HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/00 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
APRIL 12, 2000
1. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M.
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. CONSENT AGENDA ~'~'&~P"'--~- -
(There are no Consent Agenda Items scheduled for this meeting.)
4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
7. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
8. PUBLIC RECOGNITION - (Comments must be limited to 3-minutes)
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. SR304 Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) Final Change Order for
Underground Storage Tank Decommissioning/Contaminated Soil Removal I
(#AB00-094)
10. ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance No. 4701 (Second Reading) Amending Title 7 of the Bremerton ~'
Municipal Code (#AB00-087)
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6:00 P.M. OR LATER
A. Quasi-Judicial Hearing and Resolution No. 2748 regarding the Special Use Permit
(PL00-0006) to allow an Espresso Stand in a Residential Zoned (MF) o0--i
Neighborhood at 519 S. Cambrian Avenue; Applicant: Charito Balisi (#AB00-095)
B. Quasi-Judicial Hearing and Resolution No. 2749 regarding an Application for
Rezone (PL99-0076) to Change the Current Zoning from Residential "SF-3" to
Commercial "PO" Zoning; and Quasi-Judicial Hearing and Resolution No. 2750 z~
regarding a Site Plan Review for the Proposed Walgreen's; Location: Eight lots at
SW Corner of Sylvan Way & Wheaton Way (#AB00-096)
12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: SR 304 TIP - UNDERGROUND STORAGE FOR AGENDA OF: April 12, 2000
TANK DECOMMISSIONING/ ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Work.~k [Jtils
CONTAMINATED SOIL REMOVAL ORIGINATOR: R. Witt, City Eng.(
FINAL CHANGE ORDER DATE SUBMITTED: April 3, 2000^ '
2. C~(Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
ORD .R 3
.... ~gr'_o~a)6.'ublic~ & U_.Jilities
Ch~Attb'rney
rC~il Fiacat & Budget Committee..a
Council O15erations Committee/
ENDORSEMEN~,~ INFORMATION [] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MAY, ,~. ¢/-r~ COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The SR 304 Transportation Improvement Project, Underground Storage Tank DecommissioninWPetroleum-
Contaminated Soil Removal contract with Stemen Environmental Inc. is completed. The orginal contract was for
$68,277.98. Previous change orders increased the contract amount to $71,615.01. Change Order No. 3 consists of final
increases and decreases in bid quantities which increases the final contract mount to $84,103.13 (a 23.2 percent
increase). The increases were primarily due to the removal of additional contaminated soil. Continued
8. RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council approve Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $12,488.12 for the SR 304 Transportation
Improvement Project -Underground Storage Tank Decommissioning/Petroleum-Contaminated Soil Removal contract
and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director Pub Wks & Util
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director Pub W'ks & Util
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] M ~
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
(OVER) 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 00 -- 0q ~
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation
The action before the City Council is approval of Change Order No. 3 for the SR304 Transportation Improvement
Project- Underground Storage Tank Decommissioning/Petroleum-Contaminated Soil Removal contract.
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Closure of the contract cannot be achieved.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES:
Staffing: No impact.
Budget: This project is included in the 2000 budget as part of the 2000 Arterial Street fund and sufficient
funds exists to do this work with the funding the City will receive from other funding sources.
The City receives funding from the Federal Highway Administration and the State
Transportation Improvement Board for this project.
Facilities/Equipment: No impact.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
CITY OF BREMERTON CHANGE ORDER
Page I of 1
Contract Change Order No. 3
Project Name SR304 TIP - Underground Storaqe Tank/ Orig. Contract Amt. $ 68,277.98 Days 1,5
Contaminated Soil Removal
Project No. P-STPF-TA96(O§8) Prev. Appvd. Changes $ 3,337.03 Days 2
Contractor Stemen Environmental Inc. This Change $ 12,488.12 Days 0
Revised Contract Amt. $ 84,103.13 Days 1~7
This Change Order covers changes to the subject contract as described herein. The Contractor shall construct,
furnish equipment and materials, and perform all work as necessary or required to complete the Change Order
Items for a lump sum price agreed upon between the Contractor and the City of Bremerton.
Description of Changes Increase in (Decrease) Contract
Contract in Contract Time
Amount Amount Extension
($) ($) (days)
Item #6. Kitsap Gaming, Soil Excavation & Stockpiling $681.66
Item #7. Kitsap Gaming, Contaminated Soil Disposal ($4,342.88)
Item #8. Kitsap Gaming, Borrow $4,102.92
Item #9. Kitsap Gaming, Backfill & Compact ($124.43)
Item #12. AMSEC, Borrow ($178.53)
Item #1 5. Bucky's Muffler, Soil Excavation & Stockpiling $201.24
Item #16. Bucky's Muffler, Contaminated Soil Disposal $10,074.07
Item #17. Bucky's Muffler, Borrow $2,954.83
Item #18. Bucky's Muffler, Backfill & Compact $201.24
Item #19. Credits/Debits- Minor Changes ($1,082.00)
Totals $18,215.96 ($5,727.84)
Net change in contract amount
Increase or (decrease) $12,488.12
The undersigned Contractor approves the foregoing Change Order as to the changes, if any, in the contract price
specified for each item including any and all supervision costs and other miscellaneous costs relating to the change
in work, and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire work on account of said
Change Order. The Contractor agrees to furnish all labor and materials and perform all other necessary work,
inclusive of the directly or indirectly related to the approved time extension, required to complete the Change Order
items. This document will become a supplement of the contract and all provisions will apply hereto. It is
understood that the Change Order shall be effective when approved by the City of Bremerton.
Recommended~~:~~ /Project Mana(jer Date: ~,/~,,~-/,~ ~ ~ ~
Recommended: /City Engineer Date: ~- ~{:~V,., ~
Accepted: ~':¢~tj~' - /Contractor Date: ,?.. /Z~.~.
Approved: /Mayor Date:
Change Orders
SR 304 TIP - Underground Storage Tank/Contaminated Soil Removals
#6 The area for excavation at Kitsap Gaming was staked by Parametrix at 30 fi.
x 60 ft. with average depth of 10.5 ft. (= 700 cy). Plan was 560 cy, increase
by 140 cy at $4.50 per cy = $630.
#7 The soil at the Kitsap Gaming, at the top 4 ft. (average), was not
contaminated and was stockpiled. A decrease of 123.5 tons at $32.50 =
$4,013.75.
#8 The existing material at Kitsap Gaming was not suitable for future roadway
and groundwater was present, so, used rock and recycled concrete for
borrow material. Added cost for Rock is $4.25 per ton, Recycled concrete is
$3.00 per ton; total added cost is $3,791.98.
#9 Since borrow materials at Kitsap Gaming were rock and recycled concrete,
backfill and compact cost was reduced from $4.50 per cy to $3.50 per cy,
total cost reduction was $115.
#12 Borrow at the AMSEC site decreased by $165 by using existing material
neat the site, a stockpile from a Utility Contractor for future use by the City
of Bremerton.
#15 The area for excavation at Kitsap Gaming was staked by Parametrix at 42 ft.
x 28 ft. with average depth of 3 ft. (-- 401.33 cy). Plan was 360 cy, increase
by 41.33 cy at $4.50 per cy = $185.99.
#16 All the soil at Bucky's Muffler site was contaminated soil. An increase of
286.48 tons at bid cost of $32.50 = $9,310.60.
#17 Borrow at Bucky's Muffler was increased by 273.34 tons, at extra cost of
$2,730.90.
#18 Backfill & compaