The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/08/01 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 8, 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. SWEARING IN CEREMONY 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting -July 18, 2001 (#AB01-179) 5. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 6. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. MAYOR'S REPORT 9. LEGISLATIVE REPORT 10. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments limited to 3-minutes) 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Budget Adjustment No. 2001-14 for Risk Management Department (#AB01-180) B. Professional Services Agreement with URS Construction Services (#AB01-181) j 12. PUBLIC HEARINGS - RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 2832, Regarding Recovery of Fees for the Abatement of a Dangerous Chimney on the property located at 1014 Veneta Avenue (#AB01-182) B. Resolution No. 2833, Regarding Recovery of Fees for the Abatement of Garbage & Debris ~C~ on the property located at 1421 & 1425 17th Street (#AB01-183) C. Resolution No. 2830, Denying Appeal of 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 [PL01-0035] (#AB01- 169) D. Resolution No. 2831, Denying Appeal of a SEPA Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued at the request of AIbertsons, inc. to amend the Development Standards by "I~ reducing the Parking Ratio for Food Stores and Supermarkets [PL01-0028] (#AB01-171) AGENDA CONTINUED ON BACK .... 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & APPEALS A. 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 [PL01- 0017] (#AB01-170) . ~,~Ordinance (First Reading), Amending the Zoning Code Text the ratio by relaxing parking requirements for Food Stores, Markets, and Supermarkets [Postponed for one-week at August 1, 2001 Council Meeting] (#AB01-172) 14. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE THE MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM TO HOLD A 30-MINUTE STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE "PROPOSED COUNCIL OFFICE LA YOUT IN THE GOVERNMENT CENTER" AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: 'FOR AGENDA OF: JULY 25, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING-- juLY t8, 2001 ORIGINATOR: JOHN E. LAW, PRESIDENT DATE SUBMI'I-r'ED: .TU-LY 20, Z001 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: ENDORSEMENT []INFORMATION D APPROVED BY COUNCIL.?.~,-I~SIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: A¥O. 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: I~. RECOMMENDATION: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED FI TABLED []APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED []AMENDED [] DATE:--i~ COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: ~. AGENDA a~LL NO.: ~")! - (OVER) I CLEARANCE COMMENTS: ~,. SUMMARY STATEMENT (CONTINUED)' IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: TAPES #1779 & #1780 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 18, 2001 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, July 18, 2001, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Jim Reed, Carol Arends, Eric Younger, Mike Shepherd, Ed Rollman, Cecil McConnell, and Wayne Olsen. Council Member Conrad Esser was absent. Aisc present were Interim City Attorney Loren Combs; Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston; and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Cecil McConnell, followed by the invocation given by Pastor Rick Bodrie of the Calvary Chapel. President Law made the following announcements: 1) A Pre-Council session was held to discuss general Council business; 2) A Study Session will be held immediately following the Council meeting to discuss "County-Wide Planning Policies"; 3) The Interim City Attorney Loren Combs and his associate were introduced; and 4) Item 1 lA - RESOLUTION NO. 2823, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OLYMPIC COLLEGE TO CONSTRUCT AND UTILIZE A SATELLITE PARKING FACILITY ON TWO RESIDENTIAL-SIZED PARCELS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE, NORTH OF 13TH STREETwas pulled from the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting- July 11, 2001 (#AB01-159) #0020 M/S/C (McConnell/Shepherd) Move to approve Consent Agenda as presented. Voted in favor of Motion: Olsen, McConnell, Rollman, Shepherd, Arends, Reed, and Law Abstained: Younger Motion carried: 7-Yes; and 1-Abstention CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. #0045 M/S/C/U (Olsen/Arends) On July 18, 2001, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: Checks 253980 through 253983 and 254006 through 254203 in the amount of $729,863,32; and Regular Payroll for the pay period ending July 15, 2001 in the amount of $797,376.77. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Wayne Olsen agreed with the comments made by Pat Ryan at last week's Council meeting regarding the lack of signage at the Ferry terminal, especially for tourists from out of town. Ed Rollman reminded the public that the Tom Roddey Duo would be performing at the Concerts on the Boardwalk this Friday, July 20, from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.; and the Ice Cream Social would be held at Evergreen Park on Sunday, July 22, from 1:00 to 2:30 P.M. with a community picture at 2:30 P.M. He too agreed with the confusing signs at the Ferry terminal; and lastly, expressed best wishes toward Council member Conrad Esser after hearing news of his letter of resignation. Mike Shepherd discussed the current World Changers program and the District 5 Picnic held at Evergreen Park last Saturday. TAPES #1779 & #1780 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 2 of 6 Eric Younger was disappointed that a few proposals for alternative routes discussed at the State Route 303 Bremerton to Sflverdale Transportation Corridor Stud.v Open House may not even come before Council for a vote, so he planned to do some research on his own, which may even develop into a Resolution from the Council to address this issue Carol Arends provided an update of the construction activity that is taking place on the Gateway Project at Callow Avenue. Jim Reed welcomed World Changers; wished Conrad Esser well; and lastly, encouraged District 8 residents to apply for the appointment to fill the vacant seat. John Law announced the next District 3 meeting would be held the night of Tuesday, September 18 to follow the Primary Election returns. He also commented that he would miss the "wise counsel" of Conrad Esser, who was a real gentleman, and only had the best interest of the City at heart. LEGISLATIVE REPORT At the request of Council member Conrad Esser, the letter was read outlining his reasons for the resignation of his District #8 Council seat effective this Fdday, July 20, 2001. President Law stated that the City Council would receive applications for appointment to this position through the close of business on Tuesday, July 31; the interviews would be held the following day on Wednesday, August 1; then the election of this position would be voted on by the Council either that same evening, or the following meeting on August 8th. It was clarified that the appointed term would run from day of the appointment to the day of the certification of the General Election in mid-November. Ms. Smith also reported that comments made by Pat Ryan regarding the lack of signage at the Bremerton Transportation Center have been forwarded to Kitsap Transit and the Washington State Ferry System for a response. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS: Wayne Olsen announced that the Charter Review Committee has decided that it was not in the best interest of the City to place Charter changes on the ballot, but would rather wait until next year; Mike Shepherd discussed his attendance at the AWC Board of Directors meeting and his participation in the Trust Fund sub-committee; and Carol Arends discussed her attendance at the PFD meeting on Monday regarding a grant for a proposed Conference Center; and that she will be attending PSRC next week. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Horton discussed the World Changers Program and read a Proclamation to proclaim the week of July 14 - 21, 2001 as "World Changers in Bremerton", which was accepted by Robert Tulp, City Operations Manager and organizer of bringing the program to Bremerton. The Council was invited to attend an award ceremony and BBQ to be held at the High School on Friday, July 20 from 5:30 to 8:00 P.M. to honor the students who have come from all over the United States. Condolences and best wishes were offered to long-time City Council meeting attendee Elizabeth Buell, who was recently hospitalized at Northwoods Lodge due to serious health issues. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Carol Atkinson of the Bremerton Main Street Association announced the 3rd in a serious of four "Concerts on the Boardwalk" this Friday night from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. TAPES #1779 & #1780 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 3 of 6 Larry Taylor asked that the City remove an old abandoned 100-foot sewer pipe that lay across his property; and read a recent letter of response received from the Public Works Department. Mr. Younger offered to arrange a meeting with Mr. Taylor and Gene Sampley, Director of Public Works to attempt to reach a conclusion to this issue. Charlene Burnett, Municipal Services Coordinator, invited the public to attend the All-City Ice Cream Social at Evergreen Park on Sunday, July 22 from 1:00 to 3:00 P.M.; and reminded the public that the "100 Years of Bremerton" photo exhibit was open on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays; and lastly, the Centennial Celebration birthday party will be held Saturday, October 13 in downtown Bremerton. Helen Miller requested that the addresses for the World Changers 2001 Project Sites be read into the record. The addresses for the 20 chosen homes were announced, and it was also noted that a map showing the location of the sites was available in the Council office. 10A - APPOINTMENT OF CHANCE BERTHIAUME TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (#AB01-160): Mayor Horton stated that there is a vacancy on the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee due to the resignation of Mindy Fohn. It is recommended Chance Berthiaume be appointed to fill the vacancy. There were no comments from the public. #1511 M/S/C/U (Younger/Olsen) Move to confirm the appointment of Chance Berthiaume to the Public Access Citizens Advisory Committee. 