1320 C~llow - Re-Boardup.
511335 No BLAB
1712 John Corey IV .50 hr $16.50
3025 '93 GMC I-TON DUMP .50 hr $4.00
0583 Mark A. Thompson .50 hr $16.50
14.00 hr 0.00 hr $601.67
SU1VIMARY FOR WORKORDER: SD$10028
Labor: $462.00 Total Regular Labor Hours: 14.00
Benefits: $0.00 Total Overtime Labor HourS: 0.00
Equipment: $58.00 Total Labor Hours: 14.00
Materials: $ 81.67
Sales Tax: $0.00 Total Regular Equipment Hours: 6.50
Total Overtime Equipment Hours: 0.00
Total: $601.67
Total Equipment Hours: 6.50
i7 SD510028 Page
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing FOR AGENDA OF: July 25~ 2001
Resolution # ~ 6 3,(~ , regarding recovery of fees for ORIGINATING DEPT.: Fire Dept.
securing the garage located on the property located at ORIGINATOR: Al Duke
2229 Winfield Avenue. DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANCE~ (Comme~d~on~back if 3. EXHIBITS:
.ecessary / I \
Fire Chief: ~ 1. ResoLution #
C i~ Clerk: ~~ 2. C lerkRepo~
3. Photos
E~ '~O~TION ~PRO~D BY CO~CIL P~S~E~OR S~TT~:
AVOa (
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT F IL ACTION:
On May 22, 2001, Public Wor~ secured the garage located on the prope~ at 2229 Winfield
Avenue after the owner of record, Richard Lee Setten, failed to do so as ordered. The garage had been
used for the manufacture of methamphetamine and was a hazard to the public. The costs incurred for
this work, including administrative fees, totaled ~ Council must now decide if the fees are just
and reasonable and how they should be collected. ~ ~0~3.~
~COMMENDATION:
I mow that Council, by Resolution g ~ ~ , order that the fees incurred for securing the gauge
on the prope~ located at 2229 Winfield Avenue be collected as ~asonable abatement costs and become
a lien against the prope~.
9. ~SPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: A! Duke
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Al Duke
EXPIATION DATE: N/A
~EW DATE: N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED ll
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs incurred for this action.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for securing the garage on the property
at 2229 Winfield Avenue and determining means of collection.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for securing the garage on the property located at
2229 Winfield Avenue; and
WltEREAS, the Uniform Code for the Abatemem of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by the
Bremerton Municipal Code, allows the City to recoup these costs either by personal judgment against the
property owner or as a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just, and how they
should be collected; and has considered the report of charges filed by the Building Official and any protests or
objection filed; and
WItEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected as a lien
against the property located at 2229 Winfield Avenue, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
1. That the abatemem charges included in the report of the Building Official in the amount of $1,032.55
for the property located at 2229 Winfield Avenue, Bremerton, attached hereto, are just and reasonable.
2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture abatement fees by filing a lien against
the property.
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,
20
JOHN LAW
Council President
BREMERTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
817 Pacific Avenue · Bremerton, WA 98337 · (360) 478-5380 · FAX (360) 478-7257
June 12, 2001
Memo
To: Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk
From: Janet Luncef0rd, BDS II
Re: 2229 Winfield Avenue
On May 22, 2001, Public Works secured the garage located at 2229 Winfield Avenue after the
building was determined to have been used for methamphetamine manufacture. The cost of the
work, per the attached interfund transfer and including administrative fees, totaled $1,032.55. I
have scheduled a public hearing for July 25, 2001 for Council to decide if the fees are just and
reasonable, and how they should be collected.
INTERFUND TRANSFER ~i?~ ? ~: ~ ii:~
Fife Dep~cnt (Fund 108)
TO PWO-S~ET D~SION FROM Abatcmcn~emolifions
~~ DEPAR~N~ (E~E~I~ DEP~NT) ,
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Charges per attached summaxy for: May 2001 BLAB
LABOR $2,792.69
EQUIPMENT $800.50
MATERIALS $1,044.48
SALES TAX $0.00
TOTAL $4,637.67
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
42-349.3900 $4,637.67 ~.'~),."--~,/,or.3/,¢,q - 5-~--"{ 1 19 -- 000~'7 (,-~0 I. (.,, 7
.~,,~.cnt. ~0~Nt--..~/t~-000 c'l ~ ~.~ ~.~
(Sign Here)
(Sign Here)REVENUE ~ ARTMENT SU F~E'RV,ou~R...__ EXPENDITURES" DEP~I~TMENI"-- J'SUPERVISO~- ';
ler History
] 1:25:12 AM CITY OF BREMERTON PWO-STREET DIVISION
: #: SDS 10032 Title: BLAB 2229 Winfield Board-up Status: S Labor Hours Estimate: 0
iect #: N4014280 Ancillary Operations Materials Estimate: $0
BLAB Fire Department (Fund 108) Abatements/Demolitions Equipment Estimate: $0
Type: AO ANCILLARY OPERATIONS Date Entered: 05/17/2001 12:00:00 AM
'Supervisor: 0524 Colen Corey Date Updated: 06/06/2001 06:59:55 AM
0524 Colen Corey Date Targeted: 07/06/2001
~ i Priority: 1 Date Assigned: 05/17/2001
~ii Location ID: 1 Unspecified Location Date Started: 05/22/1901
History#: 1 Unspecified Equipment Date Fiuished: 05/22/1901
Work Description
Board -up s~ucture at 2229 Winfield wear protective (ty-vek disposal coveralls) disposal gear meth-lab. Use all screws no nails!
~nano~ ~o~so BLAB 2229 Winfield Board-up
511297 No BLAB
0909 Brian Brewer 1.00 hr $33.00
0524 Colen Corey 1.00 hr $33.00
1712 John Corey IV 1.00 hr $33.00
0583 Mark A. Thompson 1.00 hr $33.00
1.00 hr $9.85
2279 Oliver Purjue t
CDX Kitsap Lumber-4'xS'xl/2" CDX & nails 2.00 ea $25.70
5.00 hr 0.00 hr $167.55
SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER: SD510032
Labor: $141.85 Total Regular Labor Hours: 5.00
Benefits: $0.00 Total Overtime Labor Hours: 0.00
Equipment: $0.00 Total Labor Hours: 5.00
Materials: $25.70
Total Regular Equipment Hours: 0.00
Sales Tax: $0.00
Total Overtime Equipment Hours: 0.00
Total: $167.55 Total Equipment Hours: 0.00
SD510032 Page
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing FOR AGENDA OF: Ju.ly 25~ 2001
Resolution # ~ ~ ~7 , regarding recovery of fees for ORIGINATING DEPT.: Fire Dept.
securing the house and garage on the property located ORIGINATOR: Al Duke
at 1935 N. Callow Avenue. DATE SUBMITTED:
2. CLEARANC~E0: (Com~4~e~}t on back if 3. EXHIBITS:
/ i I
Fire Chief: I 3., ±_~,~' 1. Resolution # ~. ~-7
City Clerk: ~ qM~_~ 2 Clerk Report
/~-- ~~:,~~~ 3: Photos
ENDORSEMEN~ ~YI~ORMA, ~ON- APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDeNT'OR SUB--AL:
MAYOR~-~ ~.~L COUNCIL PRESIDENT ,// ...... ~-"7.-~_ ~~._~_~-"--
On May 22, 2001, Public Worl~ secured the house and g~'/'age on the property located at 1935 N.
Callow Avenue after the owner, Lois Ross, failed to do so as ordered. The property has been used for the
manufacture of methamphetmines and is hazardous to the public. The cost of the work, iucluding
administrative fees, totaled $t7~'3':~. Council must now decide if the fees are just and reasonable, and
how they should be collected. ~ 17 03, ~3
RECOMMENDATION:
I move that Council, by Resolution # ~'7 , order that the fees incurred for securing the house
and garage located at 1935 N. Callow Avenue be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a
lien against the property.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: A! Duke
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Al Duke
EXPIRATION DATE: N/A
REVIEW DATE: N/A
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
COUNcILPULLED ~DiRECTivE:TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVEDDATE :AMENDED ~
11. AGENDA BILL NO.:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The City would forfeit the costs incurred for this action.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The City's revolving abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
N/A
RESOLUTION # ,~ ~) ~'~
A RESOLUTION reviewing charges for securing the house and garage on
the property at 1935 N. Callow Avenue and determining means of collection.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for securing the house and garage on the property
located at 1935 N. Callow; and
WltEREAS, the Uniform Code for the Abatemem of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by the
Bremerton Municipal Code, allows the City to recoup these costs either by personal judgment against the
property owner or as a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are just, and how they
should be collected; and has considered the report of charges filed by the Building Official and any protests or
objection filed; and
WltEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected as a lien
against the property located at 1935 N. Callow Avenue, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
1. That the abatement charges included in the report of the Building Official in the amount of $1,783.93
for the property located at 1935 N. Callow Avenue, Bremerton, attached hereto, are just and reasonable.
2. That the City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture abatement fees by filing a lien against
the property.
PASSED, by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,
20
JOHN LAW
Council President
BREMERTON FIRE DE~'ARTMENT
817 Pacific Avenue · Bremerton, WA 98337 · (360) 478-5380 · FAX (360) 478-7257
June 12, 2001
Memo
To: Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk
From: Janet Lunceford, BDS II -/ff-~
Re: 1935 N. Callow Avenue
On May 22, 2001, Public Works secured the house and garage located at 1935 N. Callow
Avenue after the owner, Lois Ross, failed to do so as ordered. The property has been used for
the manufacture of methamphetamine and is hazardous to the public. The cost incurred for the
action, per the attached interfund transfer and including administrative fees, totaled $1,783.93. I
have scheduled a public hearing for July 25, 2001 for Council to decide how to collect the fees.
INTERFUND TRANSFER
CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY DATE oa/o6/2oo~ I ]-- TRANSF_ER# 10,1,44
COMPLETE THIS FORM IN DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO
Fire Department (Fund 108)
TO PWO-STREET DIVISION FROM Abatements/Demolitions
(REVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT)
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Charges per attached summary for: May 2001 BLAB
LABOR $2,792.69
EQUIPMENT $800.50
MATERIALS $1,044.48
SALES TAX $0.00
TOTAL $4,637.67
ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
42-349.3900 $4,637.67 ~--,~,/,~t3 G'W ---%--~[1 Iq - O00C~'~ ~0 I. G
~ Ch (Sign Here) ,~ _. ~ .
(Sign.ere) 'RVI'~R '28 ",. ', ;
REVENUE ARTMENT SU EXPENDITURE DEP, eTMEN . SUPERVISOR
Order History
11.'25:12 AM CITY OF BKEMERTON PWO-STREET DMSION
t Order #: SD510031 Title: BLAB Board Up 1935 Callow Status: S Labor Hours Estimate: 0
Project #: N4014280 Ancillar~ Operations Materials Estimate: $0
Customer: BLAB Fire Department (Fund 108) Abatements/Demolitions Equipment Estimate: $0
Work Type: AO ANCILLARY OPERATIONS Date Entered: 05/17/2001 12:00:00 AM
Supervisor: 0524 Colen Corey Date Updated: 06/06/2001 06:59:55 AM
Lead Employee: 0524 Colen Corey Date Targeted: 07/06/2001
Priority: 1 Date Assigned: 05/17/2001
Location ID: 1 Unspecified Location Date Started: 05/22/1901
History#: 1 Unspecified Equipment Date Finished: 05/22/1901
Work Description
Board up structure at 1935 N. Callow meth-lab wear prot- ective gear ( ty-vek disposal coveralls) and dispose of after job complete,
Chris Morner has coveralls.
es~znoo~ N4omso BLAB Board Up 1935 Callow (Meth lab).
511294 No BLAB
0909 Brian Brewer 5.00 hr $165.00
0524 Colen Corey ' 3.00 hr $99.00
3013 '92 GMC loTON P/U 3.00 hr $27.00
1712 John Corey IV 5.00 hr $165.00
0051 Scott Corey 1.00 hr $33.00
0583 Mark A. Thompson 5.00 hr $165.00
3078 '95 1-TON CHEVY 1.00 hr $9.00
2279 Oliver Pmjue 2.50 hr $24.63
CDX Kitsap Lumber-4'x8'xl/2" CDX & nails 18.00 ca $231.30
21.50 hr 0.00 hr $918.93
SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER: SD510031
Labor: $651.63 Total Regular Labor Hours: 21.50
Benefits: $0.00 Total Overtime Labor Hours: 0.00
Equipment: $36.00 Total Labor Hours: 21.50
Materials: $231.30
Total Regular Equipment Hours: 4.00
Sales Tax: $0.00
Total Overtime Equipment Hours: 0.00
Total: $918.93
Total Equipment Hours: 4.00
SD510031 Page 1
87/23/2881 87:85 3688713817 DONN BUGBSS PAGE 81
bONN HU~HE.~
6685 B~ch brivz
Port Orchard, WA. 98366
Voice: (360) 87[-65~[ d?h~hes0Z~ho~e.com Facsimile: (360)
~A~~ON
Facsimile: (360) 478-5200 ~?~: ~uly 23, 2001
To: C~fy ClePk
Ci~ of
[93~ C~llow
Public H~in9 Notice
~uly 25, 2~[
Pro?~? & Object,on
~erc is e Public H~rin9 scheduled for 5:30, ~uly 25~, r~erding e r~u~t to f~lc e li~ agomst
eddr~s shown ebove, in the emount of $L783.93, for securing ~11 op~ings fo preyer entry ~fter
methemphetemine bust.
Z would like 1o ~orm~lly lodge ~ profit ~inst ~nd ~n objection 1o ~his intuitable and ~rb~tc~ry ~ctmn.
~ere ~re severet lectors that should be t~k~ into considerotion prior fo submitting us to
liability for ~n ection of which we were no
[. : Contorted ~one/Lunccford re~rding the requirement~ for boarding up the house : reformed
her that [ wo,td meke ~ra~ements to h~w it done. [ h~d ~ c~rp~/cr go out ~d he boerded up the
windows ~d doo~s. :? opp~s thor ~onet Lunce~ord ~de ~ visit to the house ~fte~words end
either the house ~d not be~ b~rded up properly or there hod been ~ br~k in.
at this time, she ~rbitr~rily ordered the ci~ personnel to b~rd up the house without contacting us
cith~ r~u~ ~dditio~l work be done o~ re, irs m~de or ~o inform us that she ~s goi~ 1o h~ve ~f done,
We were never notified.
~ visited the house several d~ Ioter ~nd thought thoT th~ boards pl~csd on the outside were don~ by
carp~tcr Z ~ked to take care of it.
Additio~lly, until we received the ~otice of Public H~ring we w~e not aware of the c~ty taking
a~ action or of ~ny cost incurred by the ci~. No accounting of this cost was provided untd ~ requited
it today. ~ie action is com~rable to me going to a city ~ouncil members home, wh~ they are not there,
~nd cutti~ the gr~s then waiting two months and filing ~ t[~ against the member's house
Upon revi~ of the line item costs, ~t is ~cessive. ~e labor shown of 6 m~ taking ~15 hours to p~ck up
~terial ~d install Jt on 8 to 1Z opening Js entireJy too much, [ could have one of my carp~ters.
prevailing wage rate, install all of this m 3 hours m~imum for a total cost of
Also, no d~um~tetion w~ provided supporting the materiel co~t of
07/23/2001 07:05 3608713817 DONN HUGHES PAGE 02
1935 Callow
Public Hextring Notice
,Tuly ~§, 200!
Protest & Objection
The Notice and Order to Abate Unsafe Conditions, that was posted on the house states "The mimmum
charge for work performed by or on behalf of the city is $86§.00." The amount being charged is over
the minimum noted but ~[ noticed in the accounting received, from ,Tanet Lunceford, that there is un
additional charge of $865.00 added to the cost of boarding the house up. 5he stated that this was for
administrative costs but the posted Notice did not state that the city could "add an additional mm~mum
charge of $865 to any costs to the city."
No support documentation was provided for this "minimum" cost for Administrative expenses.
The.~e actions taken without any correspondence or notification (other than the original posting) present
the appearance that we were the criminals involved and have, ~ feel, occurred without regard far our
innocence and ~aivety to today's drug world.
We have become embroiled in situation that city personnel may be involved with daily but there has been
very little compassion or understanding of our first time involvement, The aggressive tactics token are
offensive and tend to place us on the defensive when all we want to do is clean up the mess ~nd carry on,
We intend to pursue a fair and equitable resolution to this issue.
Sincerely,
Dorm Hughes
c: Dave Taylor, PS
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq & Resolution to consider FOR AGENDA OF: July 25, 2001
an Application to Amend a Special Use Permit for Emmanuel DEPT. OF ORIGIN: P&B - Land Use
Apostolic Church to increase the previously approved childcare ORIGINATOR: Chris Hugo, Director
capacity from 41 to 56 children and revise the approved site plan DATE SUBMITTED: July, 18 2001
to reflect the relocation of the daycare's outside play area.
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
P&B Director: ~/[/"~(~ o PC Resolution #2001-02
City Attorney.'. ~ ~ // o PC Minutes June 19, 2001
City Clerk: ~ ~ ~'/ o Staff Report
Fiscal & Budget ~ouncil~Comm.: .,,,~? ~ ,,,~;.~"' o Council Resolution
Operabons Comm.: ~.i-~..Z.-~.~-" ,'~ ~.~--~.~;~..7 o Written comments
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL...~RESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR _J ,~z~. COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Emmanuel Apostolic Church is desirous of receiving an amendment to their existing Special Use Permit
(SUP98-0017), previously approved by Council Resolution #2689, for the operation of a day care center at 1023
6~h Street, with a capacity of 41 children, and a site plan depicting parking and an outside play area.
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing and adopted PC Resolution No.
2001-02, at their June 19, 2001 meeting, which recommended City Council approval, without conditions. The
Council must conduct a public hearing prior to its final decision and action on the proposed Council Resolution.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to pass the attached Council Resolution #
~ RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Christopher R. Hugo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED~ TABLED~ APPROVED DISAPPROVED AME"~D'E~).~___ !
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
~0
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the special use permit amendment is denied, the community will lose the additional capacity
for child day care services in an area with high public demand and virtually no unused
capacity.
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
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. #2828
A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ~ THE
EMMANUEL APOSTOLIC CHURCH
APPLICATION (PL01-0030)
FOR AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP98- 0017)
WHEREAS, Emmanuel Apostolic Church has presented an application to amend Special Use
Permit #.SUP98-0017, previously approved for a day care center at 1023 6th Street, to increase the
daycare capacity from Forty-one (41) children to Fifty-six (56) children, and, relocate the previously
approved site plan location of the outside play area to a new location.
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on June 19, 2001
during which it received oral and written comments pertaining to the subject application; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission following the public hearing on June 19, 2001,
voted unanimously to recommend that the application to amend Special Use Permit (SUP98-0017)
presented by the Emmanuel Apostolic Church, be forwarded to the City Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 25, 2001, during which it
received oral and written comments pertaining to the Special Use Permit Amendment application (PL01-
0030); now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council concurs with the Bremerton Planning Commission's
findings in support of the Special Use Permit Amendment request (SUP01-0038) and affirms that the
proposed use does meet the necessary tests and criteria required for approval of a Special Use Permit;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Bremerton City Council does hereby approve the
amendment application SUP01-0038.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2001.
JOHN LAW
City Council President
APPROVED this __ day of 2000.
ATTEST: LYNN S. HORTON
Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY
City Clerk
Bremerton Planning Commission
286 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
RE: Emmanuel Apostolic Church's Amendment to the Special Use Permit
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Thank you for supporting our endeavor to provide quality childcare services to this community
by approving our request to amend our special use permit.
I am writing to address comments made at the commission meeting on Tuesday, June 19,200!.
In particular, the statement made by Mr. Kosusko that he was very disappointed with Emmanuel
for apparently attempting to circumvent the administrative process and attempting to move our
playground site outside of that process.
First, I sincerely apologize that mistakes that I made resulted in giving the appearance that we
were trying to relocate our playground without the necessary approval of the planning
department. However, Mr. Kosusko's statement was far too broad in that he said that he was
disappointed by "Emmanuel Apostolic Church". As the administrator of the church the pastor
delegated to me the responsibility of getting the childcare center operational. I am solely
responsible for any mistakes that were made in that process, and it is inaccurate and unfair to
impugn the entire church for my actions.
On September 12, 2000, I wrote to Clyde Strickland regarding amending our special use permit
from 41 to 56 children (see attachment). I did not mention the playground site because I did not
know we needed approval for that as well. On September 27th I had the playground fence
installed. The following month, while discussing our plans with Bill Palmer in person at the
planning department, I learned we had to get permission to move our playground site. On
October 16, 2000, I wrote to Mr. Palmer enclosing our revised site plan (see attachment). It was
not until mid-May of this year when I had a person-to-person meeting with Chris Hugo and Lee
Wyatt that I was informed I had to complete a form to amend the special use permit. They
provided me with the form and I completed it and returned it to them quickly. In that same
meeting Mr. Hugo profusely apologized for the planning department's shortcomings in handling
our request. He specifically mentioned that Bill Palmer should have informed us of the proper
process to amend our playground site (since my October 16th letter was not sufficient), and that
he should have given us the form needed to file for an amended special use permit. Mr. Hugo
also stated that Clyde Strickland errored in stating in December that he was going to approve
our request when in fact it required a quasi-judicial proceeding.
Bremerton Planning Commission
June 21,2001
Page 2 of 2
At no point in time did we use our playground. So while it may appear to some of the planning
commissioners that we attempted to obtain a benefit outside the proper administrative channels
the evidence proves otherwise. I made some procedural mistakes, but we never once
attempted to use the playground without the planning commission's decision on the relocation of
the playground.
I am not going to go into detail regarding Mr. Kerr's allegations. The most significant and telling
statement contained in his letter to the planning commission was the two separate references
he makes to our conversation occurring "while [he] was trying to do some work around the
house". He quantifies the circumstances under which we talked because he knows he did not
listen to the conversation. At no point did I even come close to misleading him in regard to our
objective with the playground. He is attempting to hold me accountable for his inattention during
our conversation.
Finally, I am sure that the planning commission must have been frustrated that we did not come
on time to the initial headng. That again, was my fault. I failed to notify the pastor, childcare
director, and other interested parties that the meeting was scheduled. I almost forgot it myself,
and therefore arrived late. Lee Wyatt informed me that the commission postponed that hearing
because the planning department failed to provide the commission with the pertinent materials
on time. I truly thank God for that having occurred since I had failed to notify everyone on my
end of the hearing date, time and place.
In closing I again apologize for my errors and for the opinions that some of you formed based
upon those mistakes. In addition, to the problems caused by my negligence, the planning
commission needs to be aware that until May of this year, the planning department failed in its
duty to process this request in an expeditious, accurate and procedurally correct manner. Mr.
Kosusko did not allocate any disappointment toward that department, but he should have been
equally dissatisfied with the way they handled this matter.
Our primary function, and our sole agenda, is to serve God and this community. All of our
programs are planned as avenues in assisting us to fulfill that calling. We were glad and
grateful to have the amendment to our special use permit approved by the planning
commission, but not at the cost of having our integrity in question.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We pray for God's blessing, prosperity and
provision over you and your families as you continue to serve this community.
Respectfully yours,
MattheW'P. Moreno
Administrator
cc: Bremerton City Council
Mayor Lynn Horton
Chris Hugo
Lee Wyatt
September 12, 2000
Clyde Strick!in
Interim Director of P!anning
Bremert0n Department of Communi:y Development
286 4~h Street
Bremerton, WA 9§337
RE: Embassy Education Center
Dem' Mr. Sticklin:
This letter follows my phone conversation with Valerie Wolf. I provided Ms.
Wolfwkh a form that Carey Lewis, Child Care Center Licensor with DSHS, asked me to
have her 'complete andsign (see enclosed copy). The form indicated that our application
requested licensing for 20 children. Because our application has been amended to request
licensing~for 56 children, Mr..Lewis told me to change the "20" to "56". This new
number of 56 children is based upon our daycare's total capacity being determined by
Fred Wageman with the. Washington State Department of Health (see enclosed report of
Mr. Wagbman).
Since our site has a total capacity of 56 children we would like to be approved for
that amount. Ms. ~Wolf noted that the Special Use Permit stated that our application
indicated'. that we intended to "... opera'te a day care center fo~ 41 children..." (see
,?....'~nClosur~). However, since the State placed our total cap~.city at 56 children we would
like to pursue licensing for that number.
Ms. Wolf suggested that I write to you because she was not certain if we had
sUfficien~ par'king for the, 56 children. Accordingly, ~ am bringing the following to your
attention:
>' The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision by the Bremerton
Planning Commission state on page one under the camion Property &
Development:
Lawrence R. Robertson, Sr. Pastor
Assistanl Pastors Executive Board
Timothy W~ Thomas L.R. Robertson, Chair Charles Floyd, Sr.
Floyd Ussin Darrell Fields Claude Jones
Stephen Harris
35'
Page 2 of 3
Clyde Stricklin
...the site contains an existing two story, church building
and paved parking lot for 12 vehicles. Lots adjacent to
west of the property contain t.hree single story, existing
houses with additional accessory parking...
> Under the caption Criteria for Approval, subsection 2, the Decision stat~s,
The zoning ordinance requires one space [parking] for
every five children, which would require 8 for the proposal.
> Note, all other criteria itemized in the Decision are in no way affected, chan
altered by the total capacity being 56. children instead of the 4I we initiiflly
requested. Since we have niore than sufficient parking.for 56 'children,
Board of Commissioners w0(~!d have approved 56 children. We re'rive
conclusion by following the reasoni'ng stated in the Board's Decision.
As noted in the Decision, 8 parsvng spaces was sufficient for 41 children.' P~
Decision's parking requirements (1 space for every 5 children) for 56 chil(
need 15 parking'spaces.' Our facility bas almost triple that amount (we
paved parking which we created in a vacant lot we purchased).
As a consequence of the above, we are respectfully requesting that you do amend-
the DSHS form from "20 children" to read, "up to 56 children". Considering the law and
reasoning of the Board's Decision, and the fact tha¥'DSHS placed our total capacity at 56,
we believe this to be equitable and appropriate.
Finally, Resolution #98-08 passed by the Bremerton Planning Commission (copY.
attached) does not limit the Special Use Permit to a specific number of children; rather, it
states:
1. The proposed use in [sic] needed in the community to
provide da5, care services in this area, and is in the ~ubiic'
interest.
2. The proposed use does meet the necessary tests and criteria
required for approval ~f a Special use [sic] Pernfit.
No where in the Reso!utien does the Commission limit the day care to any
specific number of children - it only requires that the day care "meet the necessary tests
and criteria".
September 12, 2000
Page 3 o. o
Clyde S~ricklin
In closing I want to point out that should You agree to state on the form iihat the
zoning department authorizes our day care for 56 children, we must still be approved for
that amount by the Child Care Center Licensor at DSHS. In otherworas,~ ' the information
you provide on this form only indicates that the zoning department o'fthe City ef
Bremerton is consenting to allow our daycare' to serve 56 children.
Please call me at 360-476-.3674, ext. 22 if you would like to discuss thisi'matter;
and thank you for considering our request. IfI am out of the office when you c~ll, you
may reach me on my text pager by calling 1-800-800-8596.
Sincerely,
Matt ~oreno
Administrator
cc: Mayor Lynn Horton
Carey Lewis, DSHS
Fred Wageman, DSHS
Joan Dingfie!d
3V
EMBASSY EDUCATIONAL CENTER
:1.023 6th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337.
(360) 479-3674 ext, 22
Department of Community Development
City of Bremerton
286 4th Street
Bremerton; WA 98337
RE: Embassy Educational Center
Dear Mr. Palmer:
Pursuant to your request, I have attached a revised copy of our site plan
which shows the new play area for the daycare. The play area was moved to
accommodate the size required by the daycare-licensing departmen, t. It is a
beautiful grassy area with an extremely nice fence. You are very welcome to
come and visit the site.
Please call me at 479-3674 ext. 22, or page me at 1-800-800-8596 :if you
have any questions or comments regarding this matter.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Matt Moreno
Enclosure: Site Plan
6 TH STREET
OCT 3 0 1998
BREMERTON
BUILDING OEPARYMENT
P~Y ~ ·
FOR DAY~E
EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUS[ ~ISBNG HOUSE
~
lU I
........ ' ~: " A1 1
ENBA..S?¢ EDUCATIONAL CENTER. MAR 2 ? ~.001
1023 6TM Street
Bremerton, WA 98337 BREMERTON
(360) 479-3674 ext:. 22 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
March 26, 200!
,.hr,s Hugo: and
Lee Wyatt
Deoartment of Community Development
City of Bremertcn
286 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
RE: Embassy Educational Center, 1023 6tn Street, Bremerton; at the
Embassy Center
Dear Sirs:
On September !2, 2000, we wrote to Clyde Strickl;n seeking to amend our
Special Use Permit from caring for 41 children to caring for 56 children (cooy
enclosed). On October 16, 2900, we provlded Bill Palmer with a copy of our
revised site plan as .~er his recuest (copy enclosed). Mr, Palmer never asked for
any additional information.
On the evening of December 20. 2000, I saw Clyde Stricklin at City Hal!
were he had appeared on another matter, in the hallway, I asked him when we
would have our amended Special Use Permit. He informed me that he would be
getting it out soon becat.,se it had not been sontested.
~ now understand that the neighbcrln~, property is contestin9 our request
because of the site of our playground.
OL'r request should be granted, and our playground site should be
approved per the amended site plan, for the following reasons:
Prior to paying for ~.n.=., fence to be instailed around the oerimeter of the
playground depicted on :ne amended site p!an, Pastor Robertson and i
spoke with Jeff Kerr ~.i:e owne~' of the property iocsted at 1107 Sixth Street
(the property imme,:Jiately adiacent to our proposed p:ayground site). We
also spoke with his daughter; she rents the ~roperty from Mr. Kerr. Jeff
Kerr informed LiS that his o.qly concern about our playground was that the
fence not be o!aced on his propehy. He asked that we place it about an
Lee Wyatt
March 26, 2001
Page 2 of 3
inch or so away from the proper-fy line into our property. He walked the
area with us and our conversation took place for about 15 minutes.
fact, Mr. Kerr stated how glad he was that we were fencing the area
because it would stop foot traffic from the alley to the street.
Mr. Kerr did not appeal in a timely manna,-. Since his tenant is his
daughter, and because he is frequently on the property, he was, or at the
very least, had every opportunity to be apprised of the mailing. Moreover,
if his daughter did not think enough of the mai!in9 to share it with him it
only serves to evidence that she is not concerned with the playground
next door. Additionally, your department posted several notices where
anyone could see them. Consequently, since Mr'. Ker¢ lodged his
complaint after proper notice had been sent, and the appeal deadline had
passed, he should be barred from having the complaint heard because he
did not appeal in a timely manner. Any deviation from the deadline
should only be granted when there is clear and compelling evidence
that notice was not properly provided by the city.
Mr. Kerr's standing is not equal to that of a resident; he does not live in the
property, nor has he ever lived in ti~e property. While he does have rights
as a property owner, the fact re,.~ains that he does not reside at the
prope~y, and therefore cannot be distracted by the activity of the
playground. The current resident oi' Mr. Kerr's house is not bound to the
property because she is a renter. Moreover, she was aware cf the
proposed playground site because it was discussed with her and it was
she who gave us her father's phone number to call to discuss it with him.
Furthermore, she received the notice sent by the city and she did not file
an appeal.
Any future tenant would see the playground prior to renting and would
therefore not have s problem with the playground activities. And, although
Mr. Kerr alleges that having a playground next door would make his
property hard to rent, the fact is that if noise is an issue to a future tenant
they will surely not rent that home because it is situated on 6th Street. As
you know, 6th Street is extremely busy and very noisy. Further, the hours
of operation of the playground are generally 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. when
most people are at work. Again, if someone works evenings and needs
quite during the day to sleep, Mr. Kerr's house is not s serious contender
because of the street noise.
Mr. Kerr stated that he believes that with a playground next door his
property would be ,heed to se!l. 'The truth is that if he ever places his
property on the market the church ~vould immediately offer to purchase the
prope~y.
Mr. Kerr stated that the noise from the playground would De disruptive.
His daughter is not home during tr-~e day. The Child Care Center hours
are going to be 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 o.m., but the playground hours will be
Lee Wyatt
March 26, 2001
Page 3 of 3
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Moreover, only a small percentage of children at a
time will be going to exercise in the playground. The number of children
allowed on the piayCround at one time is limited by the s~ace of the
playground and the teacher to child retie; these restrictions are set by the
state's child care iicensing de~a~,'nent.
The initial proposed site of the playground was very clcse to the current!y
proposed site. Tine new location of the playground wiil not have a
significant impact on the noise level there is only an approximate 30 foot
difference between the two siteSr.
Due to the above, we believe that o~!r request to move t. he playground as
depicted in the amended site plan should be approved. It is very unfortunate and
u~fair that Mr. Kerr hs, s oe,ectec to our p!~:yground site because he was informed
by us of the proposal before ,,,,,e undertook ';:he expense of fencing the area. On
Saturday, March 24, 2001, t saw Mr. Kerr in the yard of h!s rental property and I
took the opportunity to discuss this matter with h!m. t asked him why he
complained to the city after having alread,./approved the project directly with the
pastor and me. He said that he did not understand that we were talking about a
p!ayground. He also stated, ";'m not stupid, I just wasn't paying attention to what
you were telling me."
I do not believe that we should be placed in a position to defend an appeal
~rorn a man ,¢vho by his own admission did not pay attention to a conversation
ir~voiving plans to improve the property adi~c6-r~t to his ar'..d who failed to file an
appeal in a time;y manner after receiving proper notice by tt~e city planning
department.
We are in a time when IBremerton is experiencing growth and making
some progress towards revitalizing the economy of our city. None of the other
neighbors, people who actually live ne>¢. to us. have complained about the
proposed child care center and playground, in fac.*, we have businesses
anxiously awaiting our opening, Kitsap Credit Union and Bank of America to
name just two. In light of the need of child care services in this area and the fact
that no one who lives in the area has complained, our request should be granted.
Please call me at 479-3674 ext. 22: or page me at 1-800-800-8596 if you
h ave a,qy questions or comments regarding this matter.
Respectfu!ly submitted,
Matt Moreno
Enclosures
Interim Director of Planning '
Bremerton Department of Community Development MAR 7 2001
286 4th Street
BREMERTON :
Bremerton, WA 9833'7
· BUILDING DEPARTMENT
RE: Embassy Education Center ~- '
Stm~:hn.
Dear Mr. ' ' ' '
This letter follo~vs my phone conversation with Valerie Wolf. I provided Ms.
Wolf with a form that Carey Lewis, Child Care Center Licensor with DSHS, asked me to
have her complete and sign (see enclosed copy). The form indicated that our application
requested licensing for 20 ch;.Idren. Because our application has been amended to request
licensing for 56 children, Mr. Lewis told me to change tl~,e "20" to "56". This new
number of 56 children is based upon our daycare's total capacity being deterrnined by
Fred Wageman with *..he Washington,State Department cf Health (see enclosed report of
Mr. Wageman). ..
Since our site has a total capacity of 56 children we would like to be approved for
that amount. Ms. Wolf noted that the Special Use Permit stated that our application
indicated that we ~ntended to "... operate a day care center for 41 children..." (see
enclosure). However, since the State placed our total capacity at 56 children we would
like to pursue licensing for that number.
Ms. Wolf suggested that I write to you because she was not certain if we had
sufficient parking for the 56 children. Accordingly, 12 am bringing the following to your :..:
attention: :.
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision by the Bremerton
Planning Commission state on page one under the car~tion Property &
Development:
Lawrence R. Robertson, Sr. Pastor
Assistanl Pastors Executive Board
Timothy W. Thomas L.R. Robertson, Chair Charles Floyd, Sr.
Floyd Ussin Darrell Fields Claude Jones
Stephen Harris '.
September 12, 2000
Page 2 of 3
Clyde Stricldin
...the site contains v.n existing two story, church Building
and paved parking lot for 12 vehicles. Lots adjacent to
west of the property contain t.hree single story., existing
houses with additional accessory parking...
> Under the caption Criteria for Approval, s,.:bsection 2, the Decision states,
The zoning ordinance requires one space [parking] for
every five children, which would require 8 for the proposal.
> Note, all other criteria itemized in the Decision are in no way affected, changed or
altered by the total capacity being 56 children instead of the 41 we initially
requested. Since we have niore than sufficient parking for 56 children, clearly the
Board of Commissioners xvo{~!d have approved 56 children. We arrive at this
conclusion by following the reasoning stated in the Board's Decision.
As noted in the Decision, 8 park}ng spaces was sufficient for 41 children. Per the
Decision's parking requirements (1 space for every 5 children) for 56 children we would
need 1{~ parkingspaces. Our facility has almost triple that amount (we have additional
paved parking which we created in a vacant lot we purchased).
As a consequence of the above, we are respect~l!y requesting that you do amend
the DSHS form from "20 children" to read, "up to 56 children". Considering the law and
reasoning of the Board's Decision, and the fact that DSHS placed our total capacity at 56,
we believe this to be equitable and appropriate.
Finally, Resolution #98-08 passed by the Bremerton Planning Commission (copy
attached) does not limit the Special Use Permit to a specific number of children; rather, it
states:
1. The proposed use in [sic] needed in the community to
provide da3, care services in this area, and is in the public
i aterest.
2. The proposed use does meet the necessary tests and criteria
required for approval ora Special use [sic] Permit.
No where in the Resok~tien does the Commission limit the day care to any
specific number of children - it only requires that the day care "meet the necessary tests
and criteria".
September 12, 2000
~a~e 30. o
Clyde Strick!in
In closing I want to point out that should you agree to state on the form that the
zoning deparlment authorizes our day care for 56 children, we must still be approved for
that amount by the Child Care Center Licensor at DSHS. In other words, the information
you provide on this form only indicates that the zoning department of tb.e City of
Bremerton is consenting to allow our dayctre to serve 56 children.
Please call me at 360-476-.3674, ext. 22 if you would tike to discuss this matter;
and thank yc.u for considering our request· Ifi am out of the office when you call, you
may reach me on my text pager by calling 1-800-~00-859o.
Sincerely,
'7
Matt Moreno
Administrator
cc: Mayor Lynn Horton
Carey Lewis, DSHS
Fred Wageman, DSHS
Joan Dingfie!d ..
EMBASSY EDUCATIONAL CENTER
1023 6th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
(360) 479-3674 ext. 22 ..
October 16, 2000
William M. Palmer
Department of Community Development
286 4th Street
Bremerton,. WA 98337 ~IAR 2 ? 21)§'1
RE: Embassy Educational Center 8REMERTON
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Palmer:
Pursuant to your request, I have attached a revised copy of our site plan
which shows the new play area for the daycare. The play area was moved to
accommodate the size required by the daycare-licensing departmen, t. It is a
beautiful grassy area with an extremely nice fence. You are very welcome to
come and visit the site.
Please call me at 479-3674 ext. 22, or page me at 1-800-800-8596 if you
have any questions or comments regarding this matter.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Matt Moreno
Enclosure: Site Plan
I-'LV
· 4. NV-Id 3/IS
NY"icl
o
'"" ""'"
: ~OOJ. OO /.~ ~ .... .9-.t I .~-.IZ .9- .z ~ "'"
,0'0 ~ ~
~ ~ ,0'0 [ [ ~ ~ l~mu~d~O 9NtOn~ns '
7012 Dabob Lane, NW
Silverdale, WA 98383
(360) 698-2416
May 28, 2001
City of Bremerton
Department of Building and Planning
239 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Bremerton Planning Commission Hearing on June 5, 2001
Response to Special Use Permit Application
By Emmanuel Apostolic Church (Location of Playground)
To the Brem.erton Planning Commission:
INTRODUCTION: The crux of the controversy before the commission is where the
playground should be located on the applicant's property. It is important to note that the
original application as submitted had the playground substantially removed from the edge
of my property. I granted my consent to the original plan. Since the original plan the
applicant has modified the location of the playground to within three feet of my property
at 1109 6th Street. This re-location of the playground has been done without approval of
the commission and without any change of request being submitted. This new plan
greatly affects the use and enjoyment of this home, and it affects the value. It should be a
clearly logical fact that a playground within three feet of a residential home will project
loud and continuous noise to the dwelling thus interfering with the reasonable expectation
of peaceful enjoyment of the home.
What is significant is that the city of Bremerton and myself never approved this change in
location for the playground. The applicant church group has grossly misrepresented what
they allege to be my communications on the issue of the change of location, and they
have falsely claimed that I approved the change of location (playground) to within three
feet of my home. Given the nature of the organization seeking the new use permit I have
to wonder about the ethical integrity of these individuals. It is perplexing that they have
rested so much of their argument upon their own self-serving uncorroborated statements
about what they allege I said when they discussed things with me during my attempts to
work on my home.
It is important to note that I received the "Embassy Educational Center" letter dated
March 26, 2001 on May 25, 2001. Roughly two months after it was sent to the city. This
letter by the applicant attempts to assert prima~ evidence in favor of their application,
Opposition to the Amendment
Page 2 of 3
yet they made no attempt to serve this document on me within a reasonable amount of
time before the hearing. The delay in serving this letter has made it extremely difficult to
oppose the information contained therein. Should the delay in serving this crucial
evidence be a violation of notice requirements established by the rules and laws of the
city of Bremerton, then, I hereby reserve my right to delay this hearing until a later date if
the commission is inclined to grant the amendment. Should the commission find that the
basis of the amendment does not support a granting of the request for moving the
playground next to my home, then I waive the procedura! violation.
SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS OPPOSING THE "AMENDMENT":
1. The applicants have raised the spurious objection to my opposition on the basis
that ! do not live in the home and therefore I have no "standing" to object to this
application. It is a matter of elemental civil procedure that my right as a property
owner adjacent to the applicant property is ABSOLUTELY sufficient to be a
legitimate party to these proceedings. The fact that my daughter or another tenant
of mine lives in the property does not defeat or affect my standing.
2. The original application had the playground located away from the property line
of my home. The land immediately next to my home was desigmated as parking
on the original application. The original plan had my consent and it was a logical
plan that did not affect the use and enjoyment of my land. The original plan was
an appropriate use of the land.
3. 1 raised a timely and legitimate opposition to the amending of the plan as soon as I
learned of the amendment. I had met with Lee Wyatt at the property and
discussed my objections. I also discussed my objections with Chris Hugo over the
telephone. The church group never was straighttbrward and sincere about
communicating with me on their new plans (i.e. moving the playground next to
my house). They did not come out and say "we plan to move the playground next
to your house". I had several casual conversations with them when I was
attempting to do maintenance on my home. What is important is that their claim
of my consent is false and untrue. It appears to me that this church group lacks
the normal substantive legitimacy in their argument because they failed to sUbmit
a proper amendment to the original application, so they have resorted to resting
their case on oral uncorroborated testimony claiming I agreed when they spoke
with me. I am perplexed by this underhanded tactic coming t¥om an organization
that is supposed to have higher ethical standards.
The application for the amendment is untimely and without proper notice
requirements being followed, thus based on "due process" requirements that the
commission must adhere to, the amendment should be denied and the original
plan for the playground should be [,,ranted assuming the commission deems it
appropriate. The application process is a simple one and a fair one. Clearly an
q?
Opposition to the Amendment
Page 3 of 3
applicant must state their intentions in a written application so the interested
parties can enter the deliberations in order to achieve a fair result. What we have
here is an original application that was a reasonable plan followed by a NON-
WR1TTEN request to alter the original plan so as to significantly affect an
adjoining property owner, me. "Due Process" requirements established by the 14th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution strictly tbrbid the "bait and switch" tactic of
the applicant. Had they submitted the change of the playground according to
procedures there could have been a thir hearing on the issue. Their reliance upon
my "so called" oral approval is dishonest and improper procedure.
5. The amendment has the logical implication of placing many pre-teen children
within three feet of my home on a daily basis from early morning to the evening.
There is no way that the continual noise of playing children can be dampened and
it will obviously deprive anyone residing in the home of peaceful enjoyment
during the daytime hours. '
SUMMARY:
The crucial factual issue for the commission is whether my contention of interference is a
reasonable one. I do not contend that I should have a home free from outside noise. I
bought the house knowing full well there is traffic noise, which is minor, and there are
other city noises that every city home dweller experiences and must expect. What we
have here is a quantum leap in noise level that goes beyond the normal parameters of
what a homeowner should have to endure. My home has been there tbr many years and
the original neighborhood was a row of houses. The church came after the houses. I am
certainly supportive of the church being able to conduct its affairs, but at what point
should their rights overwhelm my rights and then prevent my use of the home. Their plan
simply goes too far. The original plan allows for both parties to utilize their properties.
The Corm~ission should not allow the playground to be moved because the applicant has
not obeyed proper procedures in seeking the change. The logical implications of the
change do in fact dramatically affect the use of my property. The original plan is a logical
one that does not affect my use and does accomplish the goals of the applicant.
Respectfully Submitted,
jeffrey and Lorie Kerr'~
Opponents to Application
Copy: Mr. Lee Wyatt
Mr. Chris I tago
s "· S£?lBgtjtO8
Clyde ,.tnc~hn
Interim Director of Planning
Bremerton Department of Communi:y Development ' BREMERTON
286 4th Street BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Bremerton, WA 99337
i:~E: Embassy Education Center
Dear Mr. Sticklin:
This letter follows my phone conversation with Valerie Wolf. I provided Ms.
Wolf with a form that Carey Lewis, Child Care Center Licensor with DSHS, asked me to
have her complete and sign (see enclosed copy). The form indicated that our application
requested licensing for 20 children. Because our application has been amended to request
licensing for 56 children, Mr. Lewis told me to change the "20" to "56". This new
number of 56 children is based upon our daycare's total capacity being determined by
Fred Wageman with the Washington State Department of Health (see enclosed report of
Mr. Wageman).
Since our site has a total capacity of 56 children we would like to be approved tbr
that amount. Ms. Wolf noted that the Special Use Permit stated that our application
indicated that we intended to "... operate a day care center for 41 children..." (see
enclosure). However, since the State placed our total capacity at 56 children we would
like to pursue licensing for that number.
Ms. Wolf suggested that I write to you because she was not certain if we had
sufficient parking for the. 56 children. Accordingly, I am bringing the following to your
attention:
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision by the Bremerton
Planning Commission state on page one under the caption Property &
Development:
Lawrence R. Robertson, Sr. Pastor
Assistant Pastors Executive Board
Timothy W. Thomas L.R. Robertson, Chair Charles Floyd, Sr.
Floyd Ussin Darrell Fields Claude Jones
Stephen Harris
September 12, 2000
Page 2 of 3
ClYde Stricklin
... the site contains an existing two story church building
and paved parking lot for 12 vehicles. Lots adjacent to
west of the property contain t,hree single stow existing
houses with additional accessory parking...
Under the caption Criteria for Approval, subsection 2, the Decision states,
The zoning ordinance requires one space [parking] for
ever5' five children, which would require 8 for the proposal.
Note, all other criteria itemized in the Decision are in no way affected, changed or
altered by the total capacity being 56 children instead of the 41 we initially
requested. Since we have more than sufficient parking for 56 children, clearly the
Board of Commissioners would have approved 56 children. We arrive at this
conclusion by following the reasoning stated in the Board's Decision.
As noted in the Decision, 8 parking spaces was sufficient for 41 children. Per the
Decision's parking requirements (1 space for every 5 children) for 56 children we would
need 1{} parking spaces. Our facility has almost triple that amount (we have additional
paved parking which we created in a vacant lot we purchased).
As a consequence of the above, we are respect~l!y requesting that you do amend
the DSHS form fi-om "20 children" to read, "up to 56 children". Considering the law and
reasoning of the Board's Decision, and 'i, he fact that DSHS placed our total capacity at 56,
we believe this to be equitable and appropriate
Finally, Resolution #98-08 passed by the Bremerton Planning Commission (copy
attached) does not limit the Special Use Permit to a specific number of children; rather, it
states:
1. The proposed use in [sic] needed in the community to
provide day care services in this area, and is in the public
interest.
2. The preposed use does meet the necessary tests and criteria
required for approval of a Special use [sic] Permit.
No where in the Resolution does the Commission limit the day care to any
specific number of children - it only requires that the day care "meet the necessary tests
and criteria".
59-
September 12, 2000
Page 3 of 3
Clyde Strick!in
In closing I want to point out that should you agree to state on the form that the
zoning department authorizes our day care for 56 children, we must still be approved for
that amount by the Child Care Center Licensor at DSHS. In other words, the information
you prov:~de on this tbrm only indicates that the zoning department of the City of
Bremerton is consenting to allow our dayc2re to serve 56 ch,.'!dren.
Please call me at 360-476-3674, ext. 22 if you would like to discuss this matter;
and thank you for considering our request. Ifi am om of the office when you call, you
may reach me on my text pager by calling 1-800-800-8596.
Sincerely,
Matt Moreno
Administrator
cc: Mayor Lynn Horton
Carey Lewis, DSHS
Fred Wageman, DSHS
Joan D:ngne,d
53
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION #2001 - 02
A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
EMMANUEL APOSTOLIC CHURCH APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL USE
PERMIT #SUP98-0017, DAY CARE CENTER.
WHEREAS the Emmanuel Apostolic Church has presented an application to amend
Special Use Permit #SUP98-0017, previously approved for a day care center at 1023 6th Street, to
increase the daycare capacity from Forty-one (41) children to Fifty-six (56) children, and, relocate
the previously approved site plan location of the outside play area to a new location.
The Bremerton Planning Commission makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, the Bremer[on Planning Commission, following the public hearing on June 19,
2001, voted unanimously to recommend that the amendment application to increase the capacity
of the daycare facility and relocate the daycare outside play area be forwarded to the City Council
for approval; now;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bremerton Planning Commission recommends
approval, by the Bremerton City Council, of the amendment application presented by Emmanuel
Apostolic Church subject to the following conditions of approval:
PASSED by the Planning Commission of the City of Bremerton,
this 19th dayof_J, uD¢~2001.
Andy Kosusko
Chair, Bremerton Planning Commission
A'I-rEST:
Christopher Hugo
Planning Commission Secretary
CITY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & PLANNING
CURRENT LAND USE STAFF REPORT
REGARDING:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
for
Emmanuel Apostolic Church
(Embassy Educational Center - File #: PL01-0030)
May 22, 2001
SUMMARY
1. Applicant: Emmanuel Apostolic Church
Embassy Educational Center
1023 6th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
2. Location: 1023 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington
3. Tax Assessor's Lot No: 3718-024-027-0006
4. Attachments:- -Amendment Request for SUP98-0017 Control No. PL01-0030
-Site Plan (Revised)
-Special Use Permit SUP98-0017
-Embassy Education Center correspondence, March 26, 2001
-Emmanuel Apostolic Church correspondence, Sept. 12, 2000
-Embassy Education Center correspondence, Oct. 16, 2000
-Planning Commission meeting minutes, December 22, 1998
-Planning Commission Resolution #98-08, December 28, 19§8
-Bremerton City Council Resolution #2689, January 20, 1999
5. Comprehensive Plan: High-density residential (HDR)
6. Zoning: High density Residential (MR)
FINDINGS
1. Amendment Proposal:
Proposal is to amend Special Use Permit (SUP) 98-0017. The amendment includes a
request to increase the approved daycare facility capacity from forty-one (41) children to
fifty-six (56) children and amend the approved site plan to depict the relocation of a
currently developed play area located in an area different from the area originally
approved.
2. History:
Special Use Permit, SUP98-0017, to operate a daycare center for 41 children aged 18
months to school age, in two rooms on the first floor of the existing church. A 900
square foot, fenced play area was indicated on the site plan adjacent and west of the
church. The play area was separated from 6th Street by an existing house to the north
(owned by the church), from the alley by an existing garage, and across the alley from
existing single-family uses. As a result of a comment letter from an adjoining property
owner to the south, protesting the day care use, the application was processed non-
administratively as a Type III City Council decision process.
SUP98-0017 was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-08, December
22, 1998, without conditions.
City Council Resolution No. 2689, approved the application for the Special Use Permit
as recommended by the Planning Commission, January 20, 1999, without conditions.
The applicant has recently constructed a 1600 square foot, fenced play area fronting on
6th Street, west of an existing house owned by the church and immediately east of
single-family residential use, and is now desirous of amending the site plan to depict the
play area in an alternative location as opposed to the previously approved location.
As the original Special Use Permit (SUP98-0017) was originally processed as a Type III
Planning Commission/Council public hearing decision process, any amendments to a
Type III decision must also be considered in the same manner and form as the SUP
originally approved.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Bremerton Zoninq Ordinance 21.02.905 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, [a] "Criteria for
Special Use Permits"
(a) Authority: A land use that is designated "SUP" in specific zones in the Land
Use Tables of Section 5 of these regulations may be permitted on sites within those
zones, provided all identified adverse impacts of the specific use can be eliminated or
reduced to an acceptable level through design or conditions of approval of the Special
Use Permit.
Response: A day care facility is an allowable use, by Special Use Permit (SUP) in a High
Density Residential (MR) zone classification.
Bremerton Zoninq Ordinance 21.02.905 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, [d] "Criteria for
Special Use Permits" states that approval of a Special Use Permit may be granted
only if all of the following are true:
1. Is the proposal substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and either
designated "SUP" in the Zoning Ordinance, or is bein.q processed as an "Unlisted Use"?
Response: YES The day care facility has been previously approved, as the use is substantively
consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and is an allowable use as an SUP in the
Zoning Ordinance. An amendment to the previously approved SUP can be approved in the
same manner and form as the previously approved SUP.
2. Will the proposal be consistent with all applicable development standards and
requirements, includinq the availability of all needed utilities and services?
Response: YES The applicant must comply with all current applicable development standards
and requirements for amendments to existing SUP's. The day care facility is heavily regulated
by the State and must comply with all regulatory criteria for licensing. All needed utilities and
services currently exist and are available.
3. Will the proposal, along with any miti.qation measures or other conditions of approval,
avoid significant adverse environmental consequences?
Response: YES There has been additional concerns regarding noise and additional traffic
concerns. It appears that the increase in childcare capacity will not significantly increase the
average daily trip traffic and parking has been previously demonstrated to be adequate.
Conditions of approval addressing noise will adequately mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts associated with the project.
4. Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood?
Response: YES The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of residential uses and light to
medium commercial use. The zone classification allows some mix of compatible non-
residential uses including day care facilities and associated play areas, if found through a
special Use Permit process to be appropriate for the specific location. A change in the capacity
and relocation of the outside play area appears to be compatible with adjacent uses. However,
the amended site plan request is for a developed play area to be approved as constructed
immediately adjacent to a single-family residence. The approved location was not located
adjacent to any private residential structures. Conditions of approval pertaining to fencing,
screening buffers (noise and visual), hours of operation, etc. to lessen the impact on adjoining
properties will mitigate potential adverse noise and visual impacts associated with the request
for approval of the amended site plan.
5. Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or desiqn guidelines that are applicable
to the specific use or type of development?
Response: YES The proposed amendment appears to comply with all other design criteria
and guidelines including State licensing for day care centers. The applicant has shown
compliance with zoning requirements by applying for an amendment to a Special Use Permit.
Bremerton Zoninq Ordinance 21.02.905 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, [e] "Criteria for
Special Use Permits"
(e) Conditions of Approval: Such conditions as site orientation, fencing,
buffering, parking location, lighting, access, hours of operation, or others may be imposed as
conditions of approval if needed to prevent adverse impacts and/or ensure compatibility with the
surrounding area.
Response: Conditions of amendment approval may be imposed by the Planning Commission
and/or the City Council to address concerns of adjacent property owners.
5'7
Bremerton Zoninq Ordinance 21.02.905 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, [fi
"Criteria for Special Use Permits"
(f) Lapse of Approval: If not acted upon within one year from the date of decision, the
SUP approval shall expire. Expiration is automatic and notice is not provided. The Director
may grant a single written six-month extension upon a showing of good cause, provided the
applicant submits a written request for such extension prior to expiration.
Response: The applicant, although not licensed at this writing to operate as a day care center
by the State, has made good cause effort to establish compliance with the "Lapse of Approval"
SUP criteria. Applicant has remodeled facility for a daycare to meet State regulatory criteria
and is in the process of obtaining State day care licensing approval.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that:
1. The proposed amendment to increase the day care capacity and approval for the
relocation of the outside play area appears to be in the public interest.
2. Neighborhood concerns should be addressed through conditions of approval.
3. The application meets all criteria necessary for approval of an amendment to a
Special Use Permit.
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Based on the record developed, the Bremerton Planning commission recommends
of the request for an amendment to Special Use Permit # SUP98-0017 to
increase the approved daycare facility capacity from forty-one (41) children to fifty-six (56)
children and amend the approved site plan to depict the relocation of a currently developed play
area located in an area different from the area originally approved, subject to the following
conditions:
Andy Kususko, Chair Date
Bremerton Planning Commission
5-8
Planning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2001
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:40 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, and
Commissioner Moshay. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Hugo indicated that the agenda was published incorrect with regard to there being no item 2. It
was stated that the new item being heard, PL 01-0030 is actually item 2.
A motion was made by Commissioner Dingfield and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy that
the agenda be approved as modified. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes;
Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The May 15, 2001, minutes were presented for approval. There was page-by-page review to complete
the draft minutes including commissioner names to finalize. Chairman Kosusko apologized to the
public and stated that now that there is someone here to take notes, we won't have to go through this
much longer. Commissioner Kennedy moved that the May 15, 2001, minutes be approved as
revised. Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy:
yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. The May 15, 2001, minutes approved.
The June 5, 2001, minutes were presented for approval. There was page-by-page review to complete
the draft minutes including commissioner names to finalize. Commissioner Dingfield moved that
the June 5, 2001, minutes be approved as revised. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion.
Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. The June 5, 2001,
minutes approved.
V. Public Meeting
A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). None.
Chairman Kosusko described how the public hearing portion of the meeting would be conducted.
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2001 Page I of 10
B. Public Hearings
1. PL 01-0024: City of Bremerton, Downtown Development Policies. A proposal for
amending the Central Business District, Specific Area Plan section of the
Comprehensive Plan to include additional goals and policies concerning the land
uses, density and intensity of uses, multi-modal transportation, public spaces, and
the design character of development in the Central Business District of Bremerton.
Chairman Kosusko stated that this is a continued item and that testimony remains open
from the public. Mr. Kosusko requested input from the staff.
Mr. Hugo stated that a new staff report, dated June 19, 2001. This supercedes the report
of June 5, 2001, and goes more deeply in decision criteria. However, there are several
changes to this report. Mr. Clyde Strickland assisted in this report. We are working
toward being careful about what we (staff) say and which document that we bring to the
Commission. The decision criteria are responded to by staff. He stated that he prefers
that the discipline that we follow is that the Commission respond to the decision criteria
and we then reflect that in the findings and conclusions, which are your action and not
something that the staff has done. Changes to this report are: Under the Environmental
Determination, there is a statement in the prior report that we had not made that
determination. This statement is in error. The second sentence that a B&S was issued
by the director today after the completion of a SEPA checklist. We have completed the
SEPA checklist, we have not issued the determination. We won't do that for another
day or two. Strike that - this will be updated in a final report. There are still some
materials that would be helpful to produce through the record either through public
testimony as part of Peter Calthorp's work in the community. We have a report from
Calthorp's office that reflects some of the feedback they heard. This report is still not
finalized. Mr. Hugo requested that the Commission keep this hearing open so that we
still have an opportunity to finalize Calthorp's report. This is the last of the
Comprehensive Plan revisions (policy level revisions). We will not be able to present
those as a group and do their evaluation for about another month, then close the public
testimony and have your deliberations. Chairman Kosusko questioned whether it was
necessary to keep the public testimony open in order to include these stores of materials.
Mr. Hugo stated that this would be the only way the public would have an opportunity to
comment on those things that are substantive that being offered by the consultants.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if the Commission would be receiving a copy of the
Calthorp report ahead of time. Mr. Hugo responded that yes, that is what is missing and
that you need that as part of the Commission's deliberative process.
Chairman Kosusko stated that this item will be continued and requested public
comment. Mr. Kosusko then described how the public hearing portion of the meeting
would be conducted: 1) Public comment from those in favor; 2) public comments of a
neutral nature; 3) public comment against the item; 4) the applicant has a chance to
answer public testimony; 5) there will be a 3-minute limit.
Helen Miller, P.O. 788, Bremerton asked Mr. Hugo if his idea of having some type of
architectural constraints for the facade will be included early enough to have some
impact or come in at a later date?
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 2 of 10
Mr. Hugo stated that the policy addresses the character of the street and the overall
urban quality. The land use code provisions do not go into architecture. That would
require an additional effort of documenting what the desired features are. If you put
those kinds of decisions in the hands of a citizen body or group of professionals without
something adopted as a guide to their decision, the courts would view that as arbitrary
and capricious practice. So, the community has to go through a process of deciding
what the desired features are and documenting those decisions a community values so
that decision makers can rely on that. Mr. Hugo further stated that this is represents a
big effort that needs to be staged carefully and suggested it will take time so that it is
seen as a benefit, not a threat. First, policies and then land use, regulatory structure and
then design review and guidelines. No further public comment. Item continued until the
next regularly scheduled meeting, July 17, 2001.
2. PL 01-0030: Application to amend Emmanuel Apostolic Church, Special Use
Permit #SUP 98-0017, to increase permitted daycare capacity from 41 children to
56, and amend approval site plan for relocation of the outside play area for the
daycare.
Chairman Kosusko requested public comment for this item. He reminded the group
that this is a quasi-judicial setting and that commissioners should state any conflicts with
this item and that the public has the opportunity to challenge any of the commissioners
on this item. No comment from commissioners.
Lee Wyatt, Senior Planner, City of Bremerton Building and Planning Department,
This item is a requested amendment to an existing special use permit #SUP98-0017,
which was approved by both Planning Commission recommendation and City Council
action in 1998. The approval was to operate a daycare center for 41 children, aged 18
months to school age in two rooms on the first floor of the existing Emmanuel Apostolic
Church. A 900 sq. ft. fenced play area was indicated on the site plan adjacent and west
of the church. The play area was separated from 6 ft. by an existing house to the north,
owned by the church; from the alley by an existing garage; and across the alley from an
existing single family uses.
The church has since gone ahead with establishing and trying to obtain the licensing for
the daycare center. They have developed an outside play area for the daycare facility. A
concern has been expressed by a neighbor, which basically states that the site location
for the daycare outdoor play facility had changed. As a result of this concern, some
investigation has been done. We then requested that the Apostolic Church revise their
special use permit and request an amended site plan that shows the new location of the
proposed outdoor play area and an increase of the capacity of the daycare center from 41
to 56 children.
Previously the special use permit for the daycare facility had been approved without any
conditions attached. The special use permit was approved for issuance in January of
1999, showing the site location for the outdoor play area in an area different from the
area where it has actually been constructed. Mr. Wyatt confirmed that the
commissioners and members of the public had the drawing if they desired it.
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 200l Page 3 of [0
The original special use permit (#SUP98-0017), was processed as a Type 3 Planning
Commission, Council public heating decision process. Our code speaks to the fact that
any future amendments to that particular special use permit process will go through the
same process. To amend #SUP98-0017, to include an increase in capacity from 41 to 56
children and to amend the approved site plan to depict the relocation of the currently
developed play area now located in an area different from the area originally approved.
Mr. Wyatt asked for any questions. None.
Matthew Moreno, Administrator at Emmanuel stated that the state determines the
number of children that a daycare facility has a capacity for based on the square footage
available for the daycare. Because the State determined that we have the capacity to
serve 56 children, we are amending our permit to increase our capacity from 41 to 56
children. In regard to relocating our playground, we are asking to move the site
approximately 30 feet further west than on the original site plan. The noise that would
impact the house that is appealing our permit, it seems doubtful that that would increase
the noise. The initial site was close to the home, it is moving between 30-35 feet closer.
All the children will not be on the playground at one time. The children will be from
infant to toddler (age 5). The infants represent no noise at all on the playground since
they will not be going outside, they will be being held or sleeping. They will be noisy
inside but won't be outside. Many daycares do not take care of infants and toddlers.
There will be no more than 10 toddlers at a time on the playground. This age group is
not particularly load, like elementary or junior high school kids. We need the additional
space for our playground, which is why we are requesting to move it. Chairman
Kosusko asked if this age limit is State mandated or your own. Mr. Moreno replied that
the license issued by the State cites this age limit. Commissioner Dingfield asked what
the initial playground site will be used for now. Mr. Moreno replied that there is a walk
way there that the children can use to get to the playground. If we are not allowed to
relocate the playground, we would be creative and would incorporate that and additional
space into a playground. Commissioner Dingfield asked about the reduced parking
spaces. On the amended request, you are taking out parking by 4 spots. Will this still
allow enough parking for the facility? Mr. Moreno stated that they would still have
more than enough parking. Commissioner Kennedy stated that the approved location
is smaller than what you are requesting. Is there a requirement from the State that you
have more area because of the additional number of children? And, is this why you
changed the location? Mr. Moreno replied that this is actually a much nicer location for
the children because it is larger. There is a ration that we must meet (square footage to
the number of children), but we could merely allow fewer children out at one time. But
I think the daycare director could answer the question much better.
Open to the Public (Public in Favor of this project):
Larry Robertson, Pastor, Emmanuel Apostolic Church, stated that the whole area is
chained off and beautifully landscaped, and has enhances everyone's property.
Everyone is going to benefit because of these changes. I want to emphasize one thing,
and that is that we will not have children out at thc playground area at 10:00 at night.
So, there will not be the noise late at night.
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 4 of 10 ~}~
Cheryl Hudson, Director and Embassy Educational Center, stated that the need for
child care in Kitsap County is at an all-time high. With many of the centers closing
there is a lack of care, especially regarding the infant and toddler stages. That addresses
the increase in capacity and why we are excited to be able to care for 15 more children.
This will impact our infants and toddlers by up to 4 spaces. This alone can meet a great
need in Kitsap County, especially for young mothers who are on the WorkFirst Program
who need to have care and are unable to find care for infants and toddlers. Ms. Hudson
quoted the old adage that "Children are to be seen and not heard". However, as a part of
enriching the lives of these children- they need to have space outside. We certainly
wouldn't, for example, want to take away parks next to home. In fact, most of your
parks are located in residential areas. Children usually don't make as much noise if they
are playing in the sandbox, it is a beautiful sound. If you are looking for an ugly noise,
just listen to the traffic on 6th Street: the trucks and the horns that go by. The children
would be out there in the mornings for 1-1.5 hours and in the afternoon, depending on
the weather. There could be days and days that would go by where we wouldn't be out
there at all because of the weather. So be able to take these children out there to grow
and develop their muscles is an important part of child care. It is a beautiful space and
we are anxious to use it. We are taking them for walks right now. Chairman Kosusko
asked if there were any questions. None.
Christine Anderson of Child Care Resource and Referral of Kitsap County.
Described the service as a not-for-profit agency that helps parents find licensed child
care in the county (both licensed family homes and center facilities). They also help the
providers by giving them technical assistance, training, advocation and child advocation.
She stated that Kitsap County is in a crisis. The Bremerton/Silverdale is currently at a
96-97% full capacity. Particularly the West Bremerton area, the infants and toddlers
(under 2 years), 99-100% full capacity. Some parents in this area are having to drive to
Port Orchard or Silverdale to find provider. We so desperately need more care.
Embassy opening up was exciting for us because they are sorely needed, the location is
accessible to commuters and on the bus-line, AND providing 15 more slots for infants
and toddlers. There are many children, even kindergartners, being sent home to empty
homes because of the lack of day care in this county.
Open to the Public (Public comments of a neutral nature on this project): None.
Open to the Public (Public comments opposed to this project):
JeffKerr, 1109 6th Street, Bremerton. I am the property owner at 1109 6th Street. Mr.
Kerr thanked the Commission for their time spent hearing this matter. I hope the
commission has carefully read my opposition, which is to be my official response to the
application. I have four major points to emphasize: 1) The claim that I was somehow
properly informed by the Church on the relocation of the playground and then granted
my approval is false; 2) The Church is proceeding to acquire approval on a change that
was never originally presented in the application. They have not followed proper
procedures; 3) The proposed playground, within 3 feet of my house will create noise that
would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the residence. The City should not allow
this interference when the goal of the Church daycare could be solved without creating
unreasonable noise pollution for me; 4). The Commission can satisfy both interests in
this matter by allow the original application, as pertains to the playground location,
which is not next to my house. They originally planned the area to be parking space and
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 200l Page 5 of 10
this is certainly a reasonable and non-interfering plan. Thank you very much.
Chairman Kosusko asked if there were any questions for Mr. Kerr. None. Chairman
Kosusko asked if there were any further public comments opposing this item. None.
Mr. Kosusko then requested redress from the applicant.
Larry Robertson, Pastor of Emmanuel Apostolic Church, stated that he wanted to
address item #1 from Mr. Kerr's statement. Mr. Robertson said that he was under the
impression that there was an understanding. Mr. Moreno had talked with Mr. Kerr
before we invested in fences, etc. On it's own merit, this is a good place to have a
playground. We also collaborated with the State before we proceeded. We believed that
we were doing the neighbor a favor because there were people using this area because it
was open. We thought we were doing a win-win by closing this area off, keeping people
from being so close to his home. When we are not there, people in the neighborhood
park in these open areas and THEY will play at 10:00 at night and create noise. We
thought this would be a positive change for everyone in the neighborhood, not just us.
Chairman Kosusko closed the public testimony. He asked if the Department of
Building and Planning had anything to add.
Lee Wyatt, Senior Planner for the City of Bremerton. Mr. Wyatt stated that just the loss
of these 4 parking places does not change the status of the parking. They do have the
required parking for the space they are using. Mr. Moreno is absolutely correct in
saying that the loss of the 4 projected parking places has no affect whatsoever on the
required parking spaces for this facility.
Secondly, Bremerton's Zoning Ordinance 21.02.905 deals with special use permit and
the criteria for approval of special use permits. Should you decide to approve this
amendment, item "E" under that particular heading states conditions of approval. Such
condition as site orientation; fencing; buffering; parking location; lighting; access hours;
hours of operation or others may be imposed as conditions of approval, if needed, to
prevent adverse impacts or ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. I leave you
with that thought.
Chairman Kosusko opened Commission deliberation.
Commissioner Moshay stated that she has driven by the play area and it is impressive.
She was excited and as a former Head-Start family advocate, she confirmed the need
more care for children. She applauded Emmanuel Apostolic Church for taking this step
forward. She was very much in favor.
Commissioner Dingfield stated that she is very much in favor of the application. She
was in favor of the initial application and is glad to see that the State has approved the
increase of up to 56 children. However, she said that she was very disappointed in the
way this has been handled, the procedural and neighborhood issues. She stated that she
would be in favor of approving the amendment because of the dire need for child care.
She further stated that any time we, as a city, find the issue of children's noise in an
urban area to be a problem - we may as well close up shop.
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 200I Page 6 of 10
Chairman Kosusko stated that he too, is in favor of the application but was
disappointed in the Church because they tried to move this play area without going
through the Commission first. Almost like it was trying to be underhanded, especially
since the initial permit stated specifically where that area needed to be. If it needed to be
changed, it should have come back here. Rather than starting to do it and then getting
complaints about it and THEN having to come back. That's not they way things should
happen. I am not against it, but I am disappointed in the way that was handled.
Commissioner Kennedy stated that obviously no one has any issue with the fact that
more child care is needed, not even the neighbor. My only question to my fellow-
commissioners is: Would be like to put a condition of a landscaping buffer, which would
be of no harm to the kids. They might actually like some trees and scrubs.
Commissioner Dingfield responded that Pastor Robinson said in the original plan stated
that trees would be planted to help with the noise and privacy. Short discussion
determined that there were no conditions put on the original approval. Commissioner
Dingfield stated that the notes mentioned were taken from the minutes of the original
meeting and the original application. This is now moved. Ms. Dingfield further stated
that landscaping does not really help with sound, it would be purely aesthetic or privacy
issue. It would take something else to help with sound issues and remember that a child
care business is heavily regulated by the State. The Church will go through far more
than we could impose on them. Therefore, any conditions we could impose would be
superfluous to what the State would impose on them as they try to run a child care
business here in the City. Chairman Kosusko asked if a condition that the fence along
that property was solid fence isn't something that would come out of the State
regulation? It is something that we would do to protect the neighbor, if we so chose.
Commissioner Moshay made a motion to increase the day care capacity from 41 to
56 children and relocate the previously approved site plan location of the outside
play area to a new location. Commission seconded the motion. There was no
discussion. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko:
yes. The motion carded.
Lee Wyatt, Senior Planner for the City of Bremerton Department of Building and
Planning. Mr. Wyatt stated that this was a Type 3 decision in the form of a resolution
that moves forward to the City Council. This is not an ordinance type decision. In order
to move it forward for approval, a resolution needs to come from the Planning
Commission regarding what you have talked about and what is in the staff report, and
move forward in the form of a resolution for the City Council that adopts the resolution
to approve and pass the special use permit amendment for the increased capacity and the
relocation of the playground. If we can get the general understanding of what we've
heard here tonight. If you can approve Resolution #2001-02 to be substantial in form to
what you've already discussed, we can move this forward for the Chairperson's
signature and the Secretary's signature for attestation and move this forward to the City
Council immediately for their approval. If we have to come back, at our next meeting to
have you approve this Resolution, we will be setting it back even further from the City
Council.
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 7 of l0
After a short discussion, Commission Dingfield made a motion that the Commission
approve Resolution #2001-02 as follows: A Planning Commission Resolution
recommending approval of the Emmanuel Apostolic Church application for amendment
of special use permit #SLIP 98-0017 day care center. Whereas, the Emmanuel Apostolic
Church has presented an application to amend Special Use Permit #98-0017, previously
approved for a day care center at 1023 6th Street, to increase the daycare capacity from
41 children to 56 children, and, relocate the previously approved site plan location of the
outside play area to a new location. The Bremerton Planning Commission make the
following findings: Whereas the proposal is consistent with all applicable development
standards and requirements and whereas the proposal meets a great need of services
within the Bremerton community and whereas the Bremerton Planning Commission,
following a public heating on June 19, 2001, voted unanimously to recommend that the
amendment application to increase the capacity of the daycare facility and relocate the
daycare outside play area be forwarded to the City Council for approval. Now,
therefore, be it resolved that the Bremerton Planning Commission recommends
approval, by the Bremerton City Council of the amendment application presented by the
Emmanuel Apostolic Church. The motion was seconded by Commission Kennedy.
Called for a vote: Dingfleld: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. The
motion carried.
Mr. Moreno made a final comment to the Commission: He wanted to clarify that the
way the relocation of the outdoor play area was handled was responsibility as delegated
by the pastor. He admitted that he made many of the procedural errors in ignorance. He
was unaware that an amendment to the original special use permit application was
required to relocate. He apologized to the Commission.
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chair Report. Chairman Kosusko informed the group about the Smart Growth Discussion
scheduled for Wednesday, June 27, 2001, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Eagle's Nest in the
Kitsap County Fair Grounds. Generally, it is regarding a group (including Tim Bodkin; Phil
Machit, Hood Canal Environmental Council; Mike Brown of the Kitsap County
Homebuilders Association; Norm McGlophlin; Frank Wilson of the Kitsap County
Association of Realtors; Seth Wilson, A Thousands Friends of Washington; and Mike
Shepard, Council Member the City of Bremerton) have drafted high level policies to be
discussed at this meeting. Chairman Kosusko stated that he plans to attend and invited
everyone.
Mr. Hugo wanted to note that it is unfortunate that this discussion group is scheduled for a
time that the Bremerton City Council and the Port Orchard City Council meets that same
evening. This takes several major entities out of the discussion. Please inform the
organizers of this conflict. The good news is that because the Department of Building and
Planning did not notify timely, our five agenda items will not be addressed at the City
Council meeting that evening - so I will be able to attend. He stated that he hoped that the
planners become more sensitive to elected leaders are encumbered with their own
jurisdictional duties.
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 8 of 10
B. Director's Report. Mr. Hugo stated that we are trying to move things on to the City
Council. There is a large slate of zoning and comprehensive plan revision items. The £u'st
set will be going to the Council in their study session on June 20, 2001, and going to hearing
on July 2, 2001. These will be included on the Planning Commission agenda for the July
17, 2001, along with the Downtown Development Policies and another set of findings. I
should also be reporting that we are in the selection process for the 3 new planners. At this
time we have over 30 applications and will be testing on July 2, 2001. Scoring the testing
should happen quickly so that we can invite people back within the week for interviews.
We are planning to interview 9 people for those 3 positions. He complemented the Civil
Service system in place for its flexibility, knowledge and commitment to community
building. Chairman Kosusko asked what level of applications we are receiving. Mr. Hugo
stated that there is a variety of college education. He could not speak to the experience
level. All 3 positions are entry level. Currently there are only two positions (Planner and
Sr. Planner). However, steps are being taken with Human Resources to create additional
classifications that will allow career possibilities for employees now being hired at entry-
level positions. Mr. Hugo explained the need for these positions and how the workload is
handled now and showed relief about the current hiring push.
C. Study. None.
D. Old Business:
a. PL 01-0007. Park Avenue zone reclassification for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hugo read thc findings directly from the draft Findings and
Conclusions. He then asked if there were any questions and after a short discussion,
there were two changes made to thc findings. Mr. Hugo then mad the conclusions
directly from the draft. After a short discussion, Commissioner Dingfield made a
motion that the Commission approve PL 01-0007 as revised. Commissioner
Moshay seconded the motion. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes;
Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Motion carried.
b. PL 01-0012. Revision to Zoning Code definition of "Community Center." Mr.
Hugo read the findings directly from thc draft Findings and Conclusions. He then asked
if there were any questions and after a short discussion, there was one change made to
the findings. Mr. Hugo then read the conclusions directly from thc draft. After a short
discussion, Commissioner Kennedy made a motion that the Commission approve
PL 01-0012 as revised. Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion. Called for a
vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Motion camcd.
c. PL 01-0020. Revision to Parks & Schools setback development standards. Mr.
Hugo read the findings directly from the draft Findings and Conclusions. He then asked
if there were any questions and after a short discussion, there were three changes made
to thc findings. Mr. Hugo then read the conclusions directly from the draft. After a
short discussion, Commissioner Kennedy made a motion that the Commission
approve PL 01-0020 as revised. Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion.
Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Motion
carded.
d. PL 01-0047. Olympic College zone reclassification for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hugo read the findings directly from the draft Findings and
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 200l Page 9 of I0
Conclusions. He then asked if there were any questions and after a short discussion,
there were no changes made to the findings. Mr. Hugo then read the conclusions
directly from the draft. Chairman Kosusko asked if it was necessary to include all the
plans that Olympic College has regarding this submission. Mr. Hugo replied that since
they are the applicant and are relying on their plan being documented in the Findings
and Conclusions that it is necessary. Commissioner Dingfield made a motion that the
Commission approve PL 01-0047 as revised. Commissioner Moshay seconded the
motion. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes.
Motion carded.
e. PL 01-0047. Olympic College Special Use Permit for Satellite Parking Facility.
Mr. Wyatt read the findings directly from the draft Findings and Conclusions. He then
asked if there were any questions and after a short discussion, there were two changes
made to the findings. Mr. Hugo then read the conclusions directly from the draft.
Commissioner Dingfield made a motion that the Commission approve PL 01-0007
as revised. Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion. Called for a vote:
Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; Kosusko: yes. Motion carried.
E. New Business: None.
VII. Adjournment:
Meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for July 17, 2000.
Respectfully submitted by:
Executive Secretary
Approved by:
Andrew J. Kosusko, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 10 of 10 (Od
"A Church with Purpose and Vision"
1023 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington 98337 * (360) 479-3674, Fax (360) 377-8752
E-Mail: embassyctr@yahoo.com
Suffragan Bishop, Lawrence R. Robertson, Sr. Pastor
June 25, 2001
Bremerton Planning Commission
286 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
RE: Emmanuel Apostolic Church's Amendment to the Special Use Permit
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Thank you for supporting our endeavor to provide quality childcare services to this community
by approving our request to amend our special use permit.
I am writing to address comments made at the commission meeting on Tuesday, June 19, 2001.
In particular, the statement made by Mr. Kosusko that he was very disappointed with Emmanuel
for apparently attempting to circumvent the administrative process and attempting to move our
playground site outside of that process.
First, I sincerely apologize that mistakes that I made resulted in giving the appearance that we
were trying to relocate our playground without the necessary approval of the planning
department. However, Mr. Kosusko's statement was far too broad in that he said that he was
disappointed by "Emmanuel Apostolic Church". As the .administrator of the church the pastor
delegated to me the responsibility of getting the childcare center operational. I am solely
responsible for any mistakes that were made in that process, and it is inaccurate and unfair to
impugn the entire church for my actions.
On September 12, 2000, I wrote to Clyde Strickland regarding amending our special use permit
from 41 to 56 children (see attachment). I did not mention the playground site because I did not
know we needed approval for that as well. On September 27th I had the playground fence
installed. The following month, while discussing our plans with Bill Palmer in person at the
planning department, I learned we had to get permission to move our playground site. On
October 16, 2000, I wrote to Mr. Palmer enclosing our revised site plan (see attachment). It was
not until mid-May of this year when I had a person-to-person meeting with Chris Hugo and Lee
Wyatt that I was informed I had to complete a form to amend the special use permit. They
provided me with the form and I completed it and returned it to them quickly. In that same
meeting Mr. Hugo profusely apologized for the planning department's shortcomings in handling
our request. He specifically mentioned that Bill Palmer should have informed us of the proper
process to amend our playground site (since my October 16th letter was not sufficient), and that
he should have given us the form needed to file for an amended special use permit. Mr. Hugo
also stated that Clyde Strickland errored in stating in December that he was going to approve
our request when in fact it required a quasi-judicial proceeding.
Bremerton Planning Commission
June 21,2001
Page 2 of 2
At no point in time did we use our playground. So while it may appear to some of the planning
commissioners that we attempted to obtain a benefit outside the proper administrative channels
the evidence proves otherwise. I made some procedural mistakes, but we never once
attempted to use the playground without the planning commission's decision on the relocation of
the playground.
I am not going to go into detail regarding Mr. Kerr's allegati°ns. The most significant and telling
statement contained in his letter to the planning commission was the two separate references
he makes to our conversation occurring "while [he] was trying to do some work around the
house". He quantifies the circumstances under which we talked because he knows he did not
listen to the conversation. At no point did I even come close to misleading him in regard to our
objective with the playground. He is attempting to hold me accountable for his inattention during
our conversation.
Finally, I am sure that the planning commission must have been frustrated that we did not come
on time to the initial hearing. That again, was my fault. I failed to notify the pastor, childcare
director, and other interested parties that the meeting was scheduled. I almost forgot it myself,
and therefore arrived late. Lee Wyatt informed me that the commission postponed that hearing
because the planning department failed to provide the commission with the pertinent materials
on time. I truly thank God for that having occurred since I had failed to notify everyone on my
end of the hearing date, time and place.
In closing I again apologize for my errors and for the opinions that some of you formed based
upon those mistakes. In addition, to the problems caused by my negligence, the planning
commission needs to be aware that until May of this year, the planning department failed in its
duty to process this request in an expeditious, accurate and procedurally correct manner. Mr.
Kosusko did not allocate any disappointment toward that department, but he should have been
equally dissatisfied with the way they handled this matter.
Our primary function, and our sole agenda, is to serve God and this community. All of our
programs are planned as avenues in assisting us to fulfill that calling. We were glad and
grateful to have the amendment to our special use permit approved by the planning
commission, but not at the cost of having our integrity in question.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We pray for God's blessing, prosperity and
provision over you and your families as you continue to serve this community.
Respectfully yours,
Matthew P. Moreno
Administrator
cc: Bremerton City Council
Mayor Lynn Horton
Chris Hugo
Lee Wyatt
September 12, ~
Clyde stricklin
Interim Director of Planning
Bremerton Department of Community Development
286 4th Street
Bremert6n, WA 98337
,~E: Embassy Education Center
Dear Mr. Sticklin:
This letter follows my phone conversatlon with Valerie Wolf. I provided Ms.
Wolf with a form that Carey Lewis, Child Care Center Licensor with DSHS, asked me to
-have her .complete and sign (see enclosed copy). The form indicated that our application
requested licensing for 20 children. Because cur application has been ~mended to request
licensing for 56 children; Mr. Lew:,s told me to change the "20" to "56". This new
number of 56 children is based upon our daycare's total capacity being determined by
Fred Wageman with the Washington State Der)artment cf Health (see enclosed report of
· Mr. Wageman).
Since our site has a total capacity of 56 children we would like to be approved for
that amount. Ms. Wolf noted that the Special Use Permit stated that our application
indicated' that we intended to "... operite a day care center for 41 children..." (see
enclosure). However, since the State placed our total capacity at 56 children we would
like to pursue licensing for that number.
Ms. Wolf suggested that I write to you because she was not certain if we had
sufficient parking for the, 56 children. Accordingly, I am bringing the following to your
attention:
> The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision by the Bremerton
Planning Commission state on page one under the camion Property &
Development:
Lawrence R. Robertson, Sr. Pastor
Assistant Pastors Executive Board
Timothy W. Thomas L.R. Robertson, Chair Charles Floyd, Sr.
Floyd Ussin Darrell Fields Claude .Jones
Stephen Harris
'" September 12, 2000
Page 2 of 3
Clyde Stricklin
...the site contains an existing two story, church building
and paved parking lot for 12 vehicles. Lots adjacent to
west of the property contain t.hree single story, existing
houses with additional accessoi-y, parking...
~ Under the car~tion Criteria for Approval, subsection 2, the Decision states,
The zoning ordinance requires one space [parking] for
every five children, which would require 8 for the proposal.
> 'Note, all other criteria itemized in the Decision are in no way affected,i'ehanged .or..
altered by the total capacity being 56.'children instead of the 4I We'initially
requested. Since we nave more than sufficient parking for 56 ch~ldren;,clearly the
B~ard of Commissioners would have approved 56 Children. we arrive at this
conclusion by following the reasoning stated in the Board's Decision.
As noted in the Decision, 8 parking spaces was sufficient for 41 children. Per the
Decision's parking requirements (1 space for every 5 children) for 56 children we would
need 1{1 parking' spaces. Our facility bas almost triple that amount (we have additional
paved parking which we created in a vacant lot we purchased).
As a consequence of the above, we are respect~l!y requesting that you do amend
the DSHS form from "20 children" to read, "up to 56 children". Considering the law and
reasoning of the Board's Decision,' and the fact tha~/'DSHS placed our total capacity at 56,
we believe this to be equitable and appropriate.
Finally, Resolution//98-08 passed by the Bremerton Planning Commission (copy
attached) does not limit the Special Use Permit to a specific number of children; rather, it
states:
1. The proposed use in [sic] needed in the community to
provide day care services in this area, and is in the 'pubiic
interest.
2. The proposed use does meet the necessary tests and criteria
required for approval Of a Special use [sic] Permit.
No where in the Reso!utien does the Commission limit the day care to any
specific number of children - it only requires that the day care "meet the necessary tests
and criteria".
September 12, 2000
Page 3 o..~
Clyde Stricklin
In closing I want to point out that should you agree to state on the form that
zoning devar~ment authorizes our day ca,'e for 56 children we must still be ay 'roved
that amount by the Child Care Center L~censor at DSHS. In other ~voras,.the In,formation
you provide on this/brm only. indictites., .,:~.'~ha*. thez°ning. ~ dep'artmeh~
Bremerton is consenting to allow'ourd~/~are~t61serVe 56 chi!di-~n. ":
Please call me at 360-476-.3674, ext. 22 if you would like to discuss this!~matter;
and thank yzu for considering our requ~i~t. IfI am out oftheoffice X~hen you ehlI, you
may reach me on my text pager by 'call{ii'g 1-800-800-8596.
Sincerely,
Matt MOreno
Administrator
cc: Mayor Lynn Horton
Carey Lewis, DSHS
Fred Wageman, DSHS
Joan Dingfie!d
EMBASSY EDUCATIONAL CENTER
1023 6th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
(360) 479-3674 ext. 22
-
October 16, 2000
William M. Palmer
Department of Community Development
City of Bremerton
286 4th Street
Bremerton,. WA 98337
RE: Embassy Educational Center
Dear Mr. Palmer:
Pursuant to your request, i have attached a revised copy of our site! plan
which shows the new play area for the dayCare. The play area was'move~t to
accommodate the size required by the daycare-licensing department: .: It isa
beautiful grassy area with an extremely nice fence. You a/'e ver~ welcom~ to
come ana' visit the site.
Please call me at 479-3674 ext. 22, or page me at 1-800~800-8596'ilf'You
have any questions or comments regarding this matter.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooPeration.
Sincerely,
Matt Moreno
Enclosure: Site Plan
6 TH STREET
OCT 3 0 1998
8RE~IERTON ,,~, ·
BUILOING OEPARTI4ENT "'"'~"~'~ ~
.........
FOR DAY~E ·
EXISTING HOUS~ EXISTING HOU$~ EXIS~NG HOUS~
E~IUEL EOS?OUC CHURCH
~1 10.0' ~
ALL~
- ~ -
"'
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public HeannH o, ureinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: July 2001
the Official Zoning Map from Medium Density Residential (CBR) DEPT. OF ORIGIN: P&B - Land Use
to Parks & Schools (PS) for properties northwest of the ORIGINATOR: Chris Hugo, Director
intersection of Chester Avenue and 13th Street and two parcels DATE SUBMITTED: July, 2 2001
along the west frontage of Lincoln Avenue north of 13th.
2. CLEA~NCES: (Comment on back if necessa~) 3. EXHIBITS:
P&B Director: ~~ o PC Findings & Conclusions
City Attorney: - ~ o PC Minutes June 19, 2001
City Clerk: ~~_r o_~ ~ ~ , o StaffRepo~
Fiscal & Budget Council~omm.: ~~ o Ordinance to amend Zoning Map
Operations Comm.: ~~, ~~. ~.
ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION ~ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City of Breme~on Rezone Appli~tion PL00-0047, proposes to amend the Official Zoning Map of the City of
Breme~on for prope~ies no~hwest of the intemection of Chester Avenue and 13th Street and two parcels along
the west frontage of Lincoln Avenue no~h of 13th by changing the zoning classification to Parks & Schools (PS)
to refle~ the current Comprehensive Plan Map, Schools (S) designation for this same area.
It is in the public interest to approve this rezone request, as it would bring the Zoning designation into consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan designation, as required by the State Gro~h Management A~.
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hea~ng and adopted Findings &
Conclusions at their June 19, 2001 meeting, and recommends City Council approval. The Council must condu~
a public hearing prior to its final decision and action on the proposed O~inance.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move ,o pass the attached Ordinance # '/"~ 7 ?0 on second reading. ~~ (~ 0~~,
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AM q D~D~i~__~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: "~""..-~ '
S. AGENDA BILL NO.: 0/-/5;~
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the proposed zone change is denied, the city would not achieve the planned expansion of
the Olympic College facilities as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Further, a denial
could potentially subject the city to challenges that it did not enact zoning consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as mandated by State law.