1 lB - RESOLUTION NO. 2824. REGARDING RECOVERY OF FEES FOR REMOVAL OE VEGETATION ON MULTIPLE PROPERTIES (#AB01-161): Janet Lun~eford, Building Specialist ]'1', stated that Ordinance No. 4584 declares that it is unlawful and a nuisance to allow, continue, or maintain grass and weeds exceeding twelve inches in height, shrubs, brush, vines, or trees which constitute a fire hazard or provide a harborage for rats, rodents, or horticultural pests, or noxious and poisonous plants. The listed properties are currently in violation of the ordinance and pursuant to Section 9.14 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, Council is asked to approve the removal of the nuisance vegetation on the property and collection of the costs incurred by personal judgement against the owner and a lien against the property. Out of the eleven properties, only one property at 1127 Highland Avenue was dropped from the list. There were no comments from the public. #1707 M/SIC/U (Shepherd/Arends) Move that Council pass Resolution No. 2824 as amended, ordering that the nuisance vegetation on the properties identified by the attached listing be removed by the City with fees incurred collected as reasonable abatement costs, which shall become a personal judgement against the owner and become a lien against the property. 12A - ORDINANCE NO. 4767 (SECOND READING) AMENDING THE OFFICIAl. ZONING MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (MF) AND GENERAL BUSINESS (BG) TO MIXED USE (MU) FOR PROPERTIES ALONG THE EAST FRONTAGE OF PARK AVENUE FROM 6TM STREET TO 11TM STREET EXCLUSIVE OF THE PARCEL AT THE NE CORNER OF PARK & 6TM (#AB01- 155): The First Reading of this ordinance was heard at the Council meeting on July 11, 2001. There were no comments from the public. #1775 M/S/C (Arends/Reed) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4767 on second reading. TAPES #1779 & #1780 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 4 of 6 Voted in favor of Motion: Younger, Arends, Reed, McConnell, Rollman, Shepherd, and Law Abstained: Olsen Motion carried: 7-Yes; l-Abstention 12B - ORDINANCE NO. 4768 (SECOND READING), AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TEXT BY REVISING THE DEFINITION OF "COMMUNITY CENTER" TO REFLECT PURPOSE~ AND ACTIVITIES EXPECTED AND COMMONLY EXPERIENCED IN CONTEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER SETTINGS (#AB01-156): The First Reading of this ordinance was heard at the Council meeting on July 11, 2001. There were no comments from the public. #1820 M/S/C (Reed/Younger) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4768 on second reading. Voted in favor of Motion: Arends, Reed, McConnell, Rollman, Shepherd, Younger, and Law Abstained: Olsen Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-Abstention 12C - ORDINANCE 4769 (SECOND READING). AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TEXT BY REVISING THE SETBACK STANDARDS FOR THE PARKS AND SCHOOLS (PS) ZONI~ CLASSIFICATION TO REFLECT THE REASONABLE AND PLANNED EXPANSION OF PARK-~ AND SCHOOL FACILITIES TO MEET GROWING DEMANDS (#AB01-157): The First Reading of this ordinance was heard at the Council meeting on July 11, 2001. John Dickinson asked if the ordinance was in accordance with the planned setbacks for the Olympic College development, or was this specifically for a project. Chris H~IgO, Planning & Building Director, responded that this proposal adjusts the setback according to the intensity of the environment in which the project sits, so that in Iow density single-family neighborhoods the setback would remain at 30 feet, but in more intensive environments closer to downtown, the setback would reflect the setback of the surrounding zones. #2059 M/S/C (Reed/Arends) Move to pass Ordinance No. 4769 on second reading. Voted in favor of Motion: Reed, McConnell, Rollman, Shepherd, Younger, Arends, and Law Abstained: Olsen Motion carried: 7-Yes; 1-Abstention 12D - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING). AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (CBR) TO PARKS AND SCHOOL FOR PROPERTIES NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CHESTER AVENUE AND 13TM STREET, AND TWO PARCELS ALONG THE WEST FRONTAGE OF LINCOLN AVENUE NORTH OF 13TM (#AB01-158): President Law announced this was a Quasi-Judicial issue, therefore asked if any Council Member believed their participation would conflict with the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine", and if they should be excused? Mr. Shepherd mentioned that constituents have expressed concerns about traffic in this area, however, he stated that it would not hinder his ability to make a decision on this issue. Mr. Rollman disclosed that he received a call from a citizen regarding this project, but Mr. Rollman suggested that the citizen come to the Council meeting to address their concerns, and did not discuss this issue further. President Law then asked members of the public if they believed any Council members should excuse themselves due to a conflict with the ''Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". There were no comments from the public. All Council members remained seated. TAPES #1779 & #1780 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 5 of 6 Chris Hugo, Planning & Building Director, commented that 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 and School (PS) to reflect the current Comprehensive Plan Map, School (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 Growth Management Act. The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing and adopted Findings and Conclusions at their June 19, 2001 meeting, and recommends City Council approval. The Council must conduct a public hearing prior to its fina~ decision and action on the proposed Ordinance. John Dickinson urged the Council to review the Olympic College "Growth Plan", and to consider "both sides of the story" on this issue. He expressed his frustration at the lack of communication and consideration for the residents of the area, and requested a neighborhood meeting Mike Connolly, Vice President of Olympic College Administration, provided a brief presentation to help the Council understand the decisions made my Olympic College in this matter; and discussed the unique difficulty of this particular College to expand its campus due to lack of property. Phil Lane, representing Olympic College and the State of Washington, urged Council to pass this Ordinance, and provided information to show how it would help the College grow. Mr. Younger engaged in further conversation with Mr. Dickinson regarding the concerns by the neighbors over this project; and inquired with Olympic College regarding property acquisition. Mr, Connolly discussed the process over the years for acquiring local property, and efforts made to keep the public informed. Mr. Reed understood that it would have been nice for the College to inform the public, but acknowledged that they are not required to do so. Aisc, he pointed out that a higher and better use of the property would only increase the property values for the surrounding neighbors. He further stated that he not only supported this zoning change around the College, but also would even support a more drastic zoning change. TAPE #1780 #0010 M/SIC/U (Reed/Arends) Move to approve the attached ordinance on first reading. llA - RESOLUTION NO. 2823, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OLYMPIC COLLEGE TO CONSTRUCT AND UTILIZE A SATELLITE PARKING FACILITY ON TWO RESIDENTIAL-SIZED PARCELS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE, NORTH OF 13TM STREET (#AB01-154): President Law announced this was a Quasi-Judicial issue, therefore asked if any Council Member believed their participation would conflict with the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine", and if they should be excused? Mr. She.Dherd mentioned that constituents have expressed concerns about traffic and parking in this area, however, he stated that it would not hinder his ability to make a decision on this issue. President Law then asked members of the public if they believed any Council members should excuse themselves due to a conflict with the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". There were no comments from the public. All Council members remained seated. Chris Hugo, Planning & Building Director, affirmed that Olympic College has presented an application for a Special Use Permit to construct a Satellite Parking Area on residential properties, owned by Olympic College, on the west side of Lincoln Avenue, and north of 13'h Street, into a 16 7 TAPES #1779 & #1780 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes July 18, 2001 Page 6 of 6 space surface parking lot to fulfill off-street parking requirements for the Olympic College Physical Plant Building to be constructed east of across Lincoln Avenue. The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, conducted a public hearing and adopted PC Resolution No. 2001-01, at their June 19, 2001 meeting, which recommended City Council approval, with conditions. The Council must conduct a public hearing prior to its final decision, and action on the proposed Resolution. Buck King expressed concerns that even with a fence, the noise will still probably be a disturbance to the residents. Phil Lane displayed a graphic to show plans to help mitigate neighbor concerns. Mr. Shepherd asked if the public was included in discussions on the mitigating process. Mr. Hugo stated yes, and elaborated further on additional landscaping that would be added to create a buffer. #0500 M/S/C/U (Shepherd/Reed) Move to pass the attached Resolution No. 2823. With no further business, the regular Council meeting was adjourned at 7:28 P.M. Council then reconvened in the Council Conference room for a Study Session to discuss "County-Wide Planning Policies". Prepared and Submitted by: LORI SMITH, Legislative Assistant Attest: PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk JOHN LAW, City Council President City of Bremerton JLIPJ/Islcge c: Normal Distribution File AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Budget Adjustment FOR AGENDA OF: Auqust 8, 2001 Request %2001-14 ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Servic~ ORIGINATOR: Peqgy Lesser ~ DATE SUBMITTED: August 1, 2001- · 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS: if necessary) Budget Adjustment Request Approvals by Admin. Services Director, Treasurer, Mayor and Fiscal & Budget Committee are shown on the attached budget adjustment reque st ENDORSEMENT~ I~O MAYOR ~ R~!~ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRE~ENT~OR SUBMITTAL: · COUNCIL PRES I DEN~//~/FF/~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City purchased a three-year pollution insurance policy, pre-paying the premium for 2002 and 2003 in order to achieve a substantial premium savings. $25,000 per year was budgeted for this coverage. The requested budget adjustment of $20,000 for insurance premiums will cover the premium for the second and third year of coverage. The City has been aggressively settling old liability claims. Recently we settled claims from 1996, 1998 and 2000 incidents. Funding for old claims is held in the Risk Management Reserve until needed. Then it is transferred to other current year expenditure authority. The $95,000 budget adjustment for claims payments accomplishes this. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the transfer of $115,000 from the Risk Management Ending Fund Balance to the Risk Management Supplies & Services budget. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: P. Lesser ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: P. Lesser EXPIRATION DATE: N/A REVIEW DATE: N/A 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED__ APPROVED DISAPPROVED~_~~ENDED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: O[-/~0 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (cont.): 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.): 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Lack of expenditure authority to settle current claims. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: /D CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST Requesting Department: Risk Management Adjustment Number: 2001 - 14 Approval Authority Required: r-]Treasurer ~--]Ma¥or [- Fiscal & Budget [~Council SOURCE OF FUNDS: USE OF FUNDS: Description Amount Description Amount Rish Management: Risk Management: Ending Fund Balance 115,000 Supplies & Services 115,000 NARRATIVE: 1) The City purchased a three-year pollution insurance policy, pre.paying the premium for 2002 and 2003 in order to achieve a substantial premium savings. $25,000 per year was budgeted for this coverage. The requested budget adjustment of $20,000 for insurance premiums will cover the premium for the second and third year of coverage. 2) The City has been aggressively settling old liability claims. Recently we settled claims from 1996, 1998 and 2000 incidents. Funding for old claims is held in the Risk Management Reserve until needed. Then it is transferred to the current year expenditure authority. The $95,000 budget adjustment for claim~l~ayments accomplishes this. ~,p--a~n-ent Head-Signature D Director Signature ~ E~ate' Treasurer Comments: r~/ Recommended F~'-~ Not Recommended I~r~//~ Tre s~rer's Signature Date Mayor Comments: ~ Recommended ~ Not Recommended F~ Approved ~ Denied Mayor's Signature Date Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: [~~pproved ~ Denied ~~_~~~e r~////g~'/ /f F~' Signature D'ate ' AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: ON-CALL CONSTRUCTION FOR AGENDA OF: August 8, 2001 MANAGEMENT SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL ORIGINATING DEPT: PW&U Engineering Div. SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH URS ORIGINATOR: Jennifer Strehler, City Engineer CONSTRUCTION SERVICES. DATE SUBMITTED: July 18,2001 2. CLEARANCES: (comment on back~ ~ ~353. EXHIBIT__S Director, Public Works/Utilities ~25 City Attorney ~ ~ ~ _../k---P~'ofessional Services Agreement with City Treasurer --~/'. ,~ ~';'~,~('"~-4,*~/ URS Construction Services. Director, Purchasing ,-, Council Budget & Finance t~ommittee · ~,~~~ Operations Committee ENDORSEME,.z~ X //~TION APPROVED BY COUNC~SDEN~FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR %~. v--,-,~, Z,~ COUNCIl. PRESIDEN~...z/_~_.. ~__,,// 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR CO-UNCIL ACTION: Based on an evaluation of qualified consultants the City has selected and negotiated a Professional Services Agreement with URS Construction Services to provide on-call construction management (CM) services for various capital projects. The City has limited staff available for construction inspection of capital projects and development projects. Passage of this Agenda Bill will result in an increase in the City's ability to provide timely field inspection of development projects and planned capital projects. URS has extensive CM experience and a local office in Bremerton. The not-to-exceed mount of the agreement is $68,858.00. The request before the City Council is to approve an agreement for professional services with URS Construction Services. Staff recommends approval of the Agreement. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Move to approve a Professional Services Agreement with URS Construction Services to provide on-call construction management services for the City of Bremerton, in an amount not to exceed $68,858.00, and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: .. City Engineer ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION COUNCIL DIRECTIVE D . 11. AGENDA BII,L NO: 19'/-/de [ /9,. 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Non-passage will result in a decrease in the City's ability to provide timely field inspection of development projects and planned capital projects. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Thc 2001 and 2002 budgets include sufficient funds for this study. City staff will administer and monitor the contract with URS. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES Not Applicable. ab/Agenda Bills 2001/PSA w/UPS on-call CM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT URS Construction Services THIS AGREEMENT, for reference purposes only, is dated the day of , 2001, and is entered into by and between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City" and "Owner") and URS Corporation America (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant" and "URS Construction Services"). WITNESSETH: 1. SCOPE: Consultant agrees to provide Construction Management Services as described in the Scope of Work attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "A". 2. TERM: Contract shall commence on the date of this agreement and will terminate on December 31, 2002, unless otherwise extended by the City, or unless earlier terminated pursuant to the terms of paragraph 10. 3. COMPENSATION: City shall pay Consultant compensation as follows: Total fees under this Agreement shall not exceed Sixty-eight thousand eight hundred fifty- eight ($68,858.00) dollars. Charges for services shall conform to the fee schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". Consultant shall submit regular statements describing the services rendered with a breakdown for work completed as authorized under this Agreement. The City, upon receipt of the completed statement, shall promptly process said claim for payment. If City obi ects to all or any portion of any invoice, City shall notify Consultant of the objection within fifteen (15) days fi.om the date of receipt of the invoice, give reasons for the objection, and pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute. If City fails to pay Consultant within sixty (60) days of receipt of invoice, Consultant may suspend further performance until payments are current. Consultant will return to work on the Project only when the unpaid balance has been paid in full to Consultant. If City non-payment continues for a period of six (6) months or longer, Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Agreement and pursue all legal and equitable remedies to collect full payment from City. Additional services which may be requested by the City will be paid for by the City at the rates set forth in Exhibit B, which sum may exceed the "not to exceed" amount set forth above. 4. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES: The parties understand and agree that URS Construction Services is a firm skilled in matters pertaining to Construction Management and will perform independent functions and responsibilities in the area of its particular field of expertise. Consultant and its personnel shall act as independent contractors and not employees of the City. As such they have no authority to bind the City or control employees of the City, contractors, or other PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 1- UR~-CM PSA - 7! 16/0 [ entities within the performance of these duties. Consultant shall work under the direction of the Director of Public Works & Utilities or his designee. 5. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE: Consultant agrees to provide for State industrial insurance coverage for its personnel as required by State law. 6. LICENSE AND TAXES: Consultant shall possess a current Bremerton Business License and any regulatory license required to fulfill Consultant's obligations under this Agreement. B & O taxes shall be paid when due and Consultant, by this Agreement, assigns any payments due under this Agreement to the City Clerk for payment of such taxes that have been declared delinquent. 7. INSURANCE AND HOLD HARMLESS: Consultant shall provide professional liability or errors and omissions insurance of $1,000,000 per claim and comprehensive general liability insurance, including bodily injury and property damage, of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence. The City shall be named an additional insured on the comprehensive general liability insurance policy. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City, its employees, and elected and appointed officers harmless from any and all claims of whatever kind or nature, arising directly or indirectly from actions or inactions of the Consultant, its officers, employee or subconsultants, arising directly or indirectly from the Consultant performance or failure to perform its duties under the terms of this Agreement. If a claim is made that both parties are responsible for all or a portion of damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of acts or omissions of the parties hereto, then the above referenced indemnity and hold harmless provision shall apply only to the extent of the proportion of liability attributable to the indemnifying party. If liability is not or cannot be apportioned, then the parties shall be responsible for their own costs and attorneys fees incurred in the matter and shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless for one half of any mount awarded by the Court or other decision making body with jurisdiction as a result of the alleged acts or omissions. Except for damages caused by the sole negligence of the City, the Consultants obligation under this section, the provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, shall include, but not be limited to: A. the duty to promptly accept tender of defense and provide defense to the City at Consultant's expense; B. the duty to indemnify and defend the City fi.om any claim, demand, and]or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of the Consultant's or subconsultants' employees or agents. The foregoing duty is intended to constitute a waiver of the Consultant's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, with respect to the City only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the City with a full and complete indemnity and defense of claims made by the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT =2- URS~CM PSA - 7/16/01 /~ Consultant's or subconsultants' employees. C. in the event that the City incurs attorney fees and/or costs in the defense of claims for damages within the scope of this paragraph, such fees and costs shall be recoverable from the Consultant. 8. GENERAL CONDITIONS: a. Reports and Information - Consultant, at such times and in such forms as the City may require, shall furnish the City such reasonable periodic reports and documents as it may request pertaining to the work or services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the costs and obligations incurred or to be incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by this Agreement. Consultant will maintain accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices to substantiate all invoiced mounts. b. Entire Agreement - This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and both parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been fully set forth in the text of this Agreement. There are attached hereto and incorporated by reference as part of this Agreement Exhibits "A and B". c. Amendments - The parties hereby further agree that this Agreement cannot be amended or modified without the written concurrence of both parties. d. Notices - Any notices required to be given by the City to Consultant or by Consultant to the City shall be in writing and delivered to the parties at the following addresses: City Clerk URS Corporation America 239 Fourth St. Brian Russell Bremerton, WA 98337 Manette Plaza 1100 Wheaton Way, Suite B Bremerton, WA 98310 e. Waiver - Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach. f. Compliance with State, Local and Federal Laws - Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws in performance of all services under this Agreement. g. Applicable Law; Venue - This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and, in the event of dispute, the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in Kitsap County Superior Court. h.' Attorney Fees - The substantially prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -3- UR.S-CM PSA - 7/16/01 be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, including appeals, if any. 9. NONDISCRIMINATION: Consultant 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 employment actions based on a bona fide occupational qualification. 10. TERMINATION: This Agreement maybe terminated by either party for convenience upon thirty (3 0) days' written notice to the other party, or for cause if either party fails substantially to perform through no fault of the other and does not commence correction within five (5) days of written notice and diligently completes the correction thereafter. Upon such termination, City will be entitled to reports showing the status of all matters upon which Consultant is advising the City as of the effective date of termination. 11. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE: The standard of care for all professional engineering and related services performed or furnished by Consultant under this Agreement will be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of Consultant's profession practicing under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. 12. CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES: Consultant's observation or monitoring of portions of the work performed under construction contracts shall not relieve the contractor from its responsibility for performing work in accordance with applicable contract documents. Consultant shall not control or have charge of, and shall not be responsible for, construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures of construction, health or safety programs or precautions connected with the work and shall not manage, supervise, control or have charge of construction. Further, Consultant shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the contractor or other parties on the project. The provisions of this paragraph are not intended to relieve the Consultant of its duty to perform Construction Management Services within the standard of care of that discipline recognized in the construction industry for the greater Seattle-Bremerton metropolitan area. 13, RE-USE OF DOCUMENTS: Al1 documents, including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer soRware or other items prepared or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, are instruments of service with respect to the project and are property of the City. Any reuse by the City for other than the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant, and City will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising or resulting therefrom. The format for documents and work products shall be as specified in the exhibits. 14. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: City represents to Consultant that, to the best of its knowledge, no hazardous materials are present at the project site. However, in the event hazardous materials are known to be present, City represents that it has disclosed to Consultant the existence of all such hazardous materials, including but not limited to asbestos, PCB's, petroleum, hazardous waste, or radioactive material located at or near the project site, including type, quantity and location PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -4- UR.S-CM PSA - 7/16/01 of such hazardous materials. It is acknowledged by both parties that Consultant's scope of services do not include services related in any way to hazardous materials. In the event Consultant or any other party encounters undisclosed hazardous materials, Consultant shall have the obligation to notify City and, to the extent required by law or regulation, the appropriate governmental officials, and Consultant may, at its option and without liability for consequential or any other damages to City, suspend performance of services on that portion of the project affected by hazardous materials until City: (i) retains appropriate specialist consultant(s) or contractor(s) to identify and, as appropriate, abate, remediate, or remove the hazardous materials; and (ii) warrants that the project site is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. City acknowledges that Consultant is performing professional services for City and that Consultant is not and shall not be required to become an "arranger," "operator," "generator," or "transporter" of hazardous materials, as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1990 (CERCLA), which are or may be encountered at or near the project site in connection with Consultant's services under this Agreement. If Consultant's services hereunder cannot be performed because of the existence of hazardous materials, Consultant shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause on 30 days written notice. 12N WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year indicated. URS Corporation America Date: BY: Vladimir Khazak, Executive Vice President CITY OF BREMERTON Date: BY: Lynn S. Horton, Mayor Departmental Approval Date: BY: W. Eugene Sampley, P.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attomey RECEIVED FOR FILING: KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, CITY CLERK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -5- IJRS-CM PSA - 7/16/0[ · EXHIBIT A CITY OF BREMERTON ON-CALL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES SCOPE OF wORK GENERAL DESCRIPTION The purpose of this Contract is for URS Construction Services a division of URS Corporation America to provide consultant services to the City of Bremerton Public Works & Utilities for on-call Construction Management Services. Consultant to provide level of effort consistent with budget identified in Exhibit B and as identified by the following tasks: TASK 300 - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION Notice to Proceed for work on this task will be separately authorized on a capital project- by-project basis. The first such project for which Notice to Proceed is herein authorized is the Tracyton Water Distribution project which is currently under construction this summer of 2001. 1. SPECIFIC ACTMTIES SUBTASK 301 · Prepare construction management guidelines to include procedures, project forms, project documentation control system, and closeout checklist. · Coordinate review, evaluation and approval of construction management guidelines with City staffprior to issuance. · Prepare construction schedule using Primavera/SureTrak scheduling software. · Prepare database using Microsoft Access 2000 to track project documentation. · Coordinate evaluation and approval of scheduling software and documentation database with City staff. 