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
ORDINANCE NO. /--/77°
AN ORDINANCE of the Bremerton City Council amending the Official Zoning Map
of the City of Bremerton, Washington, from Medium Density Residential (CBR) to Parks
& Schools (PS) for properties northwest of the intersection of Chester Avenue and 13th
Street and two parcels along the west frontage of Lincoln Avenue north of 13th.
The City Council of Bremerton makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, The Central Bremerton Land Use Plan map of the 1995 Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan designates properties northwest of the intersection of Warren
Avenue and 13th Street west to High Avenue as Schools (S); and
WHEREAS, The Official Zoning Map designates properties northwest of the
intersection of Warren Avenue and 13th Street west to High Avenue as CBR Medium
Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, The Washington State Growth Management Act stipulates that
cities adopt development regulations that are consistent with adopted comprehensive
plans. The City of Bremerton enacted revised Zoning Ordinance 21.02 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code on April 14, 1997, to satisfy the statutory requirement for regulatory
consistency; and
WHEREAS, Figure 090 of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance BMC 21.02 lists the
primary zone classifications that "are considered to be consistent with their related
Comprehensive Plan designations." The PS zone is listed as the primary zone to
implement the School designation of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Olympic College has purchased the subject properties to expand
the college facilities as projected in the Campus Master Plan. The Master Plan
includes the eventual purchase and expansion to the full block north of 13th between
Lincoln and Ohio Avenues; and
?f
WHEREAS The seven parcels fronting on 13th Street are projected to receive
additional structural college facilities and the two parcel portion of the proposal, fronting
on Lincoln Avenue will be utilized for additional parking capacity; and
WHEREAS; According to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and
Figure 090 of BMC 21.02, the appropriate primary zone designation to implement the
Schools designation of the Land Use Plan is PS Schools; and
WHEREAS, The intention to continue the applicant's development of school
facilities in the proposed locations is clearly indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and
on the applicant's Campus Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, The proposed rezone is appropriate to achieve regulatory
consistency and to promote compatible developmeet of the Olympic College district as
specified in the Land Use Plan.: now therefore:
WHEREAS; the Bremerton Planning Commission, following a public hearing on
June 19, 2001, determined that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and with the City's Rezone criteria, contained in BMC 21.02.920, and has submitted its
Findings and Conclusions in support of its recommendation to approve this rezone
request; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on July 18,
2001 to accept public comments pertaining to the proposed rezone to consider the
Planning Commission's recommendation; now therefore:
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN THE FOLLOWING
Section 1: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton is hereby amended
to change the zoning classification from Medium Density Residential (CBR) to Parks &
Schools (PS) for properties northwest of the intersection of Chester Avenue and 13th
Street and two parcels along the west frontage of Lincoln Avenue north of 13th, as
further depicted in attached Exhibit "A".
Section 2: This effective date of this Ordinance shall be ten (10) days from the
date of passage and publication by the Mayor and City Council.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ~ day of ,2001.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2001.
JOHN LAW
City Council President
APPROVED this __ day of ,2001.
LYNN S. HORTON
Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY
City Clerk
3
· "-k~ L-/,,F8
Exhibit A
July, 2001
The City of Bremerton Rezone Application PL00-0047, proposes to amend the Official Zoning Map of the
City of Bremerton for properties northwest of the intersection of Chester Avenue and 13th Street and two
parcels along the west frontage of Lincoln Avenue north of 13th by changing the zoning classification to
Parks & Schools (PS) to reflect the current Comprehensive Plan Map designation, Schools (S), for this
same area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
PL00-0047 OLYMPIC COLLEGE REZONE, CBR TO PS
FINDINGS
1. The Central Bremerton Land Use Plan map of the 1995 Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan designates properties northwest of the intersection of
Warren Avenue and 13th Street west to High Avenue as S Schools.
2. The Official Zoning Map designates properties northwest of the intersection of
Warren Avenue and 13th Street west to High Avenue as CBR Medium Density
Residential.
3. The Washington State Growth Management Act stipulates that cities adopt
development regulations, including zoning designations that are consistent with
adopted comprehensive plans. The City of Bremerton enacted revised Zoning
Ordinance 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code on April 14, 1997, to satisfy
the statutory requirement for regulatory consistency.
4. Figure 090 of the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance BMC 21.02 lists the primary zone
classifications that "are considered to be consistent with their related
Comprehensive Plan designations." The PS zone is listed as the primary zone to
implement the School designation of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Olympic College has purchased the subject properties to expand the college
facilities as projected in the Campus Master Plan. The Master Plan includes the
eventual purchase and expansion to the full block north of 13th between Lincoln
and Ohio Avenues.
6. The seven parcels fronting on 13th Street are projected to receive additional
structural college facilities and the two parcel portion of the proposal, fronting on
Lincoln Avenue will be utilized for additional parking capacity.
7. Recent City Council action has completed the vacation of parts of the street
rights-of-way for Chester Avenue, north of 13th Street and east of and adjacent to
the proposed structural facilities to be located on the seven parcel portion of the
proposal.
8. The Staff Report for this rezone application addresses the decision criteria that
must be satisfied to approve the proposal.
CONCLUSIONS
1. According to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Figure 090
of BMC 21.02, the appropriate primary zone designation to implement the
Schools designation of the Land Use Plan is PS Schools.
2. The intention to continue the applicant's development of school facilities in the
proposed locations is clearly indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the
applicant's Campus Master Plan.
3. The proposed rezone is appropriate to achieve regulatory consistency and to
promote compatible development of the Olympic College district as specified in
the Land Use Plan.
/
Approved by the Bremerton Planning Commission on /_¢/U~/~: /¢.,
Attest: l
A~y KosC'sko Chris Hugo
Chair ~ Secretary
CITY OF BREMERTON
BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
for
Olympic College (P&BD File #: PL00-0047)
January 25, 2001
Applicant: Olympic College
1600 Chester Avenue
Bremerton, Wash. 98337-1699
Location: This proposal involves nine (9) parcels of land, aggregating approximately one (1) acre,
containing empty and condemned housing units. A portion of the proposal (two parcels) are
located on the west side of Lincoln Avenue approximately mid block and the remainder
portion of the proposal (seven parcels) are located south of and adjacent to the Olympic
College Campus, at 1213 13~ Street, on the north side of 13t~ Street between Lincoln Avenue
and Chester Avenue. Specifically, the proposal parcels are identified with Tax parcel
numbers: 3797-005-005-0005, 3797-005-004-0006, 3797-006-005-0003, 3797-006-006-0002,
3797-006-008-0000, 3797-008-009-0009, 3797-006-010-0105, 3797-006-010-0204, and
3797-006-013-0003.
Description: Olympic College has purchased these properties to expand the college facilities as
projected in the Campus Master Plan. Currently the nine parcels contain vacated
housing units waiting for demolition with subsequent substantial regrading and
excavation to level the properties and bring them to the surrounding street grades. The
seven parcels fronting on 13th Street are projected to receive additional structural college
facilities and the two parcel portion of the proposal, fronting on Lincoln Avenue will be
utilized for additional parking capacity. Recent City Council action has completed the
vacation of parts of the street rights-of-way for Chester Avenue, north of 13th Street and
east of and adjacent to the proposed structural facilities to be located on the seven parcel
portion of the proposal. The Campus Master Plan includes the eventual purchase and
expansion to the full block north of 13th between Lincoln and Ohio Avenues.
Proposal: The applicant's request is for Official Zoning Map amendment in the form of a Rezone
application. The proposed end result will be to amend the Official Zoning Map of the
City of Bremerton to reflect the current Comprehensive Plan and Map designation of
Schools (S) by changing the zoning classification for the same parcels of land from
Residential Medium-Density (CBR) to Schools (PS).
FINDINGS
1. Surrounding Land Uses:
A land use inventory was conducted of the area surrounding the subject property. The College
Campus occupies the areas immediately to the east and north of the proposal. Two churches are
located in the immediate vicinity .One immediately south of the proposal across 13th Street.
Bremerton High School is located one block to the west. The block immediately to the west
contains several older stock residential housing units. Additional older stock housing is located
to the southwest and southeast of the proposed rezone proposal.
Relation to
Subject Current Zoning Comprehensive Plan Designation
Property
North Parks and Schools (PS) Schools (S)
South Parks and Schools (PS) and Residential-Medium Density (MDR)
Residential-Medium Density (CBR)
East Parks and Schools (PS) Schools (S)
West Parks and Schools (PS) and Schools (S)
Residential-Medium Density (CBR)
2. Proposal:
The applicant's request is for an Official Zoning Map amendments. The end result will be to
designate the properties involved in the amendment request from single family medium density
residential to schools. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan Map will not be changed as the
existing land use designation is Schools(S). The official Zoning Map would be amended to
change the zoning from Residential Medium-Density (CBR) to Schools (PS).
3. SEPA Determination:
The City of Bremerton annually proposes to amend its Comprehensive Plan and Optimum Land
Use Map through city and public initiated amendment applications which will be applied city
wide as well as property specific. The Growth Management Act allows amendments to
Comprehensive Plans only once a year with few exceptions. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
and Rezone application requests are considered non proiect actions which do not propose
specific development projects. Throughout the year, applications for Plan amendments are
received (often accompanied by related rezones to maintain consistency between the City's Plan
and Zoning maps) and collectively placed on a docket for processing in order to assess the
"cumulative effects". Those amendments and rezones recommended for approval as a result of
the Public Hearing process conducted by the Bremerton Planning Commission are adopted by
City Council Ordinance. There is no proposal application for use and development of the
property at this time. Further development of approved property specific zone classification
amendments that are not categorically exempt pursuant to WAC Chapter 19% 11-800, which will
require issuance of a City license or permit, will be subject to future review under SEPA
A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this non proiect action in accordance with
WAC 197-11 on January 26, 2001.
2
8. Rezone / Ordinance & Official Map Amendments
The procedures to be followed for Zoning Ordinance or Official Zoning Map changes are those
found in Section 21.02.920 "REZONE" of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC)and Section
21.02.090 "PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY" and Section 21.02.100 "SECONDARY ZONES"
of the BMC:
The City Council may approve a change in zoning classification of property within the City
limits by passage of an ordinance, following a public hearing, provided the new zone is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted approval criteria. Approval of a
Rezone results in a change to the Official Zoning Map.
The Bremerton Municipal Code, Section 21.02.920(d) Criteria for Approval: A Rezone may be
approved if all of the following can be answered "YES":
(1) Is the proposed Rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? (See Section
21.02.090 "Plan/Zoning Consistency" of this code.)
Response: The proposed rezone is consistent with the existing Schools (S) plan classification for
the proposal, and additionally for the "island" of property which includes the two blocks of property to
the west of the proposal adjoining Bremerton High School, and the block of land extending to the south
from 13th as far as 11 th Avenue (currently developed as accessory campus parking) between Lincoln and
Ohio Avenues.
(2) Is the Rezone justified for one or more of the following reasons?
It is in the public interest to approve the Rezone to accommodate needed changes within
the immediate vicinity or neighborhood.
It will correct a zone classification or boundary that was inappropriate when
established.
It is a planned step in a phasing process to gradually bring zoning into consistency with
the 20-year Comprehensive Plan when appropriate
It will place or move an overlay zoning designation without affecting the underlying
zone.
Response: It is in the public interest to consider approval of this rezone request as it would bring the
Zoning Code classification into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan designations and will further
correct a zone classification that now appears inappropriate when it was established.
Certainly, there would be an argument to be made, that in 1997, when the official Zoning Map was
readopted the subject property should have been included in the School land use designations at that
time. The college development and growth progression in the intervening years since 1995 indicates
there is a need for increasing schools zoning in this area of the City.
(3) Is there a public need for the proposed Rezone that will clearly benefit the local
neighborhood and/or the community of Bremerton?
3
Response: As basically the singular institute of higher learning available in the regional area, and
when coupled with the College's Ambitious Master Plan to maintain that status it is clearly in the best
interest of the neighborhood and the larger community of Bremerton and the surrounding "area of
influence" to support those efforts to continue provisions for quality, higher, learning opportunities
through an aggressive growth program.
(4) Are all essential public facilities and services available and adequate, or can be
made available, to serve the types and levels of development permitted in the
requested zone?
Response: All of the utility infrastructure required to support development of this property exists in
the area. If there are any deficiencies in the existing infrastructure, whether for roads, water, sewer or
storm sewer, the application process for further development of campus facilities will be required to pay
for or participate in the expenses required to upgrade the utility or road service systems.
(5) Will the area being proposed for rezoning become part of a larger zoning district or
form a new district which will not be considered an isolated "spot zone?"
Response: The Olympic College request for an Official Zoning Map amendment (Rezone) would
continue a land use pattern which would become an extension of the existing schools zoning
classification and woulf further bring the zoning classification into the schools designation projected on
the 1995 Comprehensive Plan.
The Bremerton Municipal Code, Section 21.02.090 "PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY" states:
Regulations used to implement the Comprehensive Plan, including zoning, must be consistent with the
Plan. Figure 090, PRIMARY ZONE CONSISTENCY depicts the relationships between each Plan
designation and the primary zones.
Response: The current Comprehensive Plan designation of the parcel, Schools (S) includes the
proposed Parks and Schools (PS) zone as the primary zone. Application and reclassification of the
current zone to Parks and Schools (PS) will achieve consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and
the Official Zoning Map, as required by the State's Growth Management Act.
RECOMMENDATION::
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE MADE UPON FURTHER EVALUATION
OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED. ADDITIONALLY, AT
SOME NEAR FUTURE TIME THIS PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A SINGULAR NON
PROJECT ACTION ALONG WITH OTHER SIMILAR PROJECTS IN ORDER TO ASSESS THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FOR PURPOSES OF ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT PROCESS AND ASSOCIATED REZONES.
4
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: July 25, 2001
the Comprehensive Plan to include a new Land Use policy DEPT. OF ORIGIN: P&B- Land Use
allowing front yard setbacks of new residential development to ORIGINATOR: Chris Huqo, Director
reflect the established setbacks of existing structures along the DATE SUBMITTED: July, 18 2001
same street frontage.
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
P&B Director: /~~~ ,, o PC Findings & Conclusions
City Attorney.;/'~,~'~.~~,___._- , o PC Minutes July 17, 2001
City Clerk: '~',,,-~~'..,~ ,.-- ./'/~' o Staff Report
Fiscal & Budget Counc!l Comm.: ./'~'.,~'c-"""~f~ o Ordinance to amend Comp Plan
Operations Comm.: E;~.. ~.~,~;82~~-~
ENDORSEMENT ~__ INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application PL01-0016, proposes to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to include a new policy 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 along the same street frontage.
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing and adopted Findings &
Conclusions at their July 17, 2001 meeting, and recommends City Council approval. The Council must conduct a
public hearing prior to its final decision and action on the proposed Ordinance.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to approve the attached Ordinance # on first reading.
Move to pass the attached Ordinance # on second reading.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AM ET',,I~) E D.~L~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: (~/- / (~ 7
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE'
If the proposed ordinance is not approved, the city will lose the capability .............
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
82.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the Bremerton City Council amending the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, with the
inclusion of a new Policy 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 along the same street frontage.
The City douncil of Bremerton makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has adopted its revised Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance
4545 in February 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton amended it's revised Comprehensive Plan and Map by
Ordinance No. 4606 in September 1997 and by Resolution No. 2702 in August 1999; and
WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan amendments must be adopted by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Goals and Policies of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan promote infill
development and redevelopment within the established fabric of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan lacks policy guidance to insure that existing community
character is maintained as new infill development and redevelopment occurs in established
neighborhoods and districts; and
WHEREAS, many neighborhoods and districts in Bremerton were developed prior to the
enactment of current development standards, and many structures and properties within these areas are
non-conforming to these standards; and
WHEREAS, new infill development should maintain front yard setback patterns in established
residential neighborhoods to compliment existing styles and patterns of development, rather than be
forced to comply with current setback requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed policy to promote the continuation of established front yard setback
patterns is relevant to Goals 1. - 6. of the Growth Management Act and satisfies the decision criterion
that requires that the Comprehensive Plan be in compliance with the Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, the proposed policy for compatible infill development and the maintenance of
traditional front yards is a necessary addition to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed policy provides an adequate policy foundation for implementing
regulations that will allow infill development that is compatible with the existing character of the
neighborhood
WHEREAS, any changes in development or use potential effected by the amendment will not
create significant adverse impacts on existing sensitive land uses, businesses or residences; and
WHEREAS, the amendment can be accommodated by all applicable public services and
facilities, including transportation; and
WHEREAS, the amendment will have no substantive impacts beyond the City limits, nor will it
have cumulative adverse impact; and
WHEREAS; the Bremerton Planning Commission, following a public hearing on July 17, 2001,
determined that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and has submitted its Findings
and Conclusions in support of its recommendation to approve this Comprehensive Plan Policy Addition
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on August 1, 2001 to accept
public comments pertaining to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Policy Addition Amendment to
consider the Planning Commission's recommendation; now therefore:
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN THE FOLLOWING
Section 1: That the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan is amended to include the following
new Plan Element Policy entitled:
Community Character, Compatible Development:
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
along the same street frontage.
Section 2: This effective date of this Ordinance shall be ten (10) days from the date of
passage and publication by the Mayor and City Council.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ~ day of ,2001.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of ,2001.
JOHN LAW
City Council President
APPROVED this ~ day of ,2001.
ATTEST: LYNN S. HORTON
Mayor
KATHLEENMcCLUSKEY
City Clerk
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
PL01-0016: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to include a new
policy 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 along the same street
frontage.
FINDINGS:
1. Goals and policies of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan promote infill
development and redevelopment within the established fabric of the
City.
2. The Comprehensive Plan lacks policy guidance to insure that existing
community character is maintained as new infill development and
redevelopment occurs in established neighborhoods and districts.
3. Many neighborhoods and districts in Bremerton were developed prior to
the enactment of current development standards, and many structures
and properties within these areas are non-conforming to these
standards.
4. New infill development should maintain front yard setback patterns in
established residential neighborhoods to compliment existing styles and
patterns of development, rather than be forced to comply with current
setback requirements.
5. The proposed policy to promote the continuation of established front
yard setback patterns is relevant to Goals 1. - 6. of the Growth
Management Act and satisfies the decision criterion that requires that
the Comprehensive Plan be in compliance with the Growth Management
Act.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed policy for compatible infill development and the
maintenance of traditional front yards is a necessary addition to the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed policy furthers the goals and intents of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act.
3. The proposed policy provides an adequate policy foundation for
implementing regulations that will allow infill development that is
compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood.
Approved by the Bremerton Planning Commission
Attest:
Chris Hugo
Chair / Secretary
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL NAME: Policy Addition to Encourage Compatible Residential
Infill Development (Maintenance of Traditional Front
Yards)
REPORT DATE: April 23, 2001
APPUCANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBER): City of Bremerton (PLO 1-0016)
CONTACT: Chris Hugo, Director- Planning and Building Department; Phone: 360/478-5243
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal will apply to the entire city.
BACKGROUND: A substantial number of structures and buildings in Bremerton were
constructed pdor to the adoption and enforcement of current laws and
regulations pertaining to setback standards and now exist as non-
conforming structures. In many cases, setback standards were not an
issue as available land was developed and neighborhoods began to take
on identities as a result of plans and regulations (or a lack thereof) in
place pdor to the current development standards. These long-standing
conditions are part of the City's character.
The Growth Management Act goals and the Bremerton Comprehensive
Plan encourage the efficient use of land for urban development. For
residential use, this suggests that smaller lots, higher percentage of lot
coverage, and decreased setbacks are appropriate in some
neighborhood settings. These site characteristics are prevalent in the
Shore Drive, Madrona Point and other established neighborhoods.
The 1995 Comprehensive Plan provides no guidance as to how new infill
residential developments should relate to this traditional development
pattern. As the community continues to grow and strives to attract new
residents to these older neighborhoods, development policies are
needed to guide compatible infiil development of residential properties.
This is particularly critical for the front yard setback that is the most
visible site characteristic from public streets. Until a more comprehensive
assessment of appropriate development standards for infill residential
development is conducted, a policy to maintain traditional front yards will
help insure that new infill development fits the character of the area.
PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT: The following new policy is proposed to ~
include in a new Plan element, Community Character, and section,
Compatible Developmen¢.
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 along
the same street frontage.
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 new residential projects on. parcels
that would otherwise be passed over for more easily develoPed sites on the urban
periphery.
Goal 3. Transportation: Measures to promote infill development and land use efficiency
also help promote efficient transportation systems.
Goal 4. Housin,q: The availability and cost of housing are both related to efficient
utilization of urban land, which are both promoted by this policy.
Goal 5. Economic Development: Increasing the city's residential base by attracting infill
development adds market opportunity for new economic enterprise.
Goal 6. Property Rights: This policy will promote equal regulatory treatment of property
that has similar development opportunities as existing developed properties in the
vicinity.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was issued
for this non-proiect action in accordance with WAC 197-11.
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 criteria as presented are primarily 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 criteria
are the only ones adopted to apply to decisions of this type.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: July 25, 2001
the Comprehensive Plan, to include a new policy to promote the DEPT. OF ORIGIN: P&B- Land Use
adaptive reuse of public and semi-public buildings. ORIGINATOR: Chris Huqo, Director
DATE SUBMITTED: July, 18 2001
2. CLEA~NCES: (Comment on back i~ necessa~) 3, EXHIBITS:
P&B Director: .~~~
City Attorne~~~ ./ o PC Findings & Conclusions
o PC Minutes July 17, 2001
City Clerk: v ~ ~ ~ .~ ~" o Staff iepo~
Fiscal & Budget Council.,Comm.: ~ ~~~ o Ordinance to amend Comp Plan
O r '
pe abons Comm.:
ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNClL~~T FOR SUBMITTAL:
The City of Bremedon School District Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application PL01-0010, proposes to
amend Element E. Land Use, to include a new policy to: Promote the reuse of public and semi-public buildings
that are no longer needed to se~e their original prima~ purpose, provided that a new use is consistent with the
surrounding planned environment. (Note: The regulato~ measures for implementation of PL01-0010, New
Comprehensive Plan Policy addressing Adaptive Reuse of Public and Semi-public Buildings are addressed in
PL01-0011, Zoning Text Amendment proposal).
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing and adopted Findings &
Conclusions at their July 17, 2001 meeting, and recommends City Council approval. The Council must conduct a
public hearing prior to its final decision and action on the proposed Ordinance.
5. RECOMMENDATION'
Move to approve the attached Ordinance # on first reading.
Move to pass the attached Ordinance # on second readin,q.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED__ TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AME'N~;D~"
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: L~( - linc~
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the proposed ordinance is not approved, the city will lose the capability .............
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
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the Bremerton City Council amending the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, Element
E. Land Use, Section 3.A., to add a new policy 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 consistent with the surrounding planned environment.
The City Council of Bremerton makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has adopted its revised Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance
4545 in February 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton amended it's revised Comprehensive Plan and Map by
Ordinance No. 4606 in September 1997 and by Resolution No. 2702 in August 1999; and
WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan amendments must be adopted by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, over Bremerton's 100-plus year history, many schools, fire stations,
churches and other public and semi-public community buildings have been constructed in
locations that serve residential; and
WHEREAS, as the community's needs have changed over time, due to changes in
demographics, development patterns, or lifestyle preferences, some of these buildings have
lost functionality for their original; and
WHEREAS, public and semi-public buildings that have lost functionality for their original
purpose can often retain economic value if give the opportunity for other uses; and
WHEREAS, adding economic life to existing development conserves resources that
would otherwise be consumed for new development; and
WHEREAS, the opportunity to re-use public and semi-public buildings to extend their
economic life needs to be balanced with the potential impact of new occupancy on the
surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan does not include policies that provide a foundation
for regulating the conversion of public and semi-public buildings to new uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed new policy for adaptive re-use of public and semi-public
buildings expresses the community's interest in extending the economic life of these buildings;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed new policy expresses an appropriate balance among the
community's interests in economic activity, resource conservation, and neighborhood
preservation, and
WHEREAS, the proposed policy is a necessary addition to the Comprehensive Plan to
provide guidance for the regulation of public and semi-public buildings that are proposed for
adaptive re-use in neighborhood settings; and
WHEREAS, any changes in development or use potential effected by the amendment will not
create significant adverse impacts on existing sensitive land uses, businesses or residences; and
WHEREAS, the amendment can be accommodated by all applicable public services and
facilities, including transportation; and
WHEREAS, the amendment will have no substantive impacts beyond the City limits, nor will it
have cumulative adverse impact; and
WHEREAS; the Bremerton Planning Commission, following a public hearing on July 17, 2001,
determined that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and has submitted its Findings
and Conclusions in support of its recommendation to approve this Comprehensive Plan Policy Addition
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public headng on August 1, 2001 to accept
public comments pedaining to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Policy Addition Amendment to
consider the Planning Commission's recommendation; now therefore:
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN THE FOLLOWING
Section l: That the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan is amended to include the following
new policy to Element E. Land Use, Section 3.A:
~ u.n.nnrtin_n Pnlici~_~
(6) 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.
Section 2: This effective date of this Ordinance shall be ten (10) days from the date of
passage and publication by the Mayor and City Council.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of ,2001.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2001.
JOHN LAW
City Council President
APPROVED this ~ day of ,2001.
ATTEST: LYNN S. HORTON
Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY
City Clerk
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
PL01-0010: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Element E. Land
Use, Section 3.A., to add a new policy 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 consistent with the surrounding
planned environment.
FINDINGS:
1. Over Bremerton's 100-plus year history, many schools, fire stations,
churches and other public and semi-public community buildings have been
constructed in locations that serve residential neighborhoods.
2. As the community's needs have changed over time, due to changes in
demographics, development patterns, or lifestyle preferences, some of
these buildings have lost functionality for their original purpose.
3. Public and semi-public buildings that have lost functionality for their original
purpose can often retain economic value if give the opportunity for other
uses.
4. Adding economic life to existing development conserves resources that
would otherwise be consumed for new development.
5. The opportunity to re-use public and semi-public buildings to extend their
economic life needs to be balanced with the potential impact of new
occupancy on the surrounding neighborhood.
6. The Comprehensive Plan does not include policies that provide a
foundation for regulating the conversion of public and semi-public buildings
to new uses.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed new 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 proposed new policy expresses an appropriate balance among the
community's interests in economic activity, resource conservation, and
neighborhood preservation.
3. The proposed policy is a necessary addition to the Comprehensive Plan to
provide guidance for the regulation of public and semi-public buildings that
are proposed for adaptive re-use in neighborhood settings.
Approved by the Bremerton Planning Commission on""~-' '~k.-)~ /'?£ ~ f .
Attest:
Chair ~/~~ ~" sCeh rcirSetHaUr¢ o "~
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
STAFF 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
APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): Bremerton School District (PL01-0010;
PL01-0011)
CONTACT: Chds Hugo, Director- Planning and Building Department; Phone: 360/478-5243
LOCATION OF PROI~3SAL.: This proposal will apply to the entire city.
BACXGROUND: 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 neighbomood settings in
almost every city.
The existence of these facilities is recognized as an inherent part of U~e
neighborhood fabdc, but changes in urban growth, the emergence'of
new technology, and changes in community needs 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 bdck, 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 otherwise
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 muse of public and semi-public buildings that am 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 21.02.315- When the need 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
atlowed 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 public hearing 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.
COMPUANCE'MTN 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 odginai purpose.
Goal 3. Transportation: Measures to promote infill development through adaptive reuse
and urban revitalization also help promote efficient transportation systems.
Goal 4. Housin,q: 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. Histodc 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 nomproiect action in accordance wfth WAC 197-11 on March 17, 2001.
DECISION CRITERIA.' The Comprehensive/=lan specifies the procedures and conditions
under which amendments to the Plan may be approved. Section 2. D. of Plan Element
K. states that 'Eact~ component of a Plan amendment package shall be reviewed and
approved only if it meets the [following] criteria:" (- the five criteda are listed on page 2.
of Element K. -).
The criteria as presented are pdmadly relevant to map amendments, not policy
amendments - only the first .criterion seems to al2piy to this policy amendment and is
addressed in the discussion of GMA compliance above. However, the published criteria
are the only ones adopted to aPl=iY to decisions of this type.
ZONING CONSISTENCY: The approval criteda for amendments to the Zoning Code text.
relate to internal consistency. The pro¢osed zoning text amendment is intended to
iml21ement the proposed adal2tive reuse policy and maintain regulator,/consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment must also be found to be consistent with ail
other provisions of the Zoning Code.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq to consider an appeal of a FOR AGENDA OF' July 25, 2001
SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued at the DEPT. OF ORIGIN: P&B - Land Use
request of the City's Building & Planning Department, to amend ORIGINATOR: Chris Hu.qo, Director
the Development Standards by modifying open space requirements. DATE SUBMITTED: July, 18 2001
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
P&B Director: (~~~ o DNS
City Attorne ..~...,~'~/'- // · o Appeal
City Clerk: ~/'~~~ ?//.,_~ o Staff Report
Fiscal & Buc~ Co'uncil,,Co~nn~.i / ~ ~_~,./.~' o Written Record
Operations(~omm.: ~¢z_~.~,_~. ~_~'~~~_~'~
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCI~'P~ESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENTcFOR COUNCIL ACTION:
An Official Zoning Code Text amendment in the form of a Rezone application was received from the City's Building &
Planning Department. The applicant's request is for an Official Zoning Code Text amendment in the form of a Rezone
application. The proposed end result will be to amend the text of Bremerton Municipal Code Title 21, Land Use, Chapter
21.02, Zoning Code, by modifying Section 21.02.750, Open Space, to allow inclusion of required buffers and yard
setback areas in the minimum 15 percent open space of the total gross area of any development having a total gross area
greater than one acre; and to delete reference to active and passive areas; and to delete the requirement for recreational
open space. This zoning code text amendment proposal, if approved, would be implemented on a citywide basis. Zoning
Text Amendment application requests are considered non-project actions, which do not propose specific development
projects.
An Appeal of the non-project SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued has been received contending that
there was an error in issuing the non-project DNS and that a full environmental review (EIS) should have been
accomplished.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to uphold/deny the Appeal of the DNS, issued April 23, 2001, for Project PL01-0035,
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AME~I~DED,~ ~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The subject appeal will create no operational changes for the city.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Ordinance
File
Site Visits
SEPA regulations
From: "HELEN R MILLER" <HELEGEOR@prodigy.net>
To: "LORI SMITH" <lsmith@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Date: 7/26/01 8:17PM
Subject: Copy of Helen's comments - from draft notes
scribe M sends:
Helen Miller COMMENTS to the City Council re the Mentor Appeal of the Albertson Project
25 July, 2001
These same comments were applicable to both Appeals:
This non-project action proposal would not appear to have a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment, if you have visited the site..
It sponsors the question as to whether the appellant's actions in this matter are based on a true regard for
the environment and the laws protecting it - or possibly has personal business undertones.
It might clarify the issue for all concerned were the appellant to make a public declaration as to the effect
of this development as proposed would have on his personal interests.
The appeal questions Bremerton's Planning and Building Department NOT having notified the appellant of
the issuance of a DNS., when issued.
Did the appellant specifically, in writing, request to be notified of the issuance of a DNS? If not, the
appellant had the responsibility to read the newspaper - which is deemed to be notice - under the
governing RCWs and WACs.
The Public Records Act requires a request to be reasonably specific, not general in nature.
I request the Council to DENY the appeal of the non-project SEPA Determination.
Helen Miller P. O. Box 788 Bremerton, WA 98337
Mentor Law Groupi LLC
1505 WestlakeAvenue North, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98109
TEL 206.676.7008 ~^X 206.676.7001
Peter H. Dyks-tra
direct 206.676.7095
dykstra~mentorlaw.com
July 25,2001
City Council
City of Bremerton
239 - 4th St.
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Written Testimony on Behalf of Eldorado Hills, Inc. for Appeal of
Determination of Non-Significance for City of Bremerton Text
Amendment Request To Amend Open Space Requirements
Dear City Councilmembers:
Our firm represents Eldorado Hills, Inc., the owner of Perry Avenue Mall.
Tonight you are being asked to approve two text amendments of the City's
Zoning Code. One concerns the parking ratio requirements for Food Stores and
Supermarkets in the City, and the other concerns the calculations for Open Space
Requirements for any development in excess of one gross acre.
Fundamentally, these text amendments also involve another proposal by
Albertsons Stores, Inc., currently pending before the City Planning Department.
Albertsons has submitted an application for Site Plan Review and SEPA
processing of a proposed new 50,000+ sq. ft. complex on the northeast corner of
Wheaton Way and Sheridan Road. We are greatly concerned about the
environmental impacts of the development proposed by Albertsons at this
location. It is clear that any such development requires an analysis of all
environmental impacts and those of any alternatives before the proposal may be
approved.
We have appealed the Determinations of Non-Significance ("DNSs") the
City staff issued on the two text amendments. This appeal concerns the DNS for
the text amendment proposed by the City but instigated for the Albertsons
project. The law requires that the environmental review for this text amendment
be conducted in concert with the environmental review of the entire Albertsons
proposal. City staff has already determined that the Albertsons project will have
significant environmental impacts, without considering the impact from this text
amendment. See Exhibit 1. The City Council must require the City staff to revisit
its environmental review of this text amendment. The law requires further
Bremerton City Council
July 25, 2001
Page 2
environmental review of the text amendment and the Albertsons project together
as a single action.
City staff has characterized the proposed text amendment regarding the
open space requiremen.ts as separate from the proposed development and as a
"city-wide" amendment. Although the change will have city-wide impacts, the
characterization that it is separate from the Albertsons proposal is false. The City
proposed the text amendment during the course of reviewing the Albertsons
project and Albertsons has indicated its need for the proposed amendment in
order to complete the project. See Exhibit 2. To claim that the text amendment
proposal is separate from the Albertsons development proposal, regardless of
whether it will also change open space requirements for other developments in
the City, is disingenuous.
Moreover, the City's decision to separate the text amendments from
environmental review of the Albertsons project is a violation of SEPA's clear
prohibition on phased review or segmentation of review. See WAC 197-11-
060(3); see Exhibit 3. Phased review or segmentation is not appropriate for two
proposals "related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of
action." WAC 197-11-060(3)(b). Where they are closely related, the actions must
be reviewed in the same environmental analysis. Id. The text amendment
proposed by the City and the Albertsons development proposal clearly meet the
requirements that these actions be reviewed as a singled course of action.
SEPA prohibits a governmental agency from moving forward with a
particular course of action until a threshold determination and subsequent
environmental impact analysis, if any, is completed. WAC 197-11-055(2)(c).
Where a rezone, text amendment or other zoning change is connected to a project
proposal that has the potential to more than moderately affect the environment,
an EIS must be done at the rezone stage. See Indian Trails Property Owner's
Association v. Spokane, 76 Wn. App. 430, 440 (1994).
We believe that the City's attempt to cast the changes in this text
amendment as "city-wide" and separate from the Albertsons project is an
attempt to avoid considering the environmental impacts of the text amendments
cumulatively with the environmental impacts of the Albertsons project.
Albertsons needs the text amendments for its project to move forward, and the
text amendments are driven by the Albertsons proposal. Therefore, the
environmental impact of these amendments must be considered as an integral
part of the proposal. A DNS that does not consider the cumulative impacts of
the entire project is insufficient to comply with SEPA.
Full environmental review of the text amendments and the proposed
Albertsons development, together as a single action, is required before either the
Bremerton City Council
July 25, 2001
Page 3
text amendments or the development proposal can be approved. The City
should not approve the proposed text amendments until SEPA review is
completed for the entire Albertsons proposal. The DNS for the Open Space Text
Amendment does not comply with SEPA's requirements.
We respectfully request that the City Council withdraw the DNS
regarding the text amendment proposed by the City and have the environmental
review of the text amendment done in concert with the review of the entire
Albertsons project. Anything less flies in the face of both the letter and spirit of
SEPA.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
MENTOR LAW GROUP, PLLC
ETER H. DYKSTRA
CC: Eldorado Hills, Inc.
CITY OF BREMERTON ~,.
BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MI:TliGATED D:ETER. MINATION OF NONSIG.NIFICA. NCE
Environmental Application No. PLO 1-003 l Parcel No. ! 22401-2.038-2005
Date issued: June 21, 2001
Revised July 13, 2001, to reflect language clarification comments received prior to Comment Period Deadline.
ACTION: Commercial Site Plan review: Albertsons Grocery. Store, ancillary. Retail Shops structure, and Fuel Center.
PROPOSAL: Albertsons, Inc. proposes to redevelop a six (6) acre portion of the former Bremerton Middle School site. The
project proposal includes construction of a new 51,150 square foot, full service Albertsons Grocery Store. an
11,300 square foot ancillary structure for retail shops, and a 1,814 square foot "A-Express" fuel center. Public
roadway improvements, associated parking, landscaping and utility infrastructure improvements are also proposed.
LOCATION: The project site is located at the northeast corner of Wheaton Way (SR303) and Sheridan Road in the NW Quarter.
of Section 12, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.
PROPONENT: Albertsons, Inc.
The Responsible Official of the City of Bremerton hereby makes the following Findings and Conclusions based upon a review of the
environmental checklist and attachments, other information on file with the City of Bremerton, and the policies, plans, and
regulations designated by the CiO of Bremerton as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State
Environmental Policy. Act (SEPA) pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
I. Proposal is for the construction of a new 51,150 square foot. full service Albertsons Groce~ Store. an 11.300 square foot
ancillary, structure tbr retail shops, and a 1.814 square foot "A-Express" fuel center with underground fuel storage tanks.
Associated site development includes ~e export of approximately 7.000 cubic yards of excavated material, and the
importation and ~'ading of approximately 2,200 cubic yards of sub-base material for impervious surface placement.
Approximately 85% of the proposed development area will be covered with impervious surfaces including provisions for
parking 260 vehicles. Public roadway improvements, associated parking, fencing, landscaping and utility infrastructure
improvements and an on-site storm water/drainage system are also proposed. The project xvill be served by public water and
2. The proposal is located on a six (6) acre portion of the former Bremerton Middle School site. located at the northeast corner
of Wheaton Way (SR-303) and Sheridan Road. Topographically. the site is relatively fiat and is devoid of any significant
vegetation. No wetlands or surface waters are located on the site. The project [s located in a General Business (GB) zone
classification and land use in the vicinity' includes some mixed use strip commercial on both sides of SR-303 (Wheaton
Way). Improved ball fields are located immediately east of the project and school facilities remain functional on the north
side of the proposal site.
A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants and presented for review February.
Supplemental traffic analysis repons were prepared on April 26. 2001 and on May 26. 2001. The reports analyzed the
impacts of traffic generated from the proposed commercial development on the street system serving the proposed project.
The proposed development at full occupancy, is expected to result in an increase of 3.915 daily vehicle trips, including 366
vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. The Engineering Division of the City of Bremerton has determined that tile
proposal may result in significant impacts to the City's transportation ~stem and that improvements to the transportation
~'stem will be necessa~ to accommodate the development. Potential significant impacts associated with increased traffic
generated by this development will be adequately mitigated through compliance with the traffic mitigation measures listed
in the MITIGATION section of this Mitigated Determination.
E r cr
MITIGATION: The Responsible Official has determined that the proposal, as modified, July 13, 2001, for language clarification,
does not have a probable significant impact on the enviromnent, and an Environmental hnpact Statemem (ELS) is not required under
RCW 43.2 lC.030(2)(c), cmly if the fc~llnwing cnndilicm~ are met This decision was made after review of comments received pr;or to
the expiration of tile comment period, a completed environmental checklist, other information on file with tile CiW of Bremerton.
and existing regulations. This information is available to the public on request. These mitigation measures are required as
authorized under the Substantive Authority of SEPA in accordance with the guidelines contained in Chapter 21.12 of tile Bremerton
Municipal Code and shall be implemented by tile Proponent.
1, Traffic .Mitigation:
1-1. The Proponent will be required to participate in providing two left-turn lanes from southbound SR303 to eastbound Sheridan
Road and eliminating the two-way [eft turn lane (and associated left turn from SR303 southbound to the North Access Road
eastbound) as mitigation for their traffic impacts at such time that the Cie,,' constructs tfus improvement. Tile Proponent will be
required to financially contribute on a fair share basis to the cost of associated improvements at the Sheridan Road/SR.303
intersection at that time. See the following Item l-lA. Financing Requirements for a description of tile method to be used for
ROW valuation and cost-sharing. The Proponent will be required to enter into an agreement with the Citw regarding their
contribution to this capital project prior to issuance of development permits.
ROW intended for future dedication to the City (e.g.. New Spruce Street Extension) will be constructed m per the project plan
dated 6/6/01 and accordance with the City's 2001 Standards.
l-lA. Financing Requirements. The Proponent xvill utilize tile following method for calculating tile value of dedicated ROW and
estimating the Applicant's fair share:
Dedicated land needed for future projects O.e. Sheridan/SR303 intersectmn improvements and
Sheridan/New Spruce Street Ext. intersection improvements) will be determined on a per square foot basis
from a certified appraisal done at the time of the improvements. If land is dedicated, the land value will
be credited against the Proponent's proportionate share of each improvement.
The Proponent's proportionate share of such improvements will be determined by a traffic study conducted by the City
in the year proceeding start of construction on of the project. At the option of and for the convemence of the Proponent.
the Ci~ will accept financial payment from the Proponent earlier than commencement of construct;on for either
anticipated capital prOJect. If such pre-payment is desired by tile Proponent. the Proponent must agree in writing that ~t
has reviexved the case law on Benchmark Land Company vs. City of Battle Ground (103 Wash. App. 72 [. 14 P. 3~d 172.
December 2000) and acknowledges that such pre-payment is proport;onate to tile impact and within the nexus of the
project. The amount of such pre-payment will be equivalent to the proportion of tile Proponent's traffic impact (trips
during the PM peak hour) as compared to the total traffic through the intersection times the cost of those improvements
directly related to the Proponent's traffic.
The proportion of the Proponent's traffic impact ~s estimated lo be approximately -I.. 1% for the Sheridan and SR303
intersection (June 26. 2001 Gibson Traffic Consultants letter to Atbertsons). The estimated cost of construction for tile
future capital prOJect soley for those components which are attributable to tile Proponent's traffic (i.e. road widening.
channelizat;on, center banner, new signal, curb gutter, and sidewalk) is $676.000 based on a Seattle ENR-CCI of 760()
The payment amount will be adjusted in accordance with tile current Seattle ENR-CCI and/or an updated Engineering
cost estimate, with the method to be determined by tile City
The proportion of the Proponent's traffic impact is estimated to be approximatel? 30.5% for the Sheridan and New
Spruce Street intersection (based on model output included m the May 26. 21)01 GTC memorandum). The estimated
cost of construction for project components attributable to the Proponent's tralTic (i.e. new signal and pedestrian
crossings) is $234.000 based on a Seattle ENR-CCI of 761)0 The payment amount will be adjusted in accordaace with
the current Seattle ENR-CC[ and/or an updated Engineering cost estimate, with the method to be determined by thc
City.
A
?his Modified Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-350. The Responsible Official
has reconsidered the June 22. 2001 MDNS based on timely comments and has elected to retain, with language modifications for
:larification, the MDNS. As the MDNS, with modifications, is being retained it is being reissued as a final document with no
:omment period. No permits may be issued, and the applicant shall not begin work, until the comment deadline has expired and any
,ther necessa~ permits are issued.
~esponsible Official: Christopher R. Hugo. Director
.~ad Agent': Ciw of Bremerton
Building and Planning Department
City. of Bremerton. Permit Center
286 4th Street
Bremerton. Washington 98337
(360) 478-5275
)ate of Re-Issue: July 16, 2001
)ate of Re-issue Publication: July 18. 2001
2omment Deadline: Re-issued with no comment period.
X. ppeal Deadline: August 1. 2001
qOTE: Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and City. of Bremerton Environmental Regulations. Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC)
2hapter 21.12. Decisions of the Responsible Official may be appealed. Appeals are filed with appropriate fees at the Building and
~lanning Department. located at the Bremerton ?emit Center. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the Date of Re-issue.
qOTE: The issuance of this Modified Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance does not constitute project approval. The
t@@licant must comply with all other applicable requirements of City. of Bremerton Departments prior to receiving construction
~ermits.
724MI)NSMIT.DOC
Pacific Land Design
Chris Hugo HAR 2 1 2001
Planning Director BREMER~G.~
City of B remerton BUIL01NG DEP~RTMEN:'
286 Fou~h Street
Breme~on, Washington 98337
Subject: Proposed Albe~sons Store; Breme~on, Washington
Dear Mr. Hugo:
Thanks for making yourself available to meet with the Albe~sons project team today. We felt
the meeting was ve~ produ~ive toward resolving the regulato~ constraints to allow this
project to move fo~ard.
At the conclusion of our meeting today, we submitted, on behalf of Albe~sons, seven full size
copies of the revised Site Plan ~SB, prepared by Donahou Design Group. As requested,
seven 11 "xl 7' reduced scale copies are enclosed. This revised Site Plan supersedes the
previously submi~ Site Plan, which was formally rescinded by Albe~sons on March 15~.
Therefore, this revised plan should be the basis for the Ci~'s SEPA analysis and Site Plan
Review.
Based on our meeting today, we understand that the Site Plan issues discussed last week will
be resolved as follows:
1. Parking: Albertsons desires to achieve a parking ratio of 5 stalls per 1,000 SF gross
building area, consistent with current Zoning Code requirements. However, due to
the site constraints on this redevelopment property, this ratio is not possible. We
understand that there is no administrative flexibility regarding the minimum parking
requirements per code. Therefore, we have previously requested a Zoning Code Text
Amendment on this issue. We understand from our discussion today that the Text
Amendment will be considered by the Planning Commission at a public meeting to be
held April 10th, followed by a public hearing at the City Council approximately one
month later.
2. Public Roadways/Right-of-Way Dedication: The project proposal includes R.O.W.
dedication and the construction of 3/~ street improvements to public arterial standards
along the eastern project limit. This is consistent with the language of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone of the subject parcel (Resolution #98-
02), which require a new public street to extend northward from Sheridan Road. We
understand that the City has considered the possibility of another p~blic roadway
Page 2
Chris Hugo
March 20,2001
construction/dedication on the northern limit of the property, between the previously
described new roadway north of Sheridan and Wheaton Way. However, as we have
discussed, such a dedication is not possible on the project site, due to the limited site
area to support the proposed store, parking, and landscaping. Therefore, such a
dedication is not included in the Albertsons project proposal. The Site Plan, as
submitted, provides the necessary access for customer traffic, service vehicles, and
emergency vehicles through commercial standard driveways and parking lot
circulation. Furthermore, the establishment of a public "grid" road at this location
does not seem to be required in either Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the
Wheaton Way corridor, or the Comprehensive Plan/Rezone of the subject site.
Nonetheless, we understand that the City may seek a commitment from the school
district to develop such a roadway in the future, at such time that the balance of the
school district property is redeveloped. We have no objection to the City pursuing
such a commitment, provided that it does not delay the review and approval of the
proposed Albertsons project.
3. Front Yard Setbacks: Since this project will be dedicating right-of-way for a new
public roadway at the eastern project limit, it will have frontage on two parallel public
streets. We understand that the City normally considers both such street frontages to
require a "front yard" setback. However, Section 21.02.160(a)(2) provides that the
Director may grant an Administrative Exception to this requirement if several criteria
are met. This project does indeed meet these criteria of having an entire frontage
consist of a single property (Spruce Street extension), and that the buildings would be
clearly oriented in a similar direction away from the site being considered for
designation as the rear lot line. Therefore, we understand that the City will consider
issuing an Administrative Exception to allow the proposed Spruce Street extension
right-of-way to be considered a rear lot line.
We have previously submitted a Text Amendment to revise the required building
setbacks. In the event that the City does not grant the Administrative Exception
described above, we understand that a Text Amendment would be considered by the
Planning Commission at a public meeting scheduled for April 10th.
4. Open Space: We understand that commercial developments, such as proposed, are
subject to various landscaping requirements. These include parking lot buffers,
interior parking lot landscaping, and street trees. We further understand that Section
21.02.750 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 15% of the site be retained as
open space, exclusive of the above referenced landscaping areas. As we have
discussed, this section of the Zoning Code seems to be inconsistent with the balance
of the development criteria and the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we understand
the City .Planning staff will initiate a Zoning Code Text Amendment to eliminate this
open space provision. We understand that the Planning Commission will consider
this Text Amendment at a public meeting scheduled for April 17th.
Page 3
Chris Hugo
March 20, 2001
We appreciate the staff's willingness to work together with the Albertsons team to resolve
these development criteria such that the Albertsons project can proceed forward. If our
understanding of the resolution described above is inconsistent with your own, please let us
know immediately. Otherwise, we anticipate that the City will complete it's SEPA review,
and issue its determination within the next week, so the appeal period can be completed
prior to the scheduled public meetings.
Thanks again for your assistance. If you need any additional information to complete the
SEPA review, please let us know.
Sincerely,
~'(m Towslee, P.E. Principal
DJT:jj
cc: Don Barker, Albertsons
Peter Powell, Powell Development
Walt Draper, Bremerton School District
017334-23A/brabch It02
SEPA Rules
(5) An overall decision to proceed with a course of action use of shoreline and land use contxols; purchase of floodprone
nay involve a series of actions or decisions by one or more areas; or relocation assistance."
gencies. If several agencies have jurisdiction aver a proposal, (b) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each
~ey should coordinate their SEPA processes wherever other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action
ossible. The agencies shall comply with lead agency shall be evaluated in the same environmental document.
etermination requirements in WAC 197-11-050 and 197-11- (Phased review is allowed under subsection (5)). Proposals or
22. parts of proposals are closely related, and they shall be
(6) To meet the requirement to insure that environmental discussed in the same environmental document, ff they:
alues and amenities are given appropriate consideration along (i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals
~ith economic and technical considerations, environmental (or parts of proposals) are implemented simultaneously with
ocuments and analyses shall be circulated and reviewed with them; or
ther planning documents to the fullest extent possible. (ii) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and
(7) For their own public proposals, lead agencies may depend on the larger proposal as their justification or for their
xtend the time limits prescribed in these rules, implementation.
gtatutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESI-IB 1724) and RCW (c) (Optional) Agencies may wish to analyze "similar
actions" in a single environmental document.
3.21C. 110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-055, filed
0/10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory.Authority: RCW (i) Proposals are similar if, when viewed with other
3.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-055, filed reasonably foreseeable actions, they have common aspects that
/10/84, effective 4/4/84.] provide a basis for evaluating their environmental
consequences together, such as common timing, types of
impacts, alternatives, or geography. This section does not
WAC 197-11-060 Content of environmental review. (1) require agencies or applicants to analyze similar actions in a
:.nvironmental review consists of the range of proposed single environmental document or require applicants to prepare
:ctivities, alternatives, and impacts to be analyzed in an
environmental documents on proposals other than their own.
· nvironmental document, in accordance with SEPA's goals and (ii) When preparing environmental doctmaents on similar
~olicies. This section specifies the content of environmental ·
eview common to all environmental documents required under actions, agencies may find it useful to define the proposals in
;EPA. one of the following ways: (A) Geographically, which may
(2) The ~ontent of environmental review: include actions occurring in the same general location, such as
(a) Depends on each particular proposal, on an agency's a body of water, region, or metropolitan area; or (B)
:xisfiag planning and decision-making processes, and on the generically, which may include actions which have relevant
ime when alternatives and impacts can be most meaningfully similarities, such as common timing, impacts, alternatives,
~valuated; methods of implementation, environmental media, or subject
matter.
(b) For the purpose of deciding whether an EIS is required,
s specified in the environmental checklist, in WAC 197-11- (4) Impacts.
530 and 197-11 ~,~.~; (a) SEPA's procedural provisions require the consideration
(c) For an environmental impact statement, is considered of "environmental" impacts (see definition of "environment" in
WAC 197-11-740 and of"impacts" in WAC 197-11-752), with
ts "scope" (WAC 197-11-792 and Part Four of these rules);
attention to impacts that are likely, not merely speculative.
(d) For any supplemental environmental review, is
;pecified in Part Six. (See definition of "probable" in WAC 197-11-782 and 197-11-
(3) Proposals. 080 on incomplete or unavailable information.)
(a) Agencies shall make certain that the proposal that is the (b) In assessing the significance of an impact, a lead
~ubject of environmental review is properly defined, agency shall not limit its consideration of a proposal's impacts
only to those aspects within its jttrisdiction, including local or
(i) Proposals include public projects or proposals by state boundaries(seeWAC 197-11-330(3)also).
agencies, proposals by applicants, ff any, and proposed actions
and regulatory decisions of agencies in response to proposals (c) Agencies shall carefully consider the range of probable
impacts, including short-term and long-term effects. Impacts
by applicants, shall include those that are likely to arise or exist over the
(ii) A proposal by a lead agency or applicant may be put
forward as an objective, as several alternative means of lifetime of a proposal or, depending on the particular proposal,
accomplishing a goal, or as a particular or preferred course of longer.
action. (d) A proposal's effects include direct and indirect impacts
caused by a proposal. Impacts include those effects resulting
(iii) Proposals should be described in ways that encourage from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that
considering and comparing alternatives. Agencies are
the present proposal will serve as a precedent for future actions.
encouraged to describe public or nonproject proposals in terms
of objectves rather than preferred solutions. A proposal could For example, adoption of a zoning ordinance will encourage or
tend to cause particular types of projects or extension of sewer
be described, for example, as "reducing flood damage and
lines would tend to encourage development in previously
achieving better flood control by one or a combination of the
unsewered areas.
following means: Building a new dam; maintenance dredging;
[Ch. 197-11 WAC--p. 4] WAC (4/15/98)
SEPA Rules
(e) The range of impacts to be analyzed in an EIS (direct, [Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW
indirect, and cumulative impacts, WAC 197-11-792) may be 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-060, filed
~v/der ttuan the impacts for which mitigation measures are 10/10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory Authority: RCW
required of applicants (WAC 197-11-660). This will depend 43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-060, filed
upon the specific impacts, the extent to which the adverse 2/10/84, effective4/4/84.]
impacts are attributable to the apphcant~s proposal, and the
capability of apphcants or agencies to control the impacts in WAC 197-11-070 Limitations on actions during S£PA
each situation, process. (1) Until the responsible official issues a final
(5) Phased review, determination of nonsignificance or final enviromnental impact
(a) kead agencies shall determine the appropriate scope statement, no action concerning the proposal shall be taken by a
and level of detail of environmental review to coincide with governmental agency that would:
meaningful points in their planning and decision-making (a) Have an adverse environmental impact; or
processes. (Se~ WAC 197-11-055 on timing of environmental (b) Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.
review.) (2) In addition, certain DNSs require a fourteen-day period
(b) Environmental review may be phased. If used, phased prior to agency action (WAC 197-11-340(2)), and FEISs
review assists agencies and the public to focus on issues that require a seven-day period prior to agency action (WAC 197-
are ready for decision and exclude /rom consideration issues 11-460(4)).
akeady decided or not yet ready. Broader environmental (3) In preparing environmental documents, there may be a
documents may be followed by narrower documents, for need to conduct studies that may cause nonsigmficant
example, that incorporate pr/or general discussion by reference environmental impacts. If such activity is not exempt under
and concentrate solely on the issues specific to that phase of the WAC 197-11-800(18), the activity may nonetheless proceed ff
proposal, a checklist is prepared and appropriate rmtigation measures
(c) Phased review is appropriate when: taken.
(i) The sequence is from a nonproject document to a (4) This section does not preclude developing plans or
document of narrower scope such as a site specific analysis designs, issuing requests for proposals (RFPs), securing
(see, for example, WAC 197-11-443); or options, or performing other work necessary to develop an
(ii) The sequence is from an environmental document on a apphcation for a proposal, as long as such activities are
specific proposal at an early stage (such as need and site consistent with subsection (1).
selecUon) to a subsequent environmental document at a later
[Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW
stage (such as sensitive design impacts). 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-070, filed
(d) Phased review is not appropriate when:
10/10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory Authority: RCW
(i) The sequence is fi.om a narrow project document to a
43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-070, filed
broad policy document; 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84.]
(ii) It would merely divide a larger system into exempted WAC 197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information. (1)
tSagments or avoid discussion of cumulative impacts; or If information on significant adverse impacts essential to a
(iii) It would segment and avoid present consideration of
reasoned choice among alternatives is not known, and the costs
proposals and their impacts that are required to be evaluated in
of obtaining it are not exorbitant, agencies shall obtain and
a single environmental document under WAC 197-11-060 include the information in their environmental documents.
(3)(b) or 197-11-305(1); however, the level of detail and type (2) When there are gaps in relevant information or
of environmental review may vary with the nature and timing scientific uncertainty concerning significant impacts, agencies
of proposals and their component parts, shall make clear that such information is lacking or that
(e) When a lead agency knows it is using phased review, it
substantial uncertainty exists.
shall sostateinitsenvironmentaldocument. (3) Agencies may proceed in the absence of vital
(f) Agencies shall use the environmental checklist, scoping information as follows:
process, nonproject EISs, incorporation by reference, adoption, (a) If information relevant to adverse impacts is essential to
and supplemental EISs, and addenda, as appropriate, to avoid
a reasoned choice among alternatives, but is not kmown, and the
duplication and excess paperwork, costs of obtaining it are exorbitant; or
(g) Where proposals are related to a large existing or (b) If reformation relevant to adverse impacts is important
plmmed network, such as highways, streets, pipelines, or utility
to the decision and the means to obtain it are speculative or not
lines or systmns, the lead agency may analyze in detail the known;
overall network as the present proposal or may select some of
Then the agency shall weigh the need for the action with
the future elements for present detailed consideration. Any the severity of possible adverse impacts which would occur if
phased review shall be logical in relation to the design of the
the agency were to decide to proceed in the face of uncertainty.
overall system or network, and shall be consistent with this
If the agency proceeds, it shall generally indicate in the
section and WAC 197-11-070. appropriate environmental documents its worst case analysis
WAC (4;15/98) [Ch. 197-11 WAC -p. 5]
CITY OF BREMERTON
BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Application No: PL01-0017 Parcel No's: City-wide
Date issued: April 26, 2001
Date published: April 27, 2001
ACTION: OFFICIAL ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
PROPOSAL: The applicant's request is for Official Zoning Code Text amendment in the form of a
Rezone application. This zoning code text amendment proposal, if approved, would be
implemented on a city-wide basis. The proposed end result will be to amend the text of
Bremerton Municipal Code Title 21, Land Use, Chapter 21.02, Zoning Code, by
modifying Section 21.02.750, Open Space, to allow inclusion of required buffers and
yard setback areas in the minimum 15 percent open space of the total gross area of any
development having a total gross area greater than one acre; and to delete reference to
active and passive areas; and to delete the requirement for recreational open space.
LOCATION: This Zoning Code Text amendment proposal applies to all development of sites within
the city with a gross area greater than one acre.
PROPONENT: City of Bremerton, Building & Planning Department
286 4th Street
Bremerton, Wash. 98337
The Responsible Official of the City of Bremerton hereby makes the following Findings and Conclusions
based upon a review of the environmental checklist and attachments, other information on file ~vith the
City of Bremerton, and the policies, plans, and regulations designated by the City of Bremerton as a basis
for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.060.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The City has received an application for a Zoning Code Text amendment. This zoning code text
amendment proposal, if approved, would be implemented on a city-wide basis. The proposed
end result will be to amend the text of Bremerton Municipal Code Title 21, Land Use, Chapter
21.02, Zoning Code, by modifying Section 21.02.750, Open Space, to allow inclusion of required
buffers and yard setback areas in the minimum 15 percent open space of the total gross area of
any development having a total gross area greater than one acre; and to delete reference to active
and passive areas; and to delete the requirement for recreational open space.
2. Zoning Text Amendment application requests are considered non project actions which do not
propose specific development projects. Throughout the year, applications for zoning text
amendments can be submitted. Those zoning text amendments recommended for approval as a
result of the Public Hearing process conducted by the Bremerton Planning Commission are
adopted by City Council Ordinance.
/00
3. A SEPA review check list has been reviewed for this non-project zoning text amendment
proposal. Further development of property effected by this specific zoning text amendment that
is not categorically exempt pursuant to WAC Chapter 197-11-800, and, which will require
issuance of a City license or permit, will be subject to future review under SEPA.
4. An Environmental Impact Statement, for the Bremerton Municipal Code Title 21, Land Use,
Chapter 21.02, Zoning Code was adopted by City of Bremerton Ordinance #3934, February 13,
1997, in which Open space requirements were addressed.
CONCLUSIONS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
The Responsible Official concludes, based on a review of application materials and a review of City
regulations goveming the proposal, that this non-development project action proposal does not have a
probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not
required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on
request.
This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not
act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by closing of the
comment deadline. The Responsible Official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and
may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is
retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. No permits may be issued, and the
applicant shall not begin work, until the comment deadline has expired and any other necessary permits
are issued.