2. PRODUCTS · Prov/de meeting agenda for review and evaluation of construction management administration, including use of scheduling software and documentation database. · Provide final construction management project manual. TASK 620 - SUBCONSULTANT INSPECTION SERVICES City of Bremerton 1 Construction Management Services EXHIBIT B CITY OF BREMERTON CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES COMPENSATION Compensation for Consultant's services under this Contract shall be paid as follows for authorized services performed. Personnel Costs shall be at the hourly billing rates of the personnel listed herein and may be adjusted annually by the Consultant upon 30 days written notice to the City. For positions and other work not covered by the "billing rates" included herein, direct labor with a multiplier o f 2~2~5~ will be utilized to calculate total labor cost inclusive of overhead and profit. SubConsultant Costs shall be at their cost to Consultant plus 10%. ,It is agreed that the City shall pay for all SubConsultant costs associated with the Tracyton Water project accumulated between April 15, 2001 and the date of this Contract. Other Direct Costs shall be at their cost to Consultant plus 10% and are the actual expenses incurred directly or indirectly in connection with the project including, but not 1/miter to, the following: 1. Travel expenses when traveling in connection with the project. Automobile transportation shall be reimbursable at the current rate published by the Internal Revenue Service. 2. Postage charges. 3. Telephone monthly charges; local and long distance. 4. Reproduction charges. 5. Office supply charges. 6. Sales tax, excise tax, or gross receipts tax that may be imposed on th/s Agreement. 7. Other direct costs related to the work. Monthly invoices shall be submitted to the City for work performed subsequent to work covered by all previously submitted invoices and shall be computed pursuant to the rates and limitations set forth above. The approximate distribution of costs with respect to the tasks are presented in Table B-1. Consultant may adjust the distribution of compensation between individual tasks of the work noted herein to be consistent with services actually rendered, but shall not exceed the total estimated compensation mount unless approved in writing by the City. ~o City of Bremerton 1 Construction Management Services EXFITBIT B CITY OF BREMERTON CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES TABLE B-1 Esfimate'd period of performance ( April 15, 2001- October 31, 2001) Labor Estimate Task 300 Task 630 Totals CM Additional Administration Services Total Total Position Staff Rate Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Principal Brian Russell 125.00 0 0 0 0 0 Resident Engineer Floyd Bayless 79.00 721 5,688 0 0 72 5,688 Resident Engineer Jeff VaUghn 79.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inspector Inspector 70.00 01 0 200 14,000 200 14,000 Project Controls Mark Shetton 75.00 731 5,475. 0 0 73 5,475 Admin Support Jane Kirk 58.00 86 4,988. 0 0 86 4,988 Subtotals 16,151~ 14,000! 30,151 Subtotal Labor per task 16,151 14,000 Task 620 SubConsultant Inspection Services (Tracyton Water System Upgrade Project Only) Firm Scope Estimated + 10% Totals Cost Krazan & Assoc Tracyton on-site full-time inspection . 33,020 3,302 36,322 Subtotal! I 33,02q 3,302[ 36,322 Other Direct Costs Item Rate , Estimated + 10% Totals Cost Construction Photographs $15.00 per 24 exposure roll, exposed & developed 0 0 0 Outside Reproduction At-Cost 500 50 550 Telephone 50% of at-cost for 5 month period 805 81 886 Project Related Travel 34.5 cents per mile or current IRS allowable rate 175 18 193 Misc At-cost all project related office supplies, references, 688 69 757: Subt°talsl I 2'168l 217[ 2,385 Total Estimated Labor Costs [ $ 30,151 I Total Estimated SubConsultant Costs L$ 36,322 ] Total Estimated ODCs [ $ 2,385 ] TOTAL ESTIMATED COMPENSATION [[ $ 68,858 City of Bremerton ~] Construction Management Services 7/23/2001 9.'14 AM AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing FOR AGENDA OF: August 8~ 2001 Resolution # ~ ~ ~ , regarding recovery of fees for ORIGINATING DEPT.: Fire Dept. the abatement of a dangerous chimney on the property ORIGINATOR: Al Duke located at 1014 Veneta Avenue. DATE SUBMITTED: 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment olt back if 3. EXHIBITS: necessary)'~'-~"~-. ' ~/~ Fire Chief: (~ ~' 1. Resolution # a,~ ~ City Clerk:~..~~ 2. Clerk Report Interim City nt~.' ~?~~~ 3. Photos ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR S~IILI~flTTAI_,: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIl]ACTION: On June 20, 2001, Public Works removed loose bricks from the chimney on the house located at 1014 Veneta Avenue after the owner, D. K. Shaw, failed to do so as ordered. The legal requirements for notice were met. The cost of the work, including the administrative fee, totaled $1,399.00. Council must now decide if the costs are just and reasonable and how they should be eollected. RECOMMENDATION: I move that Council, by Resolution # m° ~ .~;-, order that the fees incurred in the amount of $1,399.00 for the abatement of a dangerous chimney located at 1014 Veneta 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 PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~ AMENDE~]__.~2 A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: ~)/- Joqc~ 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 the abatement of a dangerous chimney on the property at 1014 Veneta Avenue and determining means of collection. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for removal of loose bricks from the chimney on the property located at 1014 Veneta Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Uniform Code for the Abatement 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 WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected as a lien against the property located at 1014 Veneta 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 $1,399.00 for the property located at 1014 Veneta 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 July 17, 2001 Memo To: Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk From: Janet Lunceford, BDS II Re: 1014 Veneta Avenue Paula--On June 20, 2001, Public Works removed the loose bricks bom the earthquake-damaged chimney on the house located at 1014 Veneta Avenue after the owner, D.K. Shaw, failed to do so as ordered. The cost of the work, per the attached interfund transfer and including the administrative fee, totaled $1,399.00. I have scheduled a public hearing for August 8, 2001 for Council to decide how the fees should be collected. CITY OF BREMERTON INTERFUND TRANSFER CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY DATE 07/03/2001 TKANSFER# 10152 COMPLETE THIS FORM IN DUPLICATE AND 1LETURN TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Fire Department (Fund 108) TO PWO-STREET DIVISION FROM Abatements/Demolitions (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT) DESCRIPTION TOTAL Charges per attached summary for: June 2001 BLAB LABOR $1,933.70 EQUIPMENT $928.50 MATERIALS . $276.20 SALES TAX $0.00 TOTAL $3,138.40 ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT 42-349.3900 $3,138.40 ~ ~-x/. GO l~ML -~.-%~/4-1 lq '~0~)6c~'-~ ~.,3.-~- Work Order History 07/03/2001 12:42.'09 PM CITY OF BREMERTON PWO-STREET DIVISION Work order #: SD510037 Title: BLAB-1014 Veneta Remove Bricks Chime Status: S Labor Hours Estimate: 0 Project #: N4014280 Ancilla~ Operations Materials Estimate: $0 Customer: BLAB Fire Department (Fund 108) Abatements/Demolitions Equipment Estimate: $0 Work Type: AO ANCILLARY OPERATIONS Date Entered: 06/05/2001 12:00:00 AM Supervisor: 0524 Colen Corey Date Updated: 07/03/2001 10:37:34 AM Lead Employee: 0524 Colen Corey Date Targeted: 08/02/2001 Priority: 1 Date Assigned: 06/05/2001 Location ID: 1 Unspecified Location Date Started: 06/20/1901 History #: 1 Unspecified Equipment Date Finished: 06/20/1901 Work Description Remove loose bricks off Chimney, store in garport or next to house. 06/ZO/2001 N~014280 BLAB-1014 Veneta Remove Bricks, Chimney (1 lth & Veneta). 511601 No BLAB 0909 Brian Brewer 4.00 hr $132.00 0524 Colen Corey 3.00 hr $99.00 3081 1995 Int*l Aerial Man Lift Track 3.00 hr $135.00 0583 Mark A. Thompson 4.00 hr $132.00 3078 '95 1-TON CHEVY 4.00 hr $36.00 11.00 hr 0.00 hr $534.00 SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER: SD510037 Labor: $363.00 Total Regular Labor Hours: 11.00 Benefits: $0.00 Total Overtime Labor Hours: 0.00 Equipment: $171.00 Total Labor Hours: 11.00 Materials: $0.00 Total Regular Equipment Hours: 7.00 Sales Tax: $0.00 Total Overtime Equipment Hours: 0.00 Total: $534.00 Total Equipment Hours: 7.00 SD510037 Page I AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Public Hearing FOR AGENDA OF: August 8~ 2001 Resolution # ~ ~ , regarding recovery of fees for ORIGINATING DEPT.: Fire Dept. the abatement of garbage and debris on the property ORIGINATOR: Al Duke located at 1421 & 1425- 17th Street. DATE SUBMITTED: 2. CLEARANCES: ,(Comment on back if 3. EXHIBITS: Fire Chief: ~~.~.~ ~ 1. Resolution # ~ ~ ~ ~ City Cler~4f~/~t/~~~'~ 2. Clerk Report Interim C,ty Atty.: ~'~t~ ~./~~ 3. Photos A PROW cot crL P Sm Yr S UTTA : 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMEN~TION: On June 12, 2001, Public Works removed garbage and debris from the property located at 1421 & 1425 - 17th Street after the owner, Duane Oliphant, failed to do so as ordered. The legal requirements for notice were met. The cost of the work, including administrative fees, totaled $2,906.85. Council must now decide if the fees are just and reasonable, and how they should be collected. RECOMMENDATION: I move that Council, by Resolution # ~ ~ 3 J, order that the fees incurred in the amount of $2,906.85 for the abatement of garbage and debris located at 1421 & 1425 - 17th Street 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 ~ AMENl~D~ 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 the abatement of garbage and debris on the property at 1421 & 1425 - 17th Street and determining means of collection. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for removal of garbage and debris on the property located at 1421 & 1425 - 17th Street; and WHEREAS, 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 WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Bremerton recommends the fees be collected as a lien against the property located at 1421 & 1425 - 17~' Street, 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 $2,906.85 for the property located at 1421 & 1425 - 17th Street, 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 July 17,2001 Memo To: Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk From: Janet Lunceford, BDS II Re: 1421 & 1425- 17th Street Paula-- On June 12, 2001, Public Works removed garbage and debris from the property located at 1421 & 1425 - 17th Street after the owner, Duane Oliphant, failed to do so as ordered. The cost of the work, per the attached interfund transfer and including the administrative fee, totaled $2,906.85. I have scheduled a public hearing for August 8, 2001 for Council to decide how the fees should be collected. CITY OF BREMERTON INTERFUND TRANSFER CITY DEPARTMENTS ONLY DATE 07/03/2001 TRANSFER# 10152 COMPLETE THIS FORM IN DUPLICATE AND RETURN TO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Fire Department (Fund 108) TO PWO-STREET DIVISION FROM Abatements/Demolitions (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) (EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT) DESCRIPTION TOTAL Charges per attached summary for: June 2001 BLAB LABOR $1,933.70 EQUIPMENT $928.50 MATERIALS , $276.20 SALES TAX $0.00 TOTAL $3,138.40 ACCOUNT AMOUNT ACCOUNT AMOUNT 42-349.3900 $3,138.40 -,..~¢:~ ~4- - Work Order History 07/03/2001 I2.'42.'09 PM CITY OF BREMERTON PWO-STREET DIVISION Work Order #: SD510033 Title: BLAB-Board up 1421 & 1425 17th Street. 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: 05/17/2001 12:00:00 AM Supervisor: 0524 Colen Corey Date Updated: 07/03/2001 10:37:34 AM Lead Employee: 0524 Colen Corey Date Targeted: 08/02/2001 Priority: 1 Date Assigned: 05/17/2001 Location ID: 1 Unspecified Location Date Started: 05/22/1901 History #: 1 Unspecified Equipment Date Finished: 06/27/1901 Work Description Board up all entrances to 1421 & 1425 17 th street, notify Janet before entering, Police need to be on site may have squatters living there. Use all screws to attach wood no nails! 06/12/2001 b14014280 BLAB-Re-Board up 1421 & 1425 17th Street. 511517 No BLAB 0909 Brian Brewer 1.00 hr $33.00 0583 Mark A. Thompson 1.00 hr $33.00 06/1412001 N4014280 Clean up garbage at 1421 & 1425 17th Street. 511544 No BLAB 0909 Brian Brewer 9.00 hr $297.00 3039 '94 JD410 BACKHOE 9.00 hr $351.00 0583 Mark A. Thompson 9.00 hr $297.00 3067 1990 Int'l 5 Yard Dump Track 9.00 hr $225.00 0524 Colen Corey 2.00 hr $66.00 1712 John Corey IV 6.00 hr $198.00 DUMPIN Dump Fees - Oly. View Sanitary Landfill 5.00 yd $51.90 06/18/2001 N4014280 BLAB-Board up 1421 & 1425 17th Street. Haul out garbase & debris. 511579 No BLAB 0524 Colen Corey 2.00 hr $66.00 3067 1990 Int'l 5 Yard Dump Truck 2.00 hr $50.00 1842 L. Dean Westcott 1.50 hr $49.50 3066 1990 Int'l 5 Yard Dump Truck 1.50 hr $37.50 DUMPIN Dump Fees - Oly. View Sanitary Landfill 20.00 yd $207.60 o6/,gaoo, m0~428o BLAB-Board up 1421 & 1425 17th Street. Clean up garbage & debris. 511591 NO BLAB 0909 Brian Brewer 2.00 hr $66.00 0583 MarkA. Thompson 2.00 hr $66.00 3078 '95 1-TON CHEVY 2.00 hr $18.00 1842 L. Dean Westcott 1.50 hr $49.50 3091 1987 Int'l 12 yard Dump Truck 1.50 hr $51.00 06/1711001 N401428o BLAB-RE-Board up 1421 & 1425 17th Street. 511645 No BLAB 0909 Brian Brewer 1.00 hr $33.00 0583 Mark A. Thompson 1.00 hr $33.00 2087 Andrew Randolph 1.00 hr $9.85 SD5'10033 Page 40.00 hr 0.00 hr $2,288.85 SUMMARY FOR WORKORDER: SD510033 Labor: $1,296.85 Total Regular Labor Hours: 40.00 Benefits: $0.00 Total Overtime Labor Hours: 0.00 Equipment: $732.50 Total Labor Hours: 40.00 Materials: $259.50 Total Regular Equipment Hours: 25.00 Sales Tax: $0.00 Total Overtime Equipment Hours: 0.00 Total: $2,288.85 Total Equipment Hours: 25.00 3q SD510033 Page 2 ~, ~."g:''30 AGENDA B'LL l~,solf~o~/J BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL I I. SUBJECT: Publi,c~qearinq to c~er an appeal of a FOR AGENDA OF: 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 Huqo, 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: 0,~~ o DNS City Attorne ..~...,o~./" // , o Appeal City Clerk: ~/'~d-,~'~~ ~/// o Staff Report Fiscal & Buc~ Co'uncil,,Com~.i J//~'? ~,¥_/.~._,~/'..~' o Written Record Operations (~omm.: ~z.,~_'; ENDORSEMENT __ INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUNGIE'P-~ESlDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: MAYOR~~OUNCILPRES~IDENT ~~?~. ~~,. ./ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT~'OR COUNCIL ACTION: , A~ Official Zoning Code Text amendment in the form of a RezofJ'e application was received from the City s Building & Plam~ing Depa~ment. The applicant's request Js fo~ an Official Zoning Code Text amendment m the fo~ of a Rezone application. Thc p~oposed c~d ~csu]t will be to amend thc text of Brcmc~o~ ~icipa] Code Title 2 l, ~a~d Usc, Chapter 2 [ .02, Zom~8 Code, b~ modi~i~ Sccfio~ 21.02.750, ~cn Space, to allow i~c]usio~ of rcqmTcd buffers a~d setback areas i~ thc mimmm ] 5 pc~cc~t opc~ space of the total ~oss area of a~y dcve]opme~t havi~ a total ~oss a~ca ~eate~ than one acre; and to delete reference to ~ctJvc a~d passive areas; and to delete the ~equJreme~t for rccTeational opc~ sp~cc. This zom~ code text ~mcndme~t p~oposa], if approved, would be implemented o~ a cJ~idc basis. · cxt ~cndmc~t app]ic~tio~ ~c~ucsts ~c co~sidcrcd ~omp~ojcct actions, which do ~ot p~oposc specific development projects. ~ Appeal of thc ~omp~ojcct SE~A Dctc~i~tio~ ofNomsi~ifica~cc ~NS) issued has been received contc~din~ that there was a~ e~o~ i~ issui~[ thc ~omprojcct DHS ~d ~hat a full c~vi~o~mental review (~[S) should ha~c bcc~ , accomplished. A+ ~ ~ob/~c ~~ ~eJZ ~-2¢-0l~ C;~ ~oo~i~ ~~ ~ 5. RECOMMENDATION: Hove to pass Resolution No. 2830, outlining Findings a Conclusion denying the appeal DE the DNS, issued April 23~ 2001 ~or project PL01-0035. ii. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 7. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED__ AM COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 8. AGENDA roLL NO.: 0 1 - I bE 9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: 11. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIE$~ 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 BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2830 A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF A SEPA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (PL01-0035) REGARDING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The City implemented a non-project zoning code text amendment that if approved would amend Bremerton Municipal Code section 21.02.750 to allow inclusion of required buffers and yard setback areas in the minimum 15 per cent open space requirement for commercial developments larger than one acre, to delete references to passive and active recreation areas, and to delete the requirement for recreational open space in commercial developments. ("Text Amendment") 2. On April 26, 2001 the environmental official issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) on the Text Amendment. The terms of the DNS are incorporated by reference. 3. The appellant, Eldorado Hills, Inc filed a notice of appeal dated June 6, 2001, which is hereby made a part of the record. 4. The City stipulated the appeal was timely filed. 5. A public hearing was held on the appeal on July 25, 2001. A record of those testifying at the public hearing is in the possession of the City Clerk. 6. The Appellant challenged the DNS on the grounds that the environmental review of the Text Amendment should have considered the environmental impacts of a specific project that is currently pending before the City. That project is known as the Albertson's Project. 6. The Albertson's Project is undergoing separate environmental review. 7. The proposed zoning code text amendment applies to all development in the City on parcels larger than one acre. ?,? 8. The environmental officer determined that the Text Amendment was of Citywide significance and environmental review of each parcel affected by the amendment would be made at the time environmental review was done on any project that was submitted for an affected parcel. WHEREAS, based upon the above findings the Council makes the following conclusions: 1. The decision of the SEPA officer is to be given substantial weight. 2. The proposed text amendment is not a phase of the Albertson's project, but is an amendment of citywide application. 3. The Appellant has failed to carry his burden of proof that the decision of the environmental officer was in error. Now, therefore, based upon the above findings and conclusions, BE IT RESOLVED that the appeal of the environmental officer's decision on Project PL01-0035 IS DENIED. 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 CITY OF BREMERTON BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Application No: PLO 1-0017 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 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. 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. 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 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 43.21 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, 200 ! Date of Publication: April 27, 2001 . Appeal. Deadline: May 23,2001 C~/~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. PL._O I -- 2o b 5% l o4 .° O, p .__ - M L 0 p tz ~ T B' tnt;or aw rou 1505 ~stlakeAvenu~ North, Sult~ 300 "'~" 08 2001~; s~.,,~,,m.,~.~ro~ ~0~ t~U,~ -rEL 206.676.7008 FAX 206.676.7001 BREMEETOI'. BUILDING ~?/,~RT;.,,~7~ Peter H. Dyk~tra direct 206.676.7095 dykstra~men torlaw.com 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 Albertsons Stores Text Amendment Request To Amend Parking Ratio for Food Stores and Supet~narkets and City of Bremerton Text Amendment Request to l~lodis9 0t,e.- S ~,ace Requirements Dear Mr. Hugo: As you requested, a~ached please find amended appeal £orrns from 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 Requirement~ 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 m 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-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 regarding these matters. Please set these matters for hearing before the City Council in accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code 2t.02.845. Sincerely, MENTOR LAW GROLrF, PLLC Enclosures A mended Appea I of' Deter~n ina tion of Non-s ign ificance,for City of Bremerto n Text Amend~nent Request To AJnend ~¥Iodify Open-Space Requirements (1) Appellant'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 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. (3) Subject of the Appeal Determination of Non-Significance for City, of Bremerton Text Amendment Request to Modify Open-Space Requirements apparently issued by the City on April 26, 2001. (4) Grounds for Appeal and Facts Upon FVhich 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 May 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 FvLr. Ivlike Zoretic of Stanislaw Ashbaugh, our counsel at the time, that he be provided "with copies of anv and all submittals, approvals or other documents or communication relating to the Albertsons' project", we never received notice of the DNS now being appealed. it3 The Ci.ty,'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 analysis. Id. SEPA prohibits a governmental agency, from moving forward with a particular course of action until a threshold determination and subsequent environmental impact analysis, ff 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 [ndian Trails Property Owner's Association v. Spokane, 76 Wn. App. 430, 440 (1994). The CiLy's attempt to cast the changes in the text amendment as "d ,ty- ,Mde" is an attempt to avoid considering the environmental impacts of the text amendment cumulativelv ,~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, Albertsons' supermarket proposal cannot go forward. 