Responsible Official: Christopher R. Hugo, Director, Building and Planning Department
Lead Agency: City of Bremerton, Building and Planning Department
City of Bremerton, Permit Center
286 4th Street
Bremerton, Washington 98337 (360) 478-5275
Date of Issue: April 26, 2001 Comment Deadline: May 10, 2001
Date of Publication: April 27, 2001 . Appe~ Deadline: May 23, 2001
C~i~topher~ugo, Respon~iblTfficial
NOTE: Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and City of Brefnerton Environmental Regulations, Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 21.12. Decisions of the Responsible Official may be appealed. Appeals
are filed with appropriate fees at the Building and Planning Department, located at the Bremerton Permit
Center. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the expiration of the comment deadline.
You may APPEAL this determination to: Bremerton City Council NO LATER THAN: May 23, 2001.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact: Lee A. Wyatt to read or ask about
the procedures for SEPA appeals. Phone:(360) 478-5275
NOTE: The issuance of this Determination of Nonsignificance does not constitute project approval. The
applicant must comply with all other applicable requirements of City of Bremerton Departments prior to
receiving construction permits.
M L G
cn[or aw roup
TEL 206.676.7008 FAX 206.676.7001
Peter H. Dykstra
direct 206,676.709~
dykstra~mcn tozlaw.c om
June 6, 2001
Mr. Chris Hugo
Department of Community Development
City of Bremerton
286 - 4th St.
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Amended Appeal of Determinations of Non-Significance for AIbertsons
Stores Text Amendment Request To Amend Parking Ratio for Food Stores
and Supermarkets and City of Bremerton Text Amendment Request to
Modify Open-Space Requirements
Dear Mr. Hugo:
As you requested, a~ached please find amended appeal forms from
Eldorado Hills, Inc. The amended forms concern the appeal of the
Determinations o£ Non-Significance for Albertsons Stores Text Amendment
Request To Amm"td Parking Ratio for Food Stores and Supermarkets m"td City of
Bremerton Text Amendmem Request to Modify Open-Space Requirements
apparently issued by the City on April 23, 2001, and April 26, 2001, respectively,
previously filed by Eldorado Hills, Inc.
As we understand your position, the City believes that two separate
appeals are required for a party to appeal the City's action on these
Determinations of Non-Sigrdficance. We do not believe the Bremerton Municipal
Code requires separate filings. Bremerton Municipal Code 21.02.395(g) simply
requires that an appeal identify the subject of the appeal. Eldorado Hills, Inc.'s
original appeal fulfilled those requirements by clearly identifying the subject of
the appeal. Nowhere does the Code require separate appeals or appeal fees for
more than one subject being appealed. We believe the Code to be quite clear,
and our client's original appeal was in full compliance with its requirements.
Furthermore, substantial compliance with the appeal procedures is sufficient to
maintain our objections to the City's DeterminatiOns of Non-Sigrtificance.
Nevertheless, we are abiding by the City's request for two separate appeal
forms and appeal fees. As we discussed, the City will relate these amended
/ag.
Mr. Chris Hugo
June 6, 2001
Page 2
appeal forms back to the original date of Eldorado Hills, Inc.'s appeal, May 16,
2001. Enclosed is the additional $124 appeal fee that the City requested.
Please contact me directly if you have any further questions regarding
these matters. Please set these matters for hearing before the City Council in
accordance with Bremerton Murdcipal Code 21.02.845.
Sincerely,
MENTOR LAW GROUP, PLLC
Enclosures
/o3
Amended Appeal of Determination of Non-significance for City of Bremerton
Text Amendment Request To Amend z¥Iodify Open-Space Requirements
(t) Ap?elIant's Name, A~hfress and Phone Number.
Eldorado Hills, Inc.
9481 SLlverdale Way, No. 201
Silverdale, WA 98383
(360) 692-3079
Appellant's Counsel.
Peter H. Dykstra
Mentor Law Group
1505 Westlake Avenue North
Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98109
(206) 676-7095
(2) Standing.
We participated, through counsel, in the Planning Commission hearings
on May 1, 2001, and May 15, 2001, regarding the proposed text
amendments. We submitted comments, through counsel, on the
Determination of Non-Significance on May 15, 2001. We appealed the
Determination of Non-Significance on Mav 16, 2001.
G) Subject of the Appeal
Determination of Non-Significance for Citv of Bremerton Text
Amendment Request to Modify Open-Space Requirements apparently
issued bv the City on April 26, 2001.
(4) Grounds for Appeal and Facts Upon ~Vhich Appeal is Based.
We understand that the DNS for the open space text amendment was
issued on April 26, 2001. We first learned of the DNS at the May 1, 2001
Planning Commission meeting. As acknowledged at both the Mav 1,
2001, and Mav 15, 2001, Planning Commission meetings, the Albertsons'
project requires the text amendment. Despite a specific request dated
April 12, 2001, from IVlr. Mike Zoretic of Stardslaw Ashbaugh, our counsel
at the time, that he be provided "with copies of any and all submittals,
approvals or other documents or communication relating to the
32bertsons' project", we never received notice of the DNS nos,,- being
appealed.
The City's decision to separate this text amendment from the
environmental review of the Albertsons' project violates SEPA's clear
prohibition on phased review or segmentation of review. See WAC 197-
11-060(3). Phased review or segmentation is not appropriate for two
proposals "related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single
course of action." WAC 197-11-060(3)(b). Where they are closely related,
the actions must be reviewed in the same environmental analvsis. Id.
SEPA prohibits a governmental agency, from moving forward with a
particular course of action until a threshold determination and subsequent
environmental impact analysis, if any, is completed. WAC 197-11-
055(2)(c). Where a rezone, text amendment or other zoning change is
connected to a project proposal that has the potential to more than
moderately affect the environment, an ELS must be done at the rezone
stage. See Indian Trails Propert~j Owner's Association v. S?okane, 76 Wn.
App. 430, 440 (1994).
The CiW's attempt to cast the changes in the text amendment as "ci~-
~4de" is an attempt to avoid considering the environmental impacts of the
text amendment cumulatively ,,~4th the environmental impacts of
Albertsons' project. The Citv's Planning Director has admitted on the
record at that the text amendments arose in the process of reviewing
Albertsons' proposal. Significantly, but for these text amendments,
:klbertsons' supermarket proposal cannot go forward.
The environmental impact of these amendments must be considered as an
integ~ral part of the proposal. A DNS that does not consider the
cumulative impacts of the entire project is insufficient to comply with
SEPA.
The CiW's failure to provide notice, in accordance ~Ath Bremerton
Municipal Code 21.12.210(b) and WAC 197-11-680(5), despite our dear
request for notification means that the time period for appealing t_he DNS
has not begun to run. See e.g., Den Beste v. ,aollution Control Hearings
Board, 81 Wn. App. 330, 339 (1996) ("An aggrieved party, who has
participated in an administrative hearing is not denied the right to appeal
simply because [an agency] failed to mail a notice of decision to it.").
(5) Relie. f Requested.
Full environmental review of the text amendment and the proposed
Albertsons' development, together as a single action.
(6) Attestation.
I have read this appeal and believe, to the best of my knowledge, that the
contents are true.
J~ Eagleson, S~etary
tltdorado Hills, Inc.
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: July 25, 2001
the Zoning Code Text by modifying Open space requirements of DEPT. OF ORIGIN: P&B- Land Use
any development having a total gross area greater than one acre. ORIGINATOR: Chris Hu.qo, Director
DATE SUBMITTED: July, 18 2001
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
.~,~P&B Director: ~/X,f.A~ o PC Findings & Conclusions
City Attorney'~~ o PC Minutes July 17, 2001
City Clerk: ~ ~'~r~h,_.,~. ('_J2.,, ~ / /..// o Staff Report
Fiscal & Budg~et-Coun~i!~Comm.?-.,~[~.,~'.~ o Ordinance to amend Zonin9 Text
Operations Comm.: [-~z~
ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUN.ClL_~ESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4.- SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMEI)I'T FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The City of Bremerton Amendment Application PL01-0017 requests modifications to Section 21.01.750, Open
Space, to allow inclusion of required buffers and yard setback areas in the minimum 15 percent open space of the
total gross area of any development having a total gross area greater than one acre; and to delete reference to
active and passive areas; and to delete the requirement for recreational open space.
The Planning CommissiOn has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing and adopted Findings &
Conclusions at their July 17, 2001 meeting, and recommends City Council approval. The Council must conduct a
public hearing prior to its final decision and action on the proposed Ordinance.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to approve the attached Ordinance # on first readin,q.
Move to pass the attached Ordinance # on second reading.
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AME~ tE-D,~-,,~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 0j --- / 70
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the proposed ordinance is not approved, the city will lose the capability .............
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
/o$
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the Bremerton City Council amending the Zoning Code, Chapter 21.02.750
Open Space, of the Bremerton Municipal Code, to allow inclusion of required buffers and
yard setback areas in the minimum fifteen percent (15%) open space of the total gross
area in any development having a total gross area greater than one acre; and to delete
reference to active and passive areas; and to delete the requirement for recreational
open space.
The City Council of Bremerton makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, The open space requirement in BMC Section 21.02.750 does not distinguish
between residential and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, There is no operational linkage between owners and tenants of commercial
developments and the open space provided as part of the intent for providing this space is to
accommodate active and passive recreational; and
WHEREAS, Owners and tenants of large residential projects directly benefit from the inclusion of
open space within the development for both active and passive recreation; and
WHEREAS, This section's intent to preserve natural site amenities such as ponds, rock
outcroppings, ravines and similar features is largely covered in commercial developments by site
development regulations in the City's critical area; and
WHEREAS, By other requirements of the Zoning Code, large commercial development sites
include landscaped setbacks and landscaping of parking areas to promote compatibility with surrounding
areas; and
WHEREAS, There is no policy foundation in the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan for the
requirement in large commercial developments for open space for recreational purposes; and
WHEREAS, The proposal satisfies the decision criteria for a text amendment, as the proposed
amended regulation is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan than the existing text; and
WHEREAS, The existing requirement in BMC 21.02.750 for open space for active and passive
recreational activities is appropriate for large residential developments in which the owner or tenant
residents directly; and
1
WHEREAS, The existing requirement in BMC 21.02.750 for open space for active and passive
recreational activities serves no public purpose in large commercial developments in which the owners
and tenants are either not on the premises or fully engaged in the conduct of business; and
WHEREAS, The proposed amendment appropriately maintains the open space requirement for
large residential projects that benefit by access to active and passive recreation amenities and removes
the requirement from commercial developments that receive no benefit from this requirement; and
WHEREAS, The proposed zoning text amendment is more consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan than the existing code requirements for open space amenities in large developments; and
WHEREAS, The Bremerton Planning Commission, during their regularly scheduled meeting on
July 17, 2001, taking into consideration previous public hearing testimony, determined that this text
amendment request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the City's Development
Regulation Amendment criteria, contained in BMC 21.02.925, adopted Findings and Conclusions in
support of its recommendation to approve this Development Regulation Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on July 25, 2001 to accept
public comments pertaining to the proposed Development Regulation Amendment to consider the
Planning Commission's recommendation; now therefore:
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN THE FOLLOWING:
Section 1: That the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), Zoning, Chapter 21.02.750 Open
Space, be amended to read as follows:
Section 21.02.750 OPEN SPACE.
The following Open Space requirements shall apply to any development having a total gross
area greater than one acre:
(a) Required Minimum: There shall be a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross
area of the development dedicated or otherwise provided as common open space, -
......... t~nr. nt3 ..... d~v6lopmer,[
(eh) Designated Open Space areas shall not include:
(1) Streets, alleys and other rights-of-way.
(2) Vehicular driveways, parking, loading and storage areas.
............ ff~r'n~
2
ilo
(ec) Natural Site Amenities: Natural site amenities shall be preserved to the greatest extent
practical when planning for open space, siting of buildings and other structures, routing underground
services, and determining finished grade levels and areas to be paved. Natural site amenities might
include rock outcroppings, ravines, groves of trees, ponds or streams.
(ejd) Phased Development: When a project 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 completed
in accordance with approved specifications at the time of completion of each phase.
(h~) Provisions shall be made for the perpetual maintenance of all common open space areas.
(Ord. 4325 §2 (in part), 1991).
(4591, _, 04/14/1997)
Section 2: This effective date of this Ordinance shall be ten (10) days from the date of passage
and publication by the Mayor and City Council.
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2001.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of 2001.
JOHN LAW
City Council President
APPROVED this day of 0 2001.
ATTEST: LYNN S. HORTON
Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY
City Clerk
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
PL01-0017: Proposed zoning code text amendment to modify BMC Section
21.02.750 Open Space to allow inclusion of required buffers and yard
setback areas in the minimum 15 percent open space of the total gross area
of any residential development having a total gross area greater than one
acre; and to delete reference to active and passive areas and the
requirement for recreational open space for commercial uses larger than
one acre.
FINDINGS:
1. The open space requirement in BMC Section 21.02.750 does not
distinguish between residential and commercial uses.
2. There is no operational linkage between owners and tenants of
commercial developments and the open space provided as part of the
intent for providing this space is to accommodate active and passive
recreational activities.
3. Owners and tenants of large residential projects directly benefit from the
inclusion of open space within the development for both active and
passive recreation.
4. This section's intent to preserve natural site amenities such as ponds,
rock outcroppings, ravines and similar features is largely covered in
commercial developments by site development regulations in the City's
critical area codes.
5. By other requirements of the zoning code, large commercial
development sites include landscaped setbacks and landscaping of
parking areas to promote compatibility with surrounding areas.
6. There is no policy foundation in the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan for
the requirement in large commercial developments for open space for
recreational purposes.
7. The proposal satisfies the decision criteria for a text amendment, as the
proposed amended regulation is more consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan than the current one.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The existing requirement in BMC 21.02.750 for open space for active
and passive recreational activities is appropriate for large residential
developments in which the owner or tenant residents directly benefit.
2. The existing requirement in BMC 21.02.750 for open space for active
and passive recreational activities serves no public purpose in large
commercial developments in which the owners and tenants are either
not on the premises or fully engaged in the conduct of business.
3. The proposed amendment appropriately maintains the open space
requirement for large residential projects that benefit by access to active
and passive recreation amenities and removes the requirement from
commercial develop.ments that receive no benefit from this requirement.
4. The proposed zoning text amendment is more consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan than the existing code requirements for open
space amenities in large developments.
Approved by the Bremerton Planning Commission on
Attest:
Andy Kosusko Chris Hugo
Chair Secretary
/15
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
2001 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): City of Bremerton (PL01-0017)
DATE OF REPORT: April 25, 2001 (Revised, May 4, 2001)
PROPOSAL: Proposed zoning code text amendment to modify Section
21.02.750 Open Space to allow inclusion of required buffers
and yard setback areas in the minimum 15 percent open space
of the total gross area of any residential development having a
total gross area greater than one acre; and to delete reference
to active and passive areas and the requirement for
recreational open space for commercial uses larger than one
acre.
CONTACT: City of Bremerton Department of Planning and Building; (360) 478-5275
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal applies to all development of sites within the city
with a gross area greater than one acre.
BACKGROUND: The Zoning Code adopted in 1998 to implement the Comprehensive
Plan specifies that all development sites "having a total gross area
greater than one acre" shall provide "a minimum of fifteen percent (15%)
of the total gross area of the development dedicated or otherwise
provided as common open space, accessible to all owners or tenants of
the development." This dedication is specified to be in addition to the
open space created by required yards as well as those landscaped
areas required for buffering parking areas. Further, the open space shall
be provided for both active and passive recreational activities and for the
preservation of existing natural site amenities "whenever possible."
This requirement raises several questions. The first question is "What
purpose does the requirement serve?" An examination of the
Comprehensive Plan provides no explanation - there are no explicit
policy directions that provide a foundation for this requirement. Is it to
mitigate the scale of large developments, to provide pervious area to
offset the extent of pervious surface, to provide amenities in response to
new site-generated demands, or to protect natural areas?
The zoning text speaks most actively to recreation amenities and
protection of natural areas. However, many proposed developments in
Bremerton are redevelopments of existing sites. There are no natural
areas to protect. The focus on recreation amenities is probably
consistent with large residential projects, but what operational link is
there to commercial projects? The text specifies that the open space
shall be "accessible to all owners or tenants," not customers. This
strongly suggests that this is a requirement directed at residential uses.
The proposed text amendment provides a short-term remedy for the
ambiguity in purpose presented by this requirement. The amendment
makes a distinction between residential and commercial uses and
removes references to active and passive areas as well as required
recreational open space for commercial uses entirely. Yards and parking
buffers may be included in the calculation of 15% of the site area for
commercial uses only. This more strongly ties the open space
requirement to an overall purpose of softening the impact of large-scale
commercial projects on the surrounding neighborhood.
The provisions for active and passive areas as well as required
recreational open space seem only relevant to residential uses, and a
further study should be conducted to insure that the requirements are
supported by Plan policy and respond to a legitimate community need. In
the interim, the proposed amendment retains these requirements.
The protection of natural areas that exhibit environmentally sensitive
conditions is a GMA requirement and should be fully addressed in the
City's Critical Areas ordinances. The proposed zoning text amendment
does not reduce the City's obligation to protect these natural areas.
Storm water management is another development issue that may pose
additional requirements for pervious areas on development sites.
All of these issues will be addressed in the mandated review of the
Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations to be concluded by
September of 2002.
PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT:.
Revise the provisions of BMC 21.02. 750 Open Space as indicated below:
21.02.750 LARGE DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING
The following Open Space and Landscaping requirements shall apply to am/
residential and commercial development having a total gross area greater than one
acre:
(a) Residential Uses, Open Space Requirements:
(1) Required Minimum: There shall be a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the
total gross area of the residential development dedicated or otherwise
provided as common open space, accessible to all owners or tenants of the
development.
(2)/~,~.., Active and Passive Areas: The open space areas shall be provided for
active as well as passive recreational activities, and for the preservation of
existing natural site amenities whenever possible.
~ (-e,-) Designated Open Space shall not include:
i.~ {-1-) Streets, alleys and other rights-of-way
ii~ (-2-) Vehicular driveways, parking, loading and storage areas.
iii. (-,3) Required buffering and landscaping for parking areas.
iv.__~(4) Required yard setback areas.
(4),..,~'~ Location of Open Space: The 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.
~ (-e-) Natural Site Amenities: Natural site amenities shall be preserved to the
greatest extent practical when planning for open space, siting of buildings and
other structures, routing underground services, and determining finished
grade levels and areas to be paved. Natural site amenities might include rock
outcroppings, ravines, groves of trees, ponds or streams.
~ (-f) Site Plan Review and Approval: Proposed open space areas and their
intended uses shall be clearly designated on the Site Plan. The City will base
its approval of the proposed active or recreational open space on the
dimension, useability (sic), location, slope, and physical improvements. Up to
one-third of the property intended to satisfy the open space requirement can
be unsuitable for recreational purposes if consisting of natural site amenities.
(7) ~,,/"~ Phased Development: When a project 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 completed in accordance with
approved specifications at the time of completion of each phase.
(8) (-h-) Provisions shall be made for the perpetual maintenance of all common
open space areas.
(b) Commercial Uses, Total Landscape Area:
(1) Required Minimum: There shall be a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the
total gross area of the commercial development dedicated or otherwise provided
as landscaping This may include required yard setback areas and required
buffering and landscaping for parking areas.
DATE AND METHODS OF LEGAL NOTICE: Notice of this application was printed in the legal
notice section of the West Sound Sun on April 7 and 21 and May 5, 2001.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was
issued for this non-project action in accordance with WAC 197-11 on April 26, 2001.
DECISION CRITERIA: There are two criteda that must be satisfied to approve an
amendment of development regulations in the zoning code. Both of them relate to
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations.
The primary associations between this proposed change in development standards and
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are in the area of land use efficiency
and environmental quality. This amendment could produce small reductions in the
amount of required site area, land that could be used for other urban purposes.
However, this reduction in pervious surface area increases the overall percentage of
impervious surface for the total site. This produces a greater reliance on storm water
mitigation through techniques other than dedicated pervious surfaces.
STAFF REPORT PREPARED BY: Chris Hugo, Director
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq to consider an appeal of a FOR AGENDA OF: July 25, 2001
SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued at the DEPT. OF ORIGIN: P&B - Land Use
Request of Albertsons, Inc. to amend the Development Standards ORIGINATOR: Chris Hu.qo, Director
by reducing the Parking Ratio for Food Stores and Supermarkets. DATE SUBMITTED' July, 18 2001
2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
.~_.cP&B Director: ,~_ ~_..f.-~~ o DNS
ity Attorney:~.~,_.~=.~ o Appeal
City Clerk: ~,¢,6~::¢/-/.,~Y¢..,~ .... ~ ;/ o Staff Report
Fiscal & Bu'~['.qTet~'C0uncil C'om~.: ,.'~?,;~..~z;'-~/ o Written Record
Operations C/omm.: ~-~,z ,¢~_¢~__"_
ENDORSEMENT m INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUt~PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMEN'r~.F'~ COUNCIL ACTION:
An Official Zoning Code Text amendment in the form of a Rezone application was received from Albertsons, Inc., to
amend the text of Bremerton Municipal Code Title 21, Land Use, Chapter 21.02, Zoning Code, Figure 670(b), Off-Street
Parking Requirements for Non-Residential Uses, to reduce the parking requirements for the Food Store (retail), Markets,
and Supermarkets land use category, from one parking space for each 200 square feet of building gross floor area, to one
parking space for every 250 square feet of building gross floor area. This zoning code text amendment proposal, if
approved, would be implemented on a citywide basis. Zoning Text Amendment application requests are considered non-
project actions, which do not propose specific development projects.
An Appeal of the non-project SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued has been received contending that
there was an error in issuing the non-project DNS and that a full environmental review (EIS) for the development project
should have been accomplished.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Move to uphold/deny the Appeal of the DNS, issued April 23, 2001, for Project PL01-0028,
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION ~1~ ~ r-,,~
PULLED__ TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED__ AM
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 01~ 1'7 I
11'7
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
11. IMPACT ON STAFFING7 BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
The subject appeal will create no operational changes for the city.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Ordinance
File
Site Visits
SEPA regulations
Mentor Law p
1505 WestlakeAvenue North, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98109
TEL 206.676.7008 ~AX 206.676.7001
Peter H. Dykstra
direct 206.676.7095
dykstra~mentorlaw.com
July 25,2001
City Council
City of Bremerton
239 - 4th St.
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Written Testimony on Behalf of Eldorado Hills, Inc. for Appeal of
Determination of Non-Significance for Albertsons Stores Text
Amendment Request To Amend Parking Ratio for Food Stores and
Supermarkets
Dear City Councilmembers:
Our firm represents Eldorado Hills, Inc., the owner of Perry Avenue Mall.
Tonight you are being asked to approve two text amendments of the City's
Zoning Code. One concerns the parking ratio requirements for Food Stores and
Supermarkets in the City, and the other concerns the calculations for Open Space
Requirements for any development in excess of one gross acre.
Fundamentally, these text amendments also involve a specific project
proposed by Alberesons Stores, Inc., currently pending before the City Planning
Department. Albertsons has submitted an application for Site Plan Review and
SEPA processing of a proposed new 50,000+ sq. ft. complex on the northeast
corner of Wheaton Way and Sheridan Road. We are greatly concerned about the
environmental impacts of the development proposed by Albertsons at this
location. It is clear that any such development requires an analysis of all
environmental impacts and those of any alternatives before the proposal may be
approved.
We have appealed the Determinations of Non-Significance ("DNSs") the
City staff issued on the two text amendments. This appeal concerns the DNS for
the text amendment proposed by Albertsons. The law requires that the
environmental review for this text amendment be conducted in concert with the
environmental review of the entire Albertsons proposal. City staff has already
determined that the Albertsons project will have significant environmental
impacts, without considering the impact from this text amendment. See Exhibit
1. The City Council must require the City staff to revisit its environmental
Bremerton City Council
July 25, 2001
Page 2
review of this text amendment. The law requires further environmental review
of the text amendment and the Albertsons project together as a single action.
City staff has characterized the proposed text amendment regarding
parking requirements as separate from the proposed development and as a "city-
wide" amendment. Although the change will have city-wide impacts, the
characterization that it is separate from the Albertsons' proposal is false.
Albertsons requested the text amendment when it submitted its request for site
plan and SEPA review of its proposed development project. See Exhibit 2. The
project being proposed needs the text amendments in order to be built as
designed. See Exhibit 3. To claim that the text amendment proposal is separate
from the Albertsons' development proposal, regardless of whether it will also
change parking ratios for other grocery stores in the City, is disingenuous.
Moreover, the City's decision to separate the text amendments from
environmental review of the Albertsons' project is a violation of SEPA's clear
prohibition on phased review or segmentation of review. See WAC 197-11-
060(3). See Exhibit 4. Phased review or segmentation is not appropriate for two
proposals "related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of
action." WAC 197-11-060(3)(b). Where they are closely related, the actions must
be reviewed in the same environmental analysis. Id. The text amendment
proposed by Albertsons and the Albertsons development itself clearly meet the
requirements that these actions be reviewed as a singled course of action.
SEPA prohibits a governmental agency from moving forward with a
particular course of action until a threshold determination and subsequent
environmental impact analysis, if any, is completed. WAC 197-11-055(2)(c).
Where a rezone, text amendment or other zoning change is connected to a project
proposal that has the potential to more than moderately affect the environment,
an EIS must be done at the rezone stage. See Indian Trails Property Owner's
Association v. Spokane, 76 Wn. App. 430, 440 (1994).
We believe that the City's attempt to cast the changes in this text
amendment as "city-wide" and separate from the Albertsons project is an
attempt to avoid considering the environmental impacts of the text amendments
cumulatively with the environmental impacts of the Albertsons project.
Albertsons needs the text amendments for its project to move forward, and the
text amendments are driven by the Albertsons proposal. Therefore, the
environmental impact of these amendments must be considered as an integral
part of the proposal. A DNS that does not consider the cumulative impacts of
the entire project is insufficient to comply with SEPA.
Full environmental review of the text amendments and the proposed
Albertsons development, together as a single action, is required before either the
Bremerton City Council
July 25, 2001
Page 3
text amendments or the development proposal can be approved. The City
should not approve the proposed text amendments until SEPA review is
completed for the entire Albertsons' proposal. The DNS for the Parking Ratio
Text Amendment clearly do not comply with SEPA's requirements.
We respectfully request that the City Council withdraw the DNS
regarding the text amendment proposed by Albertsons' and have the
environmental review of the text amendment done in concert with the review of
the entire Albertsons' project. Anything less flies in the face of both the letter
and spirit of SEPA.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
MENTOR LAW GROUP, PLL¢
CC: Eldorado Hills, Inc.
CITY OF BREMERTON
BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MITI. GA.TED DETE:R.MINATION Of NONSIGNIFI:CA. NCE
Environmental Application No. PLO 1-0031 Parcel No. I22401-2-038-2005
Date issued: June 21,2001
Revised July I3, 2001, to reflect language clarification comments received prior to Comment Period Deadline.
ACTION: Commercial Site Plan review: Albertsons Grocery, Store, ancilla~ Retail Shops structure, and Fuel Center.
PROPOSAL: Albertsons, Inc. proposes to redevelop a six (6) acre portion of the former Bremerton Middle School site. The
project proposal includes construction of a new 51,150 square foot, full service Albertsons Grocery Store. an
11,300 square foot ancillary, structure for retail shops, and a 1,814 square foot "A-Express" fuel center. Public
roadway improvements, associated parking, landscaping and utility, infrastructure improvements are also proposed.
LOCATION: The project site is located at the northeast corner of Wheaton Way (SR303) and Sheridan Road in the NW Quarter.
of Section 12, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.
PROPONENT: Albensons, Inc.
The Responsible Official of the City. of Bremerton hereby makes the following Findings and Conclusions based upon a review of the
environmental checklist and attachments, other information on file with the City. of Bremerton, and the policies, plans, and
regulations designated by the City. of Bremerton as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority, under the Washington State
Environmental Policy. Act (SEPA) pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Proposal is for the construction of a new 51,150 square foot. full service Albertsons Grocery. Store. an 11,300 square foot
ancillary, structure tbr retail shops, and a 1.814 square foot "A-Express" fuel center with underground fuel storage tanks.
Associated site development includes the export of approximately 7,000 cubic yards of excavated material, and the
importation and owading of approximately 2,200 cubic yards of sub-base material for impervious surface placement.
Approximately 85% of the proposed development area will be covered with impervious surfaces including provisions for
parking 260 vehicles. Public roadway improvements, associated parking, fencing, landscaping and utility infrastructure
improvements and an on-site storm water/drainage system are also proposed. The project xvill be served by public water and
2. The proposal is located on a six (6) acre portion of the former Bremerton Middle School site. located at the northeast corner
of Wheaton Way (SR-303) and Sheridan Road. Topographically. the site is relatively flat and is devoid of any significant
vegetation. No wetlands or surface waters are located on the site. The project is located in a General Business (GB) zone
classification and land use in the vicini~- includes some mixed use strip commercial on both sides of SR-303 (Wheaton
Way). Improved ball fields are located immediately east of the project and school facilities remain functional on the north
side of the proposal site.
3. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants and presented for review February. 14. 2001.
Supplemental traffic analysis reports were prepared on April 26. 200l and on May 26. 2001. The repons analyzed the
impacts of traffic generated from the proposed commercial development on the street system serving the proposed project.
The proposed development at full occupancy, is expected to result in an increase of 3.915 daily vehicle trips, including 366
vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. The Engineering Division of the Ci~' of Bremerton has determined that tile
proposal may result in significant impacts to the City's transportation ~wstem and that improvements to the transportation
~'stem will be necessary, to accommodate the development. Potential significant impacts associated with increased traffic
generated by this development will be adequately mitigated through compliance with the traffic mitigation measures listed
in the MITIGATION section of this Mitigated Determination.
vI. ITIGATION: The Responsible Official has determined that the proposal, as modified, July 13, 2001, for language clarification,
loes not have a probable significant impact on the environment, and an Environmental hnpact Statement (ELS) is not required undcr
>,CW 43.2 IC.030(2)(c), only if ~he following cnndi~ion~ are me~. This decision was made aher review of comments received poor to
he expiration of the comment period, a completed environmental checklist, other information on file with the City,' of Bremerton.
md existing regulations. This information is available to the public on request. These mitigation measures are required as
tuthonzed under the Substantive Authority of SEPA in accordance with the guidelines contained in Chapter 21.12 of the Bremerton
x, lunicipal Code and shall be implemented by the Proponent.
l. Traffic Mitigation:
[-1. The Proponent will be required to participate in providing two left-turn lanes froln southbound SR303 to eastbound Sheridan
Road and eliminating the two-way left turn lane (and associated left turn from SR303 southbound to the North Access Road
eastbound) as nutigation for their traffic impacts at such time that the City, constructs thts Improvement. The Proponent will be
required to financially contribute on a fair share basis to the cost of associated improvements at the Sheridan RoadiSR303
intersection at that time. See the following Item l-IA. Financing Requirements for a description of the method to be used for
ROW valuation and cost-sharing. The Proponent will be required to enter into an agreement with the City, regarding their
contribution to this capital project prior to issuance of development permits.
ROW intended for future dedication to tl~e City (e.g.. Nexv Spruce Street Extension) will be constructed in per the prOJect plan
dated 6/6/01 and accordance with the City's 2001 Standards.
l-lA. Financing Requirements. The Proponent will utilize the following method for calculating the value of dedicated ROW and
estimating the Applicant's fair share:
Dedicated land needed for future prOJects (i.e. Shendar~SR303 ~ntersecuon nnprovements and
Sheridan/New Spruce Street Ext. intersection improvements) will be determined on a per square foot basis
from a certified appraisal done at the time of the ~mprovements. [f land is dedicated, the land value will
be credited against the Proponent's proportionate share of each improvement.
The Proponent's proportionate share of such improvements will be determined by a traffic stud.',' conducted by the City
in the vear proceeding start of construction on of the prOject. At the option of and for the convemence of the Proponent.
the City, will accept financial payment from the 'Proponent earlier than commencement of construction for either
anticipated capital project, if such pre-payment is desired by the Proponent, the Proponent must agree in writing that ~t
has reviewed the case law on Benchmark Land Company vs. City of Battle Ground t.103 Wash. App. 72 l. 14 P. 3~ 172.
December 2000) and acknowledges that such pre-payment is proportionate to the ilnpact and within the nexus of the
project. The amount of such pre-payment will be equivalent to the proportion of the Proponent's traffic impact (tops
during the PM peak hour) as compared to the total traffic through the imersection runes the cost of those improvements
directly related to the Proponent's traffic.
The proportion of the Proponent's traffic impact is estimated to be approximately 4. l% for the Sheridan and S1:L3~)3
intersection (June 26. 2001 Gibson Traffic Consultants letter to Atber~sons~. The estimated cost of constrnction for the
future capital prOJect soley for those components which are attributable to the Proponent's traffic (i.e. road widening,
channelization, center banner, new signal, curb gutter, and s~dewatk) is $676,000 based on a Seattle ENR-CCI of 7601)
The payment amount will be adjusted in accordance with the current Seattle ENR-CCI ancffor an updated Engineering
cost estimate, with the method to be determined bv the Cia'
The proportion of the Proponent's traffic impact is estimated to be approximately 30.5% for the Sheridan and Nc~v
Spruce Street intersection (based on model output included in the May 26. 21)01 GTC memorandum). The estimated
cost of construction for prOject components attributable to the Proponent's tralTlc (i.e. new s~gnal and pedestrian
crossings) is $234.000 bascd on a Seattle ENR-CCI of 7600 The payment amount will be adjusted in accordance with
the current Seattle ENR-CCI and/or an updated Engineering cost estimate, with the method to be determined by thc
City
A
['his Modified Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is issued under WAC 197-I 1-350. The Responsible Official
ha~ reconsidered the June 22. 2001 MI)NS based on timely comments and has elected to retain, with language modifications for
:larification, the MDNS. As the MDNS, with modifications, is being retained it is being reissued as a final document with no
:omment period. No permits may be issued, and the applicant shall not begin work, until the comment deadline has expired and any
~ther necessary permits are issued.
~,esponsible Official: Christopher R. Hugo. Director
read Agent': City, of Bremerton
Building and Planning Department
Ci~ of Bremerton. Permit Center
286 4th Street
Bremerton, Washington 98337
(360) 478-5275
)ate of Re-Issue: July 16, 2001
}ate of Re-issue Publication: July 18. 2001
2omment Deadline: Re-issued with no comment period.
~.ppeal Deadline: August t. 2001
Christopher R.~ugo, Respo~nsible Off'iai
qOTE: Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and City. of Bremerton Environmental Regulations. Bremerton Mumcipal Code (BMC)
2hapter 21.12. Decisions of the Responsible Official may be appealed. Appeals are filed with appropriate fees at the Building and
'lanning Department, located at the Bremerton Permit Center. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the Date of Re-issue.
,IOTE: The issuance of this Modified Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance does nat constitute prOJect approval. The
tpplicant must comply with all other applicable requirements of City of Bremerton Departments prior to receiving construction
~rmits.
i 7241VlDNSMIT.DOC
,PRCIFIC LRND DESIGN Fax:206522854zl Feb 1 2001 16:20 P.02
· · / ~FIEMERTON City of Bremerton IlAR 0 5 2001
~'"q]UII. DING DEPARTMENT
Application for ~REMERTON
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ZONE RECLASSIFICATION .(Rezone)
FEE:
A ZONE RECLASSII*ICATION (Rezone) of property from one zoning district to another may
be approved by the City Council, following a public hearing before the City Council and, in most
cases, one or more public neighborhood meetings to gather inforn-mtiort and ¢nmxr¢ adcqtmt,
oppommities for public comment.
To apply for a REZONE, please complete this application form with as much detail aspossible
about your proposal and submit it along with the required attachments and.application fee.
NOTE: The process for a rezone is described in the Bremerton Municipal Code, Section
21.02.920.
Name:
Address:
City: State: ZIP:
Telephone: ( )
(Rev. 7/97)
P&CTFIC L~qI'.ID ~ESTGN Fa .... ObS~,_,..,,.,4~ Feb i 2001 16:20 P. 03
4. PROPERTY LOCATION: F£8 2 2 20tli '
flREMERTON
Address: BUILDING DEPART~EN
General 'Location (intersecting streets, etc.): ~ c_3xod 1
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
6. SHORELINE ENVIRON~ DESIGNATION:
9. ~8ESSOR'S ACCO~ ~E~S): ~cels to be Rezone)
10. COVENANTS, EASEMENTS OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS:
Briefly de~ribe here and al~o show on map.
,v/4
11. BASIS FOR REQUEST:
State clearly and completely the reasons or rationale for this~ request.
Alxach additional pages as necessary.
,.. CRITERIA FOR APPROV~a~L:
This REZONE request can be approved by the Bremerton City Council only if ali of the
following can be answered "YES":
1. Is the proposed Rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? (See Bremerton
Mumcipal Code, S;~ztlon 2 I, Figuro 000, "Plan/7~oning Consistency" of this code.)
2. Is the Rezone justified for one or more of the folloWing reasons? 8ttlt_r~l~tG ID[P~I~TME~7
It is in the public interest to approve the Rezone to accommodate needed changes
within the immediate vicinity or neighborhood.
It will correct a zone classification or bounda_D' that was inappropriate when
It isa planned step in a phasing process to gradually bring zoning into consistency with
the 20-year Comprehensive Plan when appropriate.
It will place or remove an overlay zoning designation without affecting the underlying
zonin~ designation without at~'eetlng the underlying zoning.
3.Is there a public need for the proposed Rezone that will clearly benefit the local
neighborhood md/or the community ofgremerton?
4. Are all essential public facilities and services avail~le and adequate, or can be made
available, to serve the types and levels of development permitted in the requested
zone7
5.Will the area being proposed for rezoning become part of a larger zoning district or
form a new district which will not be considered an isolated "spot zone"?
* Please provide below (or on separate paper) a detailed explanation to show as clearly as
poss~le how your REZONE request is consistent with each of the above criteria:
ATI'A~S:
A. Notification List: Typed name/address labels for the owners of all property within a
radius of 300 feet of the subject REZONE area are required. These may be provided
by the applicant, or the City Planning Division will assemble the labels aI a cost to the
applicant of $2 per label, at the applicant's option.
B. Location Map: A map showing the general location within the community of the area
subject to the REZONE, including streets, shorelines and other major features.
C. V~cinity Map: A Kitsap County Assessor's map or similar map at a scale of I" = 100'
or 200'.
P~CIFIC L~ND DESIGN Fa×:2065228544 Feb 1 2001 16:21 P. O5
EB 2 2 2001
8REMERTON
* The subject REZONE area shall be in the center. [3UILDING DEPARTMEN;
· Ail existing streets, lots, shorelines, and other physical features shall be shown on the map.
, Existing land uses within a radius of 300 feet of the subject area shall be clearly indicated.
· Any additional informal/on that w/il help to clearly define the proposal
D. Environmental ChecNist: Obtain form at Planning Division Office.
14. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE:
The Planning Division should be consulted to discuss the proposal and specific
information needs prior to mbmittal of the REZONE application package.
15. A~PPLICA/~rr' S STATE3~NT:
I hereby state that I am the applicant, or the authorized agent for the applicant and that all
foregoing statements and information provided herein are, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, true and cOmplete. I understand that the filing fee accompanying this
application is not refi.mdable, is for the purpose of partially defraying the admlnl.q:rative
expenses of processing this application, and that the paymem of said fee does not result in
automatic approval of this request.
Applicant Date
The City of Bremerton does not discmminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion,
national or~g~n, age, or disability m the provision of ~vrvices, in programs or
activities, or employment opportunities and benefits.
Rev 7i97
FEB 2 2, 2001
Introduction: 8REMER'rOh
~UILDING OEPARTMEN
The proposed text amendments are in the public interest as a state-of-the-art Albertson's
store would be an excellent addition to the neighborhood. It would be a catalyst for
further economic redevelopment in the city of Bremerton and would further the
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the long-term development of
the Bremerton Junior High property. This Albertson's store would be the only full
service grocery store, on Wheaton Way, within the city limits.
Albertson's is seeking a reduction in front yard setbacks to accommodate its building
location as it relates to the relocated Spruce Street. Spruce Street is currently a private
drive aisle used only to service Bremerton Junior High. Albertson's proposes to relocate
and improve Spruce Street to Public Road Standards. As a Public Road, the Spruce
Street right of way will include a sidewalk and landscape buffer. Adding the sidewalk
and landscape buffer to the 10'-0" proposed setback will effectively place the Albertson's
building more than 20'-0" from the street allowing for ample visibility.
Albertson's is seeking a reduction in minimum parking requirements from one stall per
200 square feet of goss floor area to one stall per 250 square feet of gross floor area.
Albertson's is one of the nation's leading =o-rocery and drug chains operating 2,492 stores
in 37 states. For the year ending 1/28/99 they recorded sales of $35.9 billion. Albertson's
knows what their customers want and they deliver every day. Albertson's would not
invest millions of dollars building a new store in Bremerton if they did not believe they
offered adequate parking.
Criteria for Approval of Text Amendments:
l. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the
reduced setback and lower parking requirements allow for g-reater infill and
redevelopment opportunities.
2. The text amendments are in the public's best interest as the City of Bremerton
should be the urban center ~br Kitsap County. The existing setbacks and parking ratios
are at suburban standards. The proposed text amendments further citywide "urban goals"
by allowing for g-rearer density.
3. There is a public need for increased redevelopment opportunities.
Redevelopment increases the tax base and provides superior services for local citizens.
4. All essential public services are available and will not be compromised with the
proposed text amendments.
5. Not applicable.
Pacific Land Design
Chris Hugo I'IAR 8 1 2001
Planning Director 8REMERT,3,..
City of Bremerton BU1LOIN6 DEP&.RTMENT
286 Fourth Street
Bremerton, Washington 98337
Subject: Proposed Albertsons Store; Bremerton, Washington
Dear Mr. Hugo:
Thanks for making yourself available to meet with the Albertsons project team today. We felt
the meeting was vew productive toward resolving the regulatory constraints to allow this
project to move forward.
At the conclusion of our meeting today, we submitted, on behalf of Albertsons, seven full size
copies of the revised Site Plan #SB, prepared by Donahou Design Group. As requested,
seven 11 "xl 7" reduced scale copies are enclosed. This revised Site Plan supersedes the
previously submitted Site Plan, which was formally rescinded by Albertsons on March 15%
Therefore, this revised plan should be the basis for the City's SEPA analysis and Site Plan
Review.
Based on our meeting today, we understand that the Site Plan issues discussed last week will
be resolved as follows:
1. Parking: Albertsons desires to achieve a parking ratio of 5 stalls per 1,000 SF gross
building area, consistent with current Zoning Code requirements. However, due to
the site constraints on this redevelopment property, this ratio is not possible. We
understand that there is no administrative flexibility regarding the minimum parking
requirements per code. Therefore, we have previously requested a Zoning Code Text
Amendment on this issue. We understand from our discussion today that the Text
Amendment will be considered by the Planning Commission at a public meeting to be
held April 10~h, followed by a public hearing at the City Council approximately one
month later.
2. Public Roadways/Right-of-Way Dedication: The project proposal includes R.O.W.
dedication and the construction of ~ street improvements to public arterial standards
along the eastern project limit. This is consistent with the language of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone of the subject parcel (Resolution #98-
02), which require a new public street to extend northward from Sheridan Road. We
understand that the City has considered the possibility of another p..?lic roadway
Page 2
Chris Hugo
March 20, 2001
construction/dedication on the northern limit of the property, between the previously
described new roadway north of Sheridan and Wheaton Way. However, as we have
discussed, such a dedication is not possible on the project site, due to the limited site
area to support the proposed store, parking, and landscaping. Therefore, such a
dedication is not included in the Albertsons project proposal. The Site Plan, as
submitted, provides the necessary access for customer traffic, service vehicles, and
emergency vehicles through commercial standard driveways and parking lot
circulation. Furthermore, the establishment of a public "grid" road at this location
does not seem to be required in either Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the
Wheaton Way corridor, or the Comprehensive Plan/Rezone of the subject site.
Nonetheless, we understand that the City may seek a commitment from the school
district to develop such a roadway in the future, at such time that the balance of the
school district property is redeveloped. We have no objection to the City pursuing
such a commitment, provided that it does not delay the review and approval of the
proposed Albertsons project.
3. Front Yard Setbacks: Since this project will be dedicating right-of-way for a new
public roadway at the eastern project limit, it will have frontage on two parallel public
streets. We understand that the City normally considers both such street frontages to
require a "front yard" setback. However, Section 21.02.160(a)(2) provides that the
Director may grant an Administrative Exception to this requirement if several criteria
are met. This project does indeed meet these criteria of having an entire frontage
consist of a single property (Spruce Street extension), and that the buildings would be
clearly oriented in a similar direction away from the site being considered for
designation as the rear lot line. Therefore, we understand that the City will consider
issuing an Administrative Exception to allow the proposed Spruce Street extension
right-of-way to be considered a rear lot line.
We have previously submitted a Text Amendment to revise the required building
setbacks. In the event that the City does not grant the Administrative Exception
described above, we understand that a Text Amendment would be considered by the
Planning Commission at a public meeting scheduled for April 10th.
4. Open Space: We understand that commercial developments, such as proposed, are
subject to various landscaping requirements. These include parking lot buffers,
interior parking lot landscaping, and street trees. We further understand that Section
21.02.750 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 15% of the site be retained as
open space, exclusive of the above referenced landscaping areas. As we have
discussed, this section of the Zoning Code seems to be inconsistent with the balance
of the development criteria and the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we understand
the City .Planning staff will initiate a Zoning Code Text Amendment to eliminate this
open space provision. We understand that the Planning Commission will consider
this Text Amendment at a public meeting scheduled for April 1 7th.
Page 3
Chris Hugo
March 20, 2001
We appreciate the staff's willingness to work together with the Albertsons team to resolve
these development criteria such that the Albertsons project can proceed forward. If our
understanding of the resolution described above is inconsistent with your own, please let us
know immediately. Otherwise, we anticipate that the City will complete it's SEPA review,
and issue its determination within the next week, so the appeal period can be completed
prior to the scheduled public meetings.
Thanks again for your assistance. If you need any additional information to complete the
SEPA review, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Principal
DJT:jj
cc: Don Barker, Albertsons
Peter Powell, Powell Development
Walt Draper, Bremerton School District
01 7334-23A/brabchlt02
SEPA Rules
(5) An overall decision to proceed with a course of action use of shoreline and land use controls; purchase of floodprone
, involve a series of actions or decisions by one or more areas; or relocation assistance."
acies. If several agencies have jurisdiction over a proposal, Co) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each
should coordinate their SEPA processes wherever other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action
;ible. The agencies shall comply with lead agency shall be evaluated in the same environmental document.
· rmination requirements in WAC 197-ll-050 and 197-11- (Phased review is allowed under subsection (5)). Proposals or
parts of proposals are closely related, and they shall be
(6) To meet the requirement to insure that environmental discussed in the same environmental document, ffthey:
res and amenities are given appropriate consideration along (i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals
x economic and technical considerations, environmental (or parts of proposals) are implemented simultaneously with
uments and analyses shall be circulated and reviewed with them; or
:r planning documents to the fullest extent possible. (ii) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and
(7) For their own public proposals, lead agencies may depend on the larger proposal as their justification or for their
:nd the time limits prescribed in these rules, implementation.
autory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW (c) (Optional) Agencies may wish to analyze "similar
~.IC.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-055, fried actions" in a single environmental document.
10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory. Authority: RCW (i) Proposals are similar if, when viewed with other
!ICA 10. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-055, filed reasonably foreseeable actions, they have common aspects that
provide a basis for evaluating their environmental
3/84, effective 4/4/84.] consequences together, such as common timing, types of
impacts, alternatives, or geography. This section does not
WAC 197-11-060 Content of environmental review. (1) require agencies or applicants to analyze similar actions in a
,4ronmental review consists of the range of proposed single environmental document or require applicants to prepare
ivifies, alternatives, and impacts to be analyzed in an environmental documents on proposals other than their own.
.ironmental document, in accordance with SEPA's goals and
(ii) When preparing environmental documents on similar
icies. This section specifies the content of environmental actions, agencies may find it useful to define the proposals in
iew common to all environmental documents required under one of the following ways: (A) Geographically, which may
PA. include actions occurring in the same general location, such as
(2) The dontent of environmental review:
a body of water, region, or metropolitan area; or (B)
(a) Depends on each particular proposal, on an agency's
sting planning and decision-m -aking processes, and on the generically, which may include actions which have relevant
similarities, such as common timing, impacts, alternatives,
te when alternatives and impacts can be most meaningfully methods of implementation, environmental media, or subject
duated; matter.
(b) For the purpose of deciding whether an ElS is required,
specified in the environmental checklist, in WAC 197-11- (4) Impacts.
(a) SEPA's procedural provisions require the consideration
O and 197-11 44'!,; of "environmental" impacts (see definition of "environment" in
(c) For an environmental impact statement, is considered WAC 197-11-740 and of"impacts" in WAC 197-11-752), with
%cope" (WAC 197-I 1-792 and Part Four of these rules); attention to impacts that are likely, not merely speculative.
(d) For any supplemental environmental review, is (See definition of "probable" in WAC 197-11-782 and 197-11-
.'tiffed in Part Six. 080 on incomplete or unavailable information.)
(3) Proposals.
(a) Agencies shall make certain that the proposal that is the Co) In assessing the significance of an impact, a lead
~ject of environmental review is properly defined, agency shall not limit its consideration of a proposal's impacts
(i) Proposals include public projects or proposals by only to those aspects within its jurisdiction, including local or
encies, proposals by applicants, if any, and proposed actions state boundaries (see WAC 197-11-330(3) also).
(c) Agencies Shall carefully consider the range of probable
d regulatory decisions of agencies in response to proposals impacts, including short-term and long-term effects. Impacts
applicants, shall include those that are likely to arise or exist over the
(ii) A proposal by a lead agency or applicant may be put lifetime of a proposal or, depending on the particular proposal,
,'ward as an objective, as several alternative means of
complishing a goal, or as a particular or preferred course of longer.
(d) A proposal's effects include direct and indirect impacts
tion. caused by a proposal. Impacts include those effects resulting
(iii) Proposals should be described in ways that encourage from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that
,nsidering and comparing alternatives. Agencies are the present proposal will serve as a precedent for future actions.
,couraged to describe public or nonproject proposals in terms For example, adoption of a zoning ordinance will encourage or
'objectives rather than preferred solutions. A proposal could tend to cause particular types of projects or extension of sewer
described, for example, as "reducing flood damage amt lines would tend to encourage development in previously
'tiering better flood control by one or a combination of the unsewered areas.
.liowing means: Building a new dam; maintenance dredging;
th. 197-11 WAC--p. 4] WAC (4/15/98)
SEPA Rules
(e) 1'he range of impacts to be analyzed in an ElS (direct, [Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW
indirect, and cumulative impacts, WAC 197-11-792) may be 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-I1-060, filed
wider than the impacts for which miugation measures are 10/10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory Authority: RCW
required of appLicants (WAC 197-I 1-660). This will depend 43.21C. I 10. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-060, filed
upon the specific nnpacts, the extent to which the adverse 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84.]
impacts are attributable to the apphcant's proposal, and the
capability of applicants or agencies to control the Unpacts in WAC 197-11-070 Limitations on actions during SEPA
each situauon, process. (1) Until the responsible official issues a final
(5) Phased review, determination of nonsi~tmificance or final environmental impact
(a) kead agencies shall deterrmne the appropriate scope statement, no action concerning the proposal shall be taken by a
and level of detail of environmental review to coincide with governmental agency that would:
meaningful points in their planmng and decision-making (a) Have an adverse environmental tmpact; or
processes. (See WAC 197-11-055 on tLmmg of environmental Co) Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.
review.) (2) In addition, certain DNSs require a fourteen-day period
(b) Environmental review may be phased. If used, phased prior to agency action (WAC 197-11-340(2)), and FEISs
review assists agencies and the public to focus on issues that require a seven-day period prior to agency action (WAC 197-
are ready for decision and exclude from consideration issues 11-460(4)).
already decided or not yet ready. Broader envtronmentat (3) In prepanng environmental documents, there may be a
docmnents may be followed by narrower documents, for need to conduct studies that may cause nonsignificant
example, that incorporate prior general discussion by reference environmental impacts. If such activity is not exempt under
and concentrate solely on the issues specific to that phase of the WAC 197-I 1-800(18), the activity may nonetheless proceed if
proposal, a checklist is prepared and appropriate mitigation measmes
(c) Phased review is appropriate when: taken.
(i) The sequence is from a nonproject document to a (4) This section does not preclude developing plans or
document of narrower scope such as a site specific analysis designs, issuing requests for proposals (RFPs), securing
(see, for example, WAC 197-11-443); or options, or peffornung other work necessary to develop an
(ii) The sequence is from an environmental document on a application for a proposal, as long as such activities are
specific proposal at an early stage (such as need and site consistent with subsection (1).
selection) to a subsequent envh-onmental document at a later
stage (such as sensitive design impacts). [Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESffB 1724) and RCW
(d) Phased review is not appropr/ate when: 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-070, filed
(i) The sequence is from a narrow project document to a 10/10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory Authority: RCW
broad policy document; 43.21C. 110. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-070, fried
(ii) It would merely divide a larger system into exempted 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84.]
fragments or avoid discussion of cumulative impacts; or WAC 197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information. (1)
(hi) It would segment and avoid present consideration of If information on significant adverse impacts essential to a
reasoned choice among alternatives is not known, and the costs
proposals and their impacts that are required to be evaluated in
a single environmental document under WAC 197-11-060 of obtaining it are not exorbitant, agencies shall obtain and
(3)(b) or 197-11-305(1); however, the level of detail and type include the information in their environmental documents.
of environmental review may vary with the nature and timing (2) When there are gaps in relevant information or
of proposals and their component pans. scientific uncertainty concerning significant impacts, agencies
shall make clear that such information is lacking or that
(e) When a lead agency knows it is using phased review, it
shall so state in its environmental document, substantial uncertainty exists.
(3) Agencies may proceed in the absence of vital
(f) Agencies shall use the environmental checklist, scoping
process, nonproject EISs, incorporation by reference, adoption, information as follows:
and supplemental EISs, and addenda, as appropriate, to avoid (a) If information relevant to adverse impacts is essential to
duplication and excess paperwork, a reasoned choice among alternatives, but is not known, and the
(g) Where proposals are related to a large existing or costs of obtaining it are exorbitant; or
planned network, such as highways, streets, pipelines, or utility (b) If information relevant to adverse impacts is important
to the decision and the means to obtain it are speculative or not
lines or systems, the lead agency may analyze in detail the
overall network as the present proposal or may select some of known;
the future elements for present detailed consideration. Any Then the agency shall weigh the need for the action with
phased review shall be logical in relation to the design of the the severity of possible adverse impacts which would occur if
overall system or network, and shah be consistent with this the agency were to decide to proceed in the face of uncertainty.
section and WAC 197-11-070. If the agency proceeds, it shall generally indicate in the
appropriate environmental documents its worst case analysis
WAC (4,,'15/98) [Ch. 197-11 WAC--p. 5]
CITY OF BREMERTON
BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Application No: PLO 1-0008 Parcel No's: City-wide
Date issued: April 23, 2001
Date published: April 25, 2001
ACTION: OFFICIAL ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
PROPOSAL: The applicant's request is for Official Zoning Code Text amendment in the form of a
Rezone application. The proposed end result will be to amend the text of Bremerton
Municipal Code Title 21, Land Use, Chapter 21.02, Zoning Code, Figure 670(b), Off-
Street Parking Requirements for Non-Residential Uses, to reduce the parking
requirements for the Food Store (retail), Markets, and Supermarkets land use category,
from one parking space for each 200 square feet of building gross floor area, to one
parking space for every 250 square feet of building gross floor area. This zoning code
text amendment proposal, if approved, would be implemented on a citywide basis.
LOCATION: This Zoning Code Text amendment proposal involves all areas within the city designated
with zoning classifications, which allow development of Food Stores (retail), Markets,
and Supermarkets.
PROPONENT: Albertsons, Inc.
c/o Pacific Land Design
9709 Third Avenue NE, suite #203
Seattle, Washington. 98115
The Responsible Official of the City of Bremerton hereby makes the following Findings and Conclusions
based upon a review of the environmental checklist and attachments, other information on file with the
City of Bremerton, and the policies, plans, and regulations designated by the City of Bremerton as a basis
for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.060.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The City has received an application for a Zoning Code Text amendment. The proposed
amendment is to amend the text of Bremerton Municipal Code Title 21, Land Use, Chapter
21.02, Zoning Code, Figure 670(b), Off-Street Parking Requirements for Non-Residential Uses,
to reduce the parking requirements for the Food Store (retail), Markets, and Supermarkets land
use category, from one parking space for each 200 square feet of building gross floor area, to one
parking space for every 250 square feet of building gross floor area. This zoning code text
amendment proposal, if approved, would be implemented on a citywide basis.
2. Zoning Text Amendment application requests are considered non-project actions, which do not
propose specific development projects. Throughout the year, applications for zoning text
amendments can be submitted. City Council Ordinance adopts those zoning text amendments
recommended for approval as a result of the Public Hearing process conducted by the Bremerton
Planning Commission.
3. A SEPA review check list has been reviewed for this non-project zoning text amendment
proposal. Further development of property effected by this specific zoning text amendment that
is not categorically exempt pursuant to WAC Chapter 197-11-800, and, which will require
issuance of a City license or permit, will be subject to future review under SEPA.
4. An Environmental Impact Statement, for the Bremerton Municipal Code Title 21, Land Use,
Chapter 21.02, Zoning Code was adopted by City of Bremerton Ordinance #3934, February 13,
1997, in which Off street parking requirements were addressed.
CONCLUSIONS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
The Responsible Official concludes, based on a review of application materials and a review of City
regulations governing the proposal, that this non-development project action proposal does not have a
probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not
required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on
request.
This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not
act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by closing of the
comment deadline. The Responsible Official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and
may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is
retained, it wilt be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. No permits may be issued, and the
applicant shall not begin work, until the comment deadline has expired and any other necessary permits
are issued.
Responsible Official: Christopher R. Hugo, Director, Building and Planning Department
Lead Agency: City of Bremerton, Building and Planning Department
City of Bremerton, Permit Center
286 4th Street
Bremerton, Washington 98337 (360) 478-5275
Date of Issue: April 23, 2001 Comment Deadline: May 7, 2001
Date of Publication: April 25, 2001 Appeal Deadline: May 21, 2001
Christopher il~ Hugo, ReSponsiVe Official
NOTE: Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and City of Bremerton Environmental Regulations, Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 21.12. Decisions of the Responsible Official may be appealed. Appeals
are filed with appropriate fees at the Building and Planning Department, located at the Bremerton Permit
Center. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the expiration of the comment deadline.
You may APPEAL this determination to: Bremerton City Council NO LATER THAN: March 19, 2001.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact: Lee A. Wyatt to read or ask about
the procedures for SEPA appeals. Phone:(360) 478-5275
NOTE: The issuance of this Determination of Nonsignificance does not constitute project approval. The
applicant must comply with all other applicable requirements of City of Bremerton Departments prior to
receiving construction permits.
M L G la4.°c' p
~[ ~U~ 08 2~fl~ .i/ Seatll~,Wa~hington 98109
~' TEL 206.676.7008 FAX 206.676.7001
BBEMEET3~,.
BUILDIr,I~ n:~:.F,T:.~;:~ ~eter H. Dykstra
.... direct 206.676.7095
dyks tra~men torla~.com
June 6, 2001
Mr. Chris Hugo
Department of Commurdty Development
City of Bremerton
286 - 4th St.
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Amended Appeal of Determinations of Non-Significance for Albertsons
Stores Text Amendment Request To Amend Parking Ratio for Food Stores
and Super-markets and City of Bremerton Text Amendment Request to
Modi. f~ Open-Space Requirements
Dear Mr. Hugo:
As you requested, attached please find mended appeal forms /-rom
Eldorado Hills, Inc. The amended forms concern the appeal of the
Determinations of Non-Significance for Albertsons Stores Text Amendment
Request To Amend Parking Ratio for Food Stores and Supermarkets and City of
Bremerton Text Amendment Request to Modify Open-Space Requirements
apparently L~ued by the City on April 23, 2001, and April 26, 2001, respectively,
previously filed by Eldorado Hills, Inc.
As we understand your position, the City believes that two separate
appeals are required for a party to appeal the City's action on these
Determinations of Non-Significance. We do not believe the Bremerton Municipal
Code requires separate filings. Bremerton Municipal Code 21.02_395(g) simply
requires that an appeal identify the subject of the appeal. Eldorado HiIls, Inc.'s
original appeal fulfilled those requirements by clearly identifying the subject of
the appeal. Nowhere does the Code require separate appeals or appeal fees for
more than one subject being appealed. We believe the Code to be quite clear,
and our client's original appeal was in full compliance with its requirements.