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. The Ci~'s failure to provide notice, in accordance with Bremerton Murdcipal Code 21.12.210(b) and WAC 197-11-680(5), despite our clear request for notification means that the time period for appealing the DNS has not begun to run. See e.g., Den Beste v. Pollution 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 simpIy because [an agency] failed to mail a notice of decision to it."). (5) Relief Requested. Full environmental review of the text amendment and the proposed Albertsons' development, together as a single action. (6) A ttesta tion. I have read this appeal and believe, to the best of my knowledge, that the contents are true. ~ .Oj~ Eagle~on, S~c;etary l~dorado Hills, Inc. "~,~"~[ AGENDA BILL ,- J~O° BREM._ERTON_ C_ITY COUNCIL ~ I. SUBJECT: Publi.c-He~rinq to c~r an appea~ of a FOR AGENDA OF: SEPA Determmahon 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: .~P&B Director: ~_ ~ o DNS ity Attorney~~ ---, , o Appeal City Clerk: /,,¢f,,/',,,cz.,~:>-'*~¢.,¢¢,~ ~_. ;¢ // o Staff Report F~scal & Bu'fE'.(7~e'~ Councd Comn~....¢,~/I~,;/~¥.¢./ o Written Record Operat~onsdomm.. /_~c~_ ~-~¢~_~~ ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUI~JC~PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUlREMEN'r,~F~ COUNCIL ACTION: A~ Official Zoning Code Text amendment in the form of a Eezonc application was received fi-om Albertsons, [nc., to amend the text of Bremerton Municipal Code Title 2 !, [,and Use, Chapter 2 ! .02, Zoning Code, Figure 670(b), Off-Street ?arkin§ ~equiremcnts for Non-Residential Uses, to reduce the par~sng requirements for the _Food Store (reta~O, M~rket& and $uper~arketx ]and use category, fi-om one parkin~ space for each 200 square feet of building ~oss 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 PASS RESOLUTION NO. 2831, outlining Findings & Conclusion denying the appeal of the DNS, issued April 23, 2001 for project PL01-O028. 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Christopher R. Hugo ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~ AM COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: s. AGENDAmLL NO.' 01-171 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 BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2831 A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF A SEPA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (PL01-0028) REGARDING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE FOOD STORE (RETAIL), MARKETS, AND SUPERMARKETS LAND USE CATEGORY WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. At the request of Albertson's Inc., the City implemented a non- project zoning code text amendment that would, if approved, amend Figure 670(b) in Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 21.02 to reduced 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 space for every 250 square feet of building floor area ("Text Amendment"). 2. On April 23, 2001 the environmental official issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) on the Text Amendment. The terms of the DNS are incorporated by reference. 3. The appellant, Eldorado Hills, Inc filed a notice of appeal dated June 6, 2001, which is hereby made a part of the record. 4. The City stipulated the appeal was timely filed. 5. A public hearing was held on the appeal on July 25, 2001. A record of those testifying at the public hearing is in the possession of the City Clerk. 6. The Appellant challenged the DNS on the grounds that the environmental review of the Text Amendment should have considered the environmental impacts of a specific project that is currently pending before the City. That project is known as the Albertson's Project. 6. The Albertson's Project is undergoing separate environmental review. 7. The Text Amendment is a legislative action that would apply to all future development in the City that involved a use within the affected use category. 8. The environmental officer determined that the Text Amendment was of Citywide significance and environmental review could be effectively accomplished by conducting environmental review at the time a project application was submitted for a project that would be impacted by the text amendment. WHEREAS, based upon the above findings the Council makes the following conclusions: 1. The decision of the SEPA officer is to be given substantial weight. 2. The proposed text amendment is not a phase of the Albertson's project, but is an amendment of citywide application. 3. The Appellant has failed to carry his burden of proof that the decision of the environmental officer was in error. Now, therefore, based upon the above findings and conclusions, BE IT RESOLVED that the appeal of the environmental officer's decision on Project PL01-0028 IS DENIED. 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 CITY OF BREMERTON BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Application No: PL01-0008 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 43.21C.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 43.21 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 23, 2001 Comment Deadline: May 7, 2001 Date of Publication: April 25, 2001 Appeal Deadline: May 21, 2001 Christopher R. Hugo, Responsi/Ijle 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. k 6- l 4. Men or aw rou ~( ~' TEL 206.676.7008 FAX 206.676.7001 BREMERTN, BUILDINg DE~LF,TI.'IF;- Peter H. Dyk~tra direct 206.676,7095 dFkstra~men rorlaw,com June 6, 2001 Mr. Chris Hugo Departwnent of CommurtiD, Development City of Bremerton 286 - 4th St. Bremerton, WA 98337 Re: Amended Appeal of Detertninations 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 t oaify Open-Space Requirements Dear Mr. Hugo: As you requested, attached please find amended appeal forms from 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 issued by the City on April 23, 2001, and April 26, 2001, respectively, previously filed by Eldorado Hill.~, Inc. As we understand your position, the City believes that two separate appeals are required ~or a party to appeal the City's action on these Determinations of Non-Si~f:icance. We do not believe the Bremerton Municipal Code requires separate filings. Bremerton Municipal Code 21.02.395(g) simpIy 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 m full compliance with its requirements. Furthermore, substantial compliance with the appeal procedures is sufficient to maintain our objections lo 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 reIate 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 $~24 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 Murricipal Code 21.02.845. Sincerely, MENTOR LAW GROUP, PLLC Enclosures Amended Appeal of Determination of Non-significance for Albertsons Stores' Text Amend~nent Request To Amend Parking Ratio for Food Stores and Super~narkets (1) Ap?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-SignLficance on May 15, 2001. We appealed the Determination of Non-Significance on May 16, 2001. (3.) Subject of the Appeal Determination of Non-Significance for Albertsons Stores' Text .aznendment Request To Amend Par'king Ratio for Food Stores and Supermarkets apparently issued bv the Citv on April 23, 2001. (4) Grounds for Appeal and Facts Llpon k'~ich Appeal 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 .~shbaugh, 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. The CiW'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 thev are closelv related, the actions must be reviewed in the same environmental analysis. Id. SEPA prohibits a governmental agency, from moving forward with a particrdar course of action until a threshold determination and subsequent environmental impact analysis, if a_ny, 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 ProperS! Owner's Association v. Spokane, 76 Wn. App. 430, 440 (1994). The attempts by Albertsons and the City to cast the changes in this text amendment as "citv-~dde" is an attempt to avoid considering the environmental impacts of the text amendment cumulafivelv ~4th the environmental impacts of .Mbertsons' project. Significantly, but for this text amendment, Albertsons' supermarket proposal cannot go forward. 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 ks insufficient to comply with SEPA. t~ne Citv's failure to provide notice, in accordance ~4th 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 ~ ~- m~, ~este ~, Poll'ation ~-,,,~,,~ Hearings Board, 81 Wn. App. 330, 339 (1996) ("An aggTieved par.ty 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) Reli£f Requested. Full environmental review of the text amendment and the proposed Aibertsons' 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. l~ 'c~ ~: Eagle~or~7-S/6Se ta~- Eldorado Hills, Inc. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: :rcr~y 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 Huqo, Director DATE SUBMITTED: July, 18 2001 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: __P&B Director: ~f//~,C.A~ o PC Findings & Conclusions City Attorney~~ o PC Minutes July 17.2001 City Clerk: -~ ~'~..a_..~C J2~,, ~ ~_/ ~/~ o Staff Repo~ Fiscal & Bud~et~oun~i~Comm~-~~~ o Ordinance to ~mend Zoning Text Operations Comm.: [~~ ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COU,CI~ESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 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' °'tf/~V~" on. JS'l'-readin,q ~VlAd, V~Vt~ ~---OV~,'~, _~ Move to attached Ordinance ~ ~ _ _ .. ~ 6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL~ Christopher R. Hugo ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 7. NOTICE OF ACTION E~~~E~ PULLED TABLED APPROVED DISAPPROVED AM COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: O( - 17 0 5(, 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 21.02.750 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, 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 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 receive direct benefits from this requirement; 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, 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, 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 ordinance; 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, 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 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 Bremerton Planning Commission, during their regularly scheduled meeting on July 17, 200i, 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 August 1,2001, 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 LARGE DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING The following Open Space and Landscaping requirements shall apply to 3n~,, 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) (-b) 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. (3) ~ Designated Open Space shall not include: i_. (4-) 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. ~ (-~f) 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. (5) (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. .(Z) (-g) 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. 5f (b) Commercial Uses, Total Landscape Area: (1) Required Minimum: There shall be a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total .qross area of the commercial development dedicated or otherwise provided as landscaping. This may include required yard setback areas and required bufferinq and landscaping for parking areas. 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 ~0 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 developments 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 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2001 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT APPUCANT OR PROPONENT (FILE NUMBERS): City of Bremerton (PL01-0017) DATE OF REPORT: April 25, 2001 (Revised, May 4, 200'1) 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 u,~e~. 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. DATE AND METHODS OF LEGAL NOTICE: Notice of this application was pdnted 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-proiect action in accordance with WAC 197-11 on April 26, 2001. DECISION CRITERIA: There are two criteria 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 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) (-b) 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. (3) {c~) 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. ~ (d-) 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. (5). . (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. (6) (-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) (9) 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. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL I. SUBJECT: Public Hearinq &Ordinance to amend FOR AGENDA OF: I¥ 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 Hugo, Director DATE SUBMITTED: July, 18 2001 2. CLEA~NCE~:. (Comment on back if necessaw) 3. EXHIBITS: -/ P&B Director: ~~~ / o PC Findings & Conclusions ~City Attorney: ~~~~ ~ ~ o PC Minutes July 17, 2001 City Clerk: ~ ~~ ~ ~ o Staff Repo~ Fiscal & Budget C~n~il Comm.: ~. ~~ o Ordinance to amend Zoning Text Operations Comm.: ~~ /~~~ o Su¢¢~~ ~~ ~o~ ENDORSEMENT~ INFORMATION __ APPROVED BY COUN~PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: The Albedsons 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. Move to approve the attached Ordinance # on first readinq. 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 AMEN COUNCIL DIRECTIVE' DATE: 8. AGENDA BILL NO.: 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 omsite 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 APPP,OVED 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 PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES LAND USE MINi PA REMENTS otc{ I space per 2 guest rooms, plus I space per 200 sq.fi, of gross floor area devoted to other common uses. Motel space per 2 guest rooms, plus space per 200 sq.ft, of gross floor arcs 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 I space per each 10 sites to be located in a security area such a5 a vehicle storage area, plus ! space per five trailer sites for guest parking, and Additional spaces, as needed, for office or communiU' buildings. Automobile Se~qce space per 200 sq.f:, of gross floor area, plus space per service bay (bay itself'is not a space). A minimum of 5 spaces shall be provided. Barber Shop/Beaut5~ Salon I space per 75 sq.ft, of gross floor area. * Bank I space per 350 sq.P., of gross floor area. Bowling Alley .5 spaces per Lane. Medical/Dental Clinic I space per 150 sq.fl, of gross floor area. or Office Clubs, lodges I space per 4 fixed seats, and 1 space per 50 sq.ft, of gross floor area of assembly area~ 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 I space per 100 sq.ft, of gross floor area. Food Store (retail) 1 space per250 sq.ft, of gross floor area. Markets & Supermarkets A minimum of 6 spaces shall be provided. Garden Nursery I space per 400 sq.R. 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.fl, of gross floor area. Physical Fitness Center Hospitals & Medical l.a spaces per bcd. Number of beds to be determined by license ,l'lhc State Centers (Portion with beds) of' Washington. (Hospital basinels 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. '7¢ 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"'~'/~k'__/¢,4,~ Chris Hugo Secretary 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 Cockbum, Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kennedy, and Commissioner Moshay. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Dingfield and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy that the agenda be approved as submitted. Called for a vote: Cockburn: 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 1 of 7 75' 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 fight 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. I-Ionore made copies of the Downtown Core Policies for the commissioners. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was any public comment on this item. None. The public hearing was closed on this item. The commissioners concluded that there has been no opportunity to deliberate on the Downtown Development Policies. Commissioner Dingfield asked a question about the downtown core, both #8 and #9. Internal corridors or terrace walkways. Is that something that private developers are going to be responsible for doing or is that going to be part of City responsibilities. Mr. Hugo stated that those kinds of features are something that City either negotiates with the project or has to require Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2001 Page 3 of 7 -77 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 fide" areas. She stated that we (City of Bremerton) will become a walk-on ferry destination and that our terminal is unfriendly. The group decided that the best way to address this issue was to modify General Policy #3 by changing it to read, "Parking implies including both on street and off street facilities should be managed to emphasis short term use over long term use ensuring an adequate supply for shoppers, visitors and ferry passenger pick-up and drop off." A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy to approve PL01-0024 as revised and seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Called for a vote: Cockburn: yes; Dingfield: yes; Kennedy: yes; Moshay: yes; and Kosusko: yes. Motion 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. Itugo 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 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: Cockburn: 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 8o 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 adjourned 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), 1 space per 250 sq. ft. 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-proiect action in accz~rdance with WAC 197-11 on April 23, 2001. DECISION CRITERIA: There are two criteria 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. BREMERTON Memo To: MEMBERS, BREMERT~N CITY COUNCIL From: Chds Hugo, Direct(~~ Date'- August 2, 2001 Re-' REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPERMARKETS The two pieces of attached information provided in response to the Council's request for additional information about parking requirements for supermarkets are: 1. A staff survey of parking space requirements in selected cities in the Puget Sound region. The survey compares Bremerton with 20 other small to mid-size cities, some of which share Bremerton's separation from the largest urban areas. The survey deliberately excludes Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue - all large urban areas with different community profiles. The comparison is presented as a bar graph with the height of each bar representing the gross square feet of floor area allowed for each parking space. The range in these cities is from 200 square feet to 333 square feet. Bremerton and six of the surveyed cities have the highest parking requirement at one space required for every 200 square feet of floor area. Thirteen of the remaining 14 cities have a requirement that is equal to or less than that proposed in the ordinance amendment currently before the Council. These include Puyallup, Federal Way, and Redmond, communities of Bremerton's size that also rely greatly on automobile travel. 2. Information on parking demand from the Parking Generation Manual produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers: Peak Parking Demands per ITE Manual Rates: Peak parking demands for all site uses are given for the weekday PM and Saturday peaks based on national research data. Per Code 850 of the ITE manual, a supermarket has a peak parking demand of 2.87 per 1,000 SF of leasable area for the weekday PM peak or 144 spaces for a 50,000 square foot supermarket. At a ratio of one space per 200 square feet of floor area, the required spaces for a 50,000 square foot supermarket are 250. At a ratio of one per 250 square feet of area, the required spaces are 200. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Sumner ~o o~ wZ / / / / SeaTac '" ~ ~ m m m m Redmond ~ ~ 0 z~ ~ I/ I/ I / Pullayup o m ~ mm m m m i PoE Angeles ~ D m m m m Olympia l ~ kako ~ore~t ~ark z mmmmmmm/ Lacey ~ ~ IIi Kent ~ mm m m m I Federal Way ~ ~ ~l II I/ /I Enumdaw ~ ~ // I/ / / Bonnov kako ; mi Bellingham /I/I Bainbridge Island I/ Bromoaon