Furthermore, substantial compliance with the appeal procedures is sufficient to
rnainlmin our objections to the City's DeterminatiOns of Non-Significance.
Nevertheless, we are abiding by the City's request for two separate appeal
forms and appeal fees. As we discussed, the City will relate these amended
Mr. Chris Hugo ~
June 6, 2001
Page 2 ~
appeal forms back to the original date of Eldorado Hills, Inc.'s appeal, May 16,
2001. Enclosed is the additional $124 appeal fee that the City requested.
Please contact me directly if you have any further questions regardLng
these matters. Please set these matters for hearing before the City Council in
accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code 21.02.845.
Sincerely,
NIENTOR LAW GROUP, PLLC
Enclosures
A mended Appeal of Deter~nina tion of' Non-significance for A Ibertso ns Stores'
Text Amendment Request To Amend Parking Ratio for Food Stores and
Super~narkets
(1) A??ellant's Name, Address and Phone Number.
Eldorado Hills, Inc.
9481 Silverdale Way, No. 201
Silverdale, WA 98383
(360) 692-3079
Appellant's Counsel.
Peter H. Dykstra
Mentor Law Group
1505 Westlake Avenue North
Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98109
(206) 676-7095
(2) Standing.
We participated, through counsel, in the Planning Commission hearings
on Mav 1, 2001, regarding the proposed text amendments. We submitted
comments, through counsel on the Determination of Non-Significance on
May 15, 2001. We appealed the Determination of Non-Significance on
May 16, 2001.
(3) Subject of the Appeal
Determination of Non-Sigmficance for Albertsons Stores' Text
Amendment Request To Amend Parking Ratio for Food Stores and
Supermarkets apparently issued bv the Citv on April 23, 2001.
(4) Grounds?or Appeal and Facts Upon Which Appea! is Based.
We understand that the DNS for the text amendment to the parking
requirements was issued on April 23, 2001. We first learned of the DNSs
at the Mav 1, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. As acknowledged the
May 1, 2001, Planning Commission meeting, the Albertsons' project was
the source of the each text amendment. Despite a specific request dated
April 12, 2001, from Mr. Mike Zoretic of Stanislaw Ashbaugh, our counsel
at the time, that he be provided "with copies of any and all submittals,
approvals or other documents or communication relating to the
Albertsons' project," we never received notice of the DNS now being
appealed.
'l~ae Ci~,'s decision to separate this text amendment from the
environmental review of the Albertsons' project violates SEPA's clear
prohibition on phased review or segmentation of review. See WAC 197-
11-060(3). Phased review or segmentation is not appropriate for two
proposals "related to each other closelv enough to be, in effect, a single
course of action." WAC 197-11-060(3)(b). Where they are closely related,
the actions must be reviewed in the same environmental analvsis. Id.
SEPA prohibits a governmental agency from moving forward with a
particular course of action until a threshold determination and subsequent
environmental impact analysis, if anv, is completed. WAC 197-11-
055(2)(c). Where a rezone, text amendment or other zoning change is
connected to a project proposal that has the potential to more than
moderately affect the environment, an EIS must be done at the rezone
stage. See Indian Trails Property Owner's Association v. Spokane, 76 Wn.
App. 430, 440 (1994).
The attempts by Albertsons and the Citv to cast the changes in this text
amendment as "city-wide' is an attempt to avoid considering the
environmental impacts of the text amendment cumulatively with the
environmental impacts of ~bertsons' project. Significantly, but for this
text amendment, Albertsons' supermarket proposal cannot go forward.
t-"he environmental impact of these amendments must be considered as an
integral part of the proposal. A DNS that does not consider the
cumulative impacts of the entire project is insufficient to comply with
SEPA.
The CiW's failure to provide notice, in accordance v~dth Bremerton
Municipal Code 21.12.210(b) and WAC 197-11-680(5), despite our clear
request for notification means that the time period for appealing these
DNSs has not begun to run. See e.g., Den Beste v. :vol!ution Control Hearings
~oard, 81 Wn. App. 330, 339 (1996) ("'An aggrieved party, who has
participated in an administrative hearing is not denied the right to appeal
simply because [an agency.] failed to mail a notice of decision to it.").
(5) Relief Reques ted.
Full environmental review of the text amendment and the proposed
Aibertsons" development, together as a single action.
(6) Attestation.
I have read th_is appeal and believe, to the best of mv knowledge, that the
contents are true.
Jg .d~v. EagleSon, ¥cretarv
Eld rado tnc. '
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: July 25, 2001
the Zoning Code Text by relaxing the parking ratio requirements DEPT. OF ORIGIN: P&B- Land Use
for Food Store, Markets, and Supermarkets. ORIGINATOR: Chris Hu.qo, Director
DATE SUBMITTED: July, 18 2001
2. CLEARANCES:. (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
-!
-/_ P&B Director: ,~-'b"..~...~{~ ./ o PC Findings & Conclusions
;C--City Attorney: ~..~/-'~-~__--~._ _~.~..------- ~ j o PC Minutes July 17, 2001
City Clerk: ~ t/~'~.~'";'_~ ... .~"/'/ o Staff Report
Fiscal & Budget C(~L~n~i! Comm.: _~¢~..~..~.., o Ordinance to amend Zoning Text
Operations Comm.: ~ /~'~-c~~--Lj
ENDORSEMENT/~'_ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUN.CIE)PRESlDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FJ;)R COUNCIL ACTION:
The Albertsons Text Amendment Application PL01-0008,~poses a Zoning Code text amendment to change the
parking ratio for Food Store, Markets, and Supermarkets'per BMC 21.02.670(b) and Figure 670(b).
The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing and adopted Findings &
Conclusions at their July 17, 2001 meeting, and recommends City Council approval. The Council must conduct a
public hearing prior to its final decision and action on the proposed Ordinance.
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. Hugo
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AME~I~)E~ ~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.: ~1'"' I 7,~
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
'10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
If the proposed ordinance is not approved, the city will lose the capability .............
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
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the Bremerton City Council amending the Zoning Code, Chapter 21.02, Zoning
Code Appendix, Figure 670 (b) of the Bremerton Municipal Code, to revise the parking ratio
regulations for Food Store, Markets, and Supermarkets.
The City Council of Bremerton makes the following findings:
WHEREAS, Zoning code provisions set minimum standards for parking that is required to support
primary land uses, including food stores, markets, and supermarkets. These requirements reflect the
minimum number of spaces that are estimated to serve the parking demand generated by the supported
use(s); and
WHEREAS, The proposed amendment reduces the minimum required number of parking spaces
by 25%; and
WHEREAS, In an informal survey of communities in the Puget Sound region, the range of
minimum required parking for supermarkets is broad, varying from one space for every 200 square feet of
gross floor area to one space for 450 feet of floor area; and
WHEREAS, The determination of the appropriate requirement for the minimum number of parking
spaces that any use shall provide as a part of the development is one of local discretion, founded in
community values such as efficient land use, promotion of alternative transportation, and reduction of
impervious surface area; and
WHEREAS, The consequence of setting the minimum requirement too high is to commit
excessive site area to unused parking spaces, removing land from other urban uses and contributing to
storm water management issues from the additional impervious surface area; and
WHEREAS, The consequence of setting the minimum requirement too Iow is potentially placing
the success of the planned urban environment in jeopardy by not insuring that motorists have a place to
park while patronizing the food store, market, or supermarket; and
WHEREAS, Although unmet parking demand may create off-site impacts to adjacent residential
areas, patronage of food stores, markets and supermarkets is dependent on safe, convenient access to
store entrances that is only afforded by adequate on-site parking; and
WHEREAS, Food Stores, Markets, and Supermarket corporations set minimum operational
parking standards that reflect the spaces considered necessary to support their stores; their determination
of need is a viable consideration in setting community requirements; and
WHEREAS, The goals of the state Growth Management Act and community values expressed in
policies of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan promote more efficient use of land, use of alternative
modes of transportation, and protection of the environment; and
WHEREAS, Community development patterns and changing community expectations for the
urban environment support the proposed amendment for a new minimum-parking requirement for food
stores, markets, and supermarkets; and
WHEREAS, The proposed 25% reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces required for
food stores, markets, and supermarkets is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, The proposed amendment promotes the public interest and poses no adverse
impacts to the community
WHEREAS, The Bremerton Planning Commission, during their regularly scheduled meeting on
July 17, 2001, taking into consideration previous public hearing testimony, determined that this text
amendment request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the City's Development
Regulation Amendment criteria, contained in BMC 21.02.925, adopted Findings and Conclusions in
support of its recommendation to approve this Development Regulation Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public hearing on July 25, 2001 to accept
public comments pertaining to the proposed Development Regulation Amendment to consider the
Planning Commission's recommendation; now therefore:
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES ORDAIN THE FOLLOWING:
Section 1: Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), Chapter 21.02, Zoning Code Appendix,
Figure 670 (b) of the Bremerton Municipal Code, revising the parking ratio regulations for Food Store,
Markets, and Supermarkets, is amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A attached: Hereto and by
reference incorporated herein.
Land Use Min. parking requirements
Food Store (retail) 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
Markets & Supermarkets A minimum of 6 spaces shall be provided.
Section 2: The effective date of this Ordinance shall be ten (10) days from the date of
passage and publication by the Mayor and City Council
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of ., 2001.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this __ day of ,2001.
JOHN LAW
City Council President
APPROVED this __ day of ,2001.
LYNN S. HORTON
ATTEST: Mayor
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY
City Clerk
Figure 670(b)
OFF-STREET PABAONG REQUIREMENTS
FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
LAND USE MIN. PARKING RE(~UII~, MENTS
Hotel I space per 2 guest rooms, plus
I space per 200 sq.ft, of'gross floor area devoted to other common uses.
Motel space per 2 guest rooms, plus
space per 200 sq.f't, of'gross floor area devoted to other common uses.
space for thc manager.
Bed & Breakfast space per guest room, plus
Establishment space for the resident household.
Travel Trailer Park I space per travel trailer site, plus
Tourist Court 1 space per each 10 sites to be located in a security area suck, as a vehicle
storage area, plus
! space per five trailer sites for guest parking, and
Addilional spaces, as needed, for office or commurfiD' build/~qgs.
Automobile Service space per 200 sq.R. oFgross floor area, plus
space per service bay (bay itsel[is no:. a space).
A minimum of 5 spaces shall be provided.
Barber Shop/Beauts' Salon 1 space per 75 sq.R. of gross floor area.
Ballk I space per 350 sq.p,, of gross floor area.
Bowling Alley 5 spaces per lane.
Medical/Dental Clinic I space per 150 sq.ft, of'gross floor area.
or Office
Clubs, lodges I space per 4 fixed seats, and
I space per 50 sq.R. of gross floor area of assembly areas without fixed
seating.
Convenience Market I space per 200 sq.ft, of gross floor area.
A minimum of'6 spaces shall be provided.
Dance Hall 1 space per 100 sq.fi, of gross floor area.
Food Store (retail) I space per250 sq.ft, o~'gross floor area.
Markets & Supermarkets A minimum of 6 spaces shall be provided.
Garden Nursery I space per 400 sq.ft, of gross floor area (retail).
I space per 500 sq.ft, of building and outside display area (wholesale).
Health Club, Figure Salon, 10 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft, of'gross floor area.
Physical Fitness Center
Hospitals & Medical 1.8 spaces per bed. Number oFbcds to be determined by lice,sc t)l' thc State
Centers (Portion with beds) of Washington. (Hospital basinets are not considered beds)
EXHIBIT A
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
PL01-0008: Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment to change the parking
ratio for Food Store, Markets, and Supermarkets as provided in BMC
21.02.670(b) and Figure 670(b).
FINDINGS:
1. Zoning code provisions set minimum standards for parking that is
required to support primary land uses, including food stores, markets,
and supermarkets. These requirements reflect the minimum number of
spaces that are estimated to serve the parking demand generated by
the supported use(s).
2. The proposed amendment reduces the minimum required number of
parking spaces by 25%.
3. In an informal survey of communities in the Puget Sound region, the
range of minimum required parking for supermarkets is broad, varying
from one space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area to one
space for 450 feet of floor area.
4. The determination of the appropriate requirement for the minimum
number of parking spaces that any use shall provide as a part of the
development is one of local discretion, founded in community values
such as efficient land use, promotion of alternative transportation, and
reduction of impervious surface area.
5. The consequence of setting the minimum requirement too high is to
commit excessive site area to unused parking spaces, removing land
from other urban uses and contributing to storm water management
issues from the additional impervious surface area.
6. The consequence of setting the minimum requirement too Iow is
potentially placing the success of the planned urban environment in
jeopardy by not insuring that motorists have a place to park while
patronizing the supermarket.
7. Although unmet parking demand may create off-site impacts to adjacent
residential areas, patronage of supermarkets is dependent on safe,
convenient access to store entrances that is only afforded by adequate
on-site parking.
/5(
8. Supermarket corporations set minimum operational parking standards
that reflect the spaces considered necessary to support their stores;
their determination of need is a viable consideration in setting
community requirements.
9. The goals of the state Growth Management Act and community values
expressed in policies of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan promote
more efficient use of land, use of alternative modes of transportation,
and protection of the environment.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Community development patterns and changing community
expectations for the urban environment support the proposed
amendment for a new minimum-parking requirement for food stores,
markets, and supermarkets.
2. The proposed 25% reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces
required for supermarkets is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed amendment promotes the public interest and poses no
adverse impacts to the community.
Approved by the Bremerton Planning Commission on ~"~
~a~ir Kos/~s~o~A~~ '"SecretaryChris~/~'/'~ ~~'~ "/')-- - Hugo
13;l
Minutes for Approval DRAFT
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 2001
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kosusko at 5:37 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Chairman Kosusko, Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Dingfield,
Commissioner Kennedy, and Commissioner Moshay. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Dingfield and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy that the
agenda be approved as submitted. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes;
Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Agenda approved.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The June 19, 2001, minutes were presented for approval. There were two changes: Page one, the
meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m., not 6:40 p.m; and page six, the first sentence in the last
paragraph should read "Chairman Kosusko stated that he too, is in favor of the application, but was
disappointed in the Church because they tried to move this play area without going through the
Commission first."
A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2001,
meeting with the aforementioned changes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dingfield.
Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. The
minutes were approved.
V. Public Meeting
A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). None.
Since there was no public comment, Chairman Kosusko moved directly to the public hearing.
B. Public Hearing
Continued Item - Testimony Open:
Chairman Kosusko stated that the first item is a continued item, where testimony was left open.
PL01-0024: City of Bremerton, Downtown Development Policies.
Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2001 Page ! of 7
Mr. Hugo stated that the only addition is the promised report from the consultant that has been
working with The City on the downtown development strategies, Calthrop & Associates. You
have the report before you that was provided to The City this last spring. It is a discussion of the
overall downtown strategies related to plan that was presented a couple of hearing dates ago. He
drew the commission's attention to page three, the Implementation Plan section which talks
about the Illustrative Plan and Regulating Map. Mr. Hugo reminded the commission that this
report is just a narrative, not policy, and that it can be edited to help its clarity. He further
expressed that he doesn't think that the public here is familiar with the terminology of the
Regulating Map. The concept does have a good idea behind it. The map provides a way of
noting where the high buildings should go; these are the important streets; and terms the
streetscape and then we tool our regulations to make sure we achieve the urban design attempts
expressed in the overall illustrative plan concept. This would be accomplished by using the map
as a guide, when we review developments (i.e., If this development on this street you have a
different set of standards to follow than if you are on a secondary street or one that doesn't have
the same pedestrian emphasis.). Commissioner Kosusko stated that Seattle's zoning code had
implemented something like this, where there are designated pedestrian corridors, and streets are
ranked according to their uses. He said that it has been codified into the zoning code now, but he
imagined that it started with some sort of regulating map.
Mr. Hugo, then drew the commission's attention to the second bullet. "The Regulating Map
shows towers that encroach visual focal points at key locations." One of the weaknesses with
the Illustrative Plan is that it is two-dimension. You cannot tell where the height is in the
building. During one of the Calthrop exercises this spring, I noted that San Francisco has a very
deliberate strategy using building rise to accentuate their topography. Where the natural form of
development might be where the ground is flat, you would do the easy tall buildings. Then when
the ground starts getting steep, you don't build as high because it might be more difficult. San
Francisco does just the opposite. When the ground is flat in the valleys, they keep the buildings
low. That's why you see predominately 2-4 story buildings throughout the low parts of San
Francisco. But particularly closer to the core, they try to get the higher density towers up the
hills and building them on top of the hills to even accentuate the hills more. So when you look at
San Francisco from the water or across the bay, you see that very characteristics hilly form.
Rather than the other way (natural form), might be the tall buildings will fill in the valleys and
the short buildings will chop up the ridgelines and you get a flat urban landscape. So, we are
missing the diagram that shows where building rises should go, for regulatory purposes. We
have now asked Matt Tucker or Calthrop, to provide a height map. Then when we get to the
next phase (Land Use Code or Zoning Code changes), we will have a diagram to propose to you
for consideration for a height plan.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if existing buildings would be grandfathered in and then as
changes are made, would they then conform to whatever is adopted? Specifically, the Caltrhop
plan, which has been in the public eye for some time - the plan shows that the Penney's Building
disappears. That's more of an open space in an urban center and we do have the Bremer Trust
now developing parking there. Mr. Hugo stated that buildings will have non-conforming rights.
They will be able to stay in their current configuration in perpetuity. Different communities use
different thresholds for how far you can redevelop a project before you essentially have to
conform to all the new codes. Sometimes there's a proportionate response. For example, if you
redo half the building you would be required to bring about half the things back into code
compliance. So, there would be a kind of negotiation that occurs. Some communities, you could
loose essentially 60-70% of the building to fire and still have a right to rebuild it to it's pre-fire
form without having to meet the new codes. We, the City of Bremerton, haven't gotten there
Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 2 of 7
yet. That is an excellent question for the overall zoning code for the City, since those kinds of
thresholds applies everywhere. There was a short discussion about the Penney's building.
Mr. Hugo expressed that the draft code that will be presented to the commission, the policies are
not descriptive about which direction to go in terms of height. The height map will help
articulate that. We may need to bring it to you subsequent to this, as a compliment to this before
we get to the Land Use Code. It is essential because the draft code states that the waterfront
environment the height limit is 60 feet. That is how it is proposed in the downtown, waterfront
district from Washington Street to the waterfront. Everything on the interior of that proposed
height is 120 feet. Well 120 feet could be 10 stories of residential, for instance. That means that
such things as the government center might be built and then it could all of a sudden loose all of
it's view access from the high ground because of 10 story buildings being built on the low
ground that flattens out the landscape and essentially denies everybody any views. That is a
concern. We want the government building to stand out and be a civic icon. We don't want to
create unintended development patterns because we haven't thought about it enough.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if we waiting for the height map before we move on this agenda
item? Mr. Hugo said that we don't need to wait. This narrative goes to a point and then
discusses draft code concerns. Since we are still looking at this issues, we haven't brought the
land use (code) package to you. We have to review the floor ratio. For example, the proposal
we have before the Public Facilities District for a conference center, hotel, condos, parking
structure, retail, and restaurant. When I added up the floor areas of all those projects - the total
floor area was 4 times the site area. That means that the project requires a floor area ratio of at
least 4.0 to be accommodated. Yet the draft code says that if you do all the right things you can
get up to 3.0. We are a whole floor short. So we need to go back and check that code proposal
to verify that what the Illustrative Plan is showing can be accommodated within the code
structure.
In response to Mr. Hugo's example, Commissioner Kosusko initiated a discussion about the
proposal before the Public Facilities District. Based on this discussion, Mr. Hugo reassured the
he will remind the strategies committee looking at that map - don't make that 10 story ban or
locations many or too broad. That would make it too limiting, just try to achieve some very
specific urban design intents. Otherwise, he thinks it will kill the market.
Mr. Hugo stated that the narrative is informational to the commission. He said that the draft
code concerns should be noted that these are issues we are still looking at as we go through the
final step of the commission reviewing code for future recommendations. Commissioner
Kosusko asked if this is part of our comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Hugo suggested that
the first part be added as a "front-end". It still requires some editing before the final publication.
Ms. Honore made copies of the Downtown Core Policies for the commissioners.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was any public comment on this item. None. The public
heating was closed on this item. The commissioners concluded that there has been no
opportunity to deliberate on the Downtown Development Policies.
Commissioner Dingfield asked a question about the downtown core, both #8 and #9. Internal
corridors or terrace walkways. Is that something that private developers are going to be
responsible for doing or is that going to be part of City responsibilities. Mr. Hugo stated that
those kinds of features are something that City either negotiates with the project or has to require
Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 3 of 7
through an easement and public funds to develop. Unless the property owners see that it is in
their own interest and they think that it's a good idea to give access to our property from new
directions. Calthrop was not that excited about the cut-throughs, they are controversial. There
was a short discussion about block cut-throughs and alley spaces as interesting urban spaces. We
are leaving internal corridors, terrace walkways, and cut-throughs in. However, it is not
specified who is responsible for them.
Commissioner Dingfield stated that we are leaving them in as pretty arbitrary. She thinks we're
not leaving any room for movement on that (...new development should include...). Would it be
more appropriate to leave a little more "wiggle" room on that? Commissioner Kosusko
suggested rewording to .... new development is encouraged to include. Mr. Hugo explained that
one of the normal ways that planners craft policies for feeding back to the public is to use action
verbs as the word. For example: "Encourage internal corridors or terrace walkways .... to
traverse the steep topography..." Commissioner Kosusko stated that it would be stronger that
should, it is not must. Commissioner Kennedy stated that language can be vague - some
planners make a point of saying we must do this. Maybe that was the intent and maybe it wasn't.
Mr. Hugo stated that this is included on the Illustrative Plan, but we still wouldn't tell the that
they had to do that because it would be an exaction of a public benefit with no relationship to an
impact. I wouldn't do that. Anyone operating under the law should not do this. Commissioner
Kennedy asked if using the word "should" would make it a requirement. Mr. Hugo responded
that it would not, this is a statement of public intent as to what we want to accomplish and it
doesn't say who is responsible.
Commissioner Kennedy had a question regarding goals and policy suggestion under #5
"Downtown Waterfront Goals," office use on upper floors should be added to the list of uses
encouraged. She stated that this seems upside-down. The office should be on the street level
and the residential areas should be on the upper floors of the waterfront district according to what
we had discussed. Mr. Hugo stated that these comments are getting into the code section and
the land use codes should be considered as history of comment. It was determined that office use
is an 8-to-5, weekday use and doesn't activate the waterfront the way residential and retail use
does. The waterfront is too valuable to give up to 8-to-5, weekday use.
Commissioner Dingfield had a question about parking, #2 (Parking Standards). Mr. Hugo
stated that right now there is no parking required in the downtown area with new uses. Parking
is still something that is being discussed. There is a parking access and circulation study going
on, which will be presented to you before the final code is adopted. If you look in the code
section, there is a range from minimum to maximum. (Minimum of 1 parking space per 1,000
square feet, Maximum of 4.) This will be examined again to make sure there is adequate
capacity for uses, commuters, and daily patrons - office workers and people who are shopping.
We are on the verge of signing a contract for a fairly extensive study of parking and downtown
traffic circulation considering ferries and access to garages, etc. Commissioner Kosusko asked
if the Shipyard is part of that discussion. Mr. Hugo state that yes, they are. Commissioner
Dingfield asked if new construction would be held to a different standard than redevelopment?
Mr. Hugo repeated that it would depend on which threshold would initiate it. For example, if
you took older waterfront properties and redeveloped the whole thing for a new residential - all
of that would be subject to a new standard. If we put in a standard and you take an existing
building that hasn't been occupied for a couple of years, they might have to contribute to a
parking structure somewhere to meet their parking demand. Everyone downtown is going to
need parking. The land use section of this report should be completed by end of August or early
September. That parking report better be ready, because that is one of the things driving the
Planning Commission Meeting July 17,2001 Page 4 of 7
Government Center decision for the County. They have to make sure that parking has been
addressed.
Commissioner Dingfield had major concerns about the foot ferry passengers. There was a
lengthy discussion about the walk-on ferry passengers and "kiss and ride" areas. She stated that
we (City of Bremerton) will become a walk-on ferry destination and that our terminal is
unfriendly. The group decided that the best way to address this issue was to modify General
Policy #3 by changing it to read, "Parking implies including both on street and off street facilities
should be managed to emphasis short term use over long term use ensuring an adequate supply
for shoppers, visitors and ferry passenger pick-up and drop off."
A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy to approve PL01-0024 as revised and
seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Called for a vote: Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes;
Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Motion carded.
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: Cockbum: 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; Dingfield: abstained; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes.
Amendment adopted.
Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 5 of 7
]37
d. PL01-0016 - Front Yard Averaging 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 Dingfield 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: yes; Kennedy: yes;
Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Amendment adopted.
e. PL01-0017 - Common Open Space, Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Hugo read the
facts and findings directly from the draft Findings and Conclusions. He then asked if
there were any questions. There was one typographical error. Commissioner Dingfield
made a motion that the Commission adopt the findings and conclusions for PL01-
0010 as revised. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Called for a vote:
Cockbum: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes.
Amendment adopted.
A. Chair Report
1. Commissioner Kosusko publicly acknowledged the receipt of a letter from Mr. Moreno of
the Emanuel Apostolic Church. The letters appears to be a explanation and rebuttal of some
of our concerns from the last meeting.
2. Department of Transportation Meeting regarding the Wheaton Way Corridor.
Commissioner Dingfield had a School Board Meeting that evening. However, she sent
several letters to the editor regarding her input. Commissioner Kosusko suggested that if
anyone had input, they could still submit comments by e-mail. He stated that he tried to be
very positive and there was a question and answer session.
B. Director's Report - Mr. Hugo reported the following:
1. Updated on the Planning & Building Department reorganization. Please note that our new
Office Assistant Senior is doing very well. We are so happy to have Mitchelle. She is
making our operation much smoother. You can tell by the quality of the minutes that you
review, we didn't have to do too much this time. For the first time in months, they are not
only on time, they are also very accurate.
2. On Friday, your Chair and the rest of our panel are starting our Planner interviews. We have
six finalists with varied experience. We will be interviewing Friday morning and Monday
morning, six people. Our goal is to make offers to three of the six. One is local, one lives in
Seattle, two just graduated from Eastern Washington University with Planning degrees. Of
the other two: one is flying up from Arizona and has a history in the Northwest and is
wanting to come back. Is a town planner now in Arizona; and the other person also has a
history in the Northwest and is a young woman who has just graduated from Tuffs University
in Maine. She is flying here from Maine. Commissioner Kosusko added that he has the
applications and he is quite impressed by the quality of the applicants. There was a short
discussion of the test, the make-up of the interview panel, and the format of the interviews.
Mr. Hugo asked if anyone could help by providing tours to the applicants. Commissioners
Dingfield and Moshay volunteered to help by providing tours.
Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 6 of 7
/$8
3. Our Building Development Specialist I that will do Land Use item for the counter - we are
half way through the testing process. A County permit clerk, Valarie (Our Building
Development Specialist I for Building), and our Civil Service Officer are interviewing that
group of eight people to complete the testing process. They should all be scored from that by
July 27, 2001. Then early the next week, I'll be interviewing the top three candidates.
4. There may be a need for a special meeting, because of notification. Mr. Hugo will confirm
that as soon as possible. Findings and conclusions of the downtown policies that we have
just recommended for approval. Also, the eight other comprehensive plan map amendments.
The special meeting could be as soon as July 31, 2001. Commissioner Kosusko informed
the group that he will not be present at the August 21, 2001, meeting.
5. The Mayor and the City Council has the Hearing Examiner as a high priority. Now that we
have a new contract attorney to assist the City that I can turn the Hearing Examiner proposal
over to the attorney. This will be his first assignment. I am committed to getting something
to the City Council by the end of August and with the Mayor setting that priority - it will
happen. There was a short discussion about the commission's role in assisting with this
priority. It was decided that the ordinances will come through the commission.
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjoumed at 7:20 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for August 21, 2001.
Respectfully submitted by:
Executive Secretary
Approved by:
Andrew J. Kosusko, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 7 of 7
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Proposed zoning code text amendment to change the parking
ratio for Food Store, Markets, and Supermarkets per BMC
21.02.670(b) and Figure 670(b).
DATE OF REPORT: APRIL 19,2001
APPLICANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): Albertson's Stores (PL01-0008)
CONTACT: Jim Towslee, Pacific Land Design, (206)522-9510
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposal will apply to these uses within the entire city.
BACKGROUND: The Zoning Code adopted in 1998 to implement the Comprehensive
Plan specifies that food stores, markets, and supermarkets shall provide
one parking space for each 200 square feet of building gross floor area.
The applicant is proposing a new supermarket within the city on a site
that cannot meet the specified ratio. The proposed code amendment
would change the parking requirement for the Food Store, Markets, and
Supermarkets use category to one parking space for every 250 square
feet of building gross floor area. This would result in a 20% decrease in
the minimum parking requirement for these uses.
The main issues associated with on-site parking for non-residential uses
are meeting customer needs (or tenant demands) and avoiding off-site
impacts to other properties and uses. The ratios provided in the zoning
code are based on development practices over the past several decades
but are not necessarily consistent with future needs and community
values.
Factors such as proximity to other non-residential uses to allow shared
parking, the availability of other transportation modes besides
automobile, and the frequency and duration of peak demand can reduce
the need for parking area. However, whatever ratio is established,
parking should still reasonably accommodate customer demand and not
create "spill-over" impacts to other properties in the vicinity. This is
particularly sensitive in residential settings, permit pursuant to a public
hearing process to insure that issues of compatible use and
development are addressed.
PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT:.
In Figure 670(b) of BMC Chapter 21, make the following revision to the
table:
Land Use Min. Parking Requirements
Food Store (retail), I space per 250 sq. f. of gross floor area.
Markets & Supermarkets A minimum of 6 spaces shall be provided.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance was
issued for this non-project action in accordance with WAC 197-11 on April 23, 2001.
DECISION CRITERIA: There are two cdteria that must be satisfied to approve an
amendment of development regulations in the zoning code. Both of them relate to
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations.
The primary associations between this proposed change in development standards and
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are in the area of land use efficiency
and environmental quality. This amendment would produce a 20% reduction in the
amount of parking area, land that could be used for other urban purposes. Further, it
would produce 20% less impervious surface, reducing the mitigating measures for
storm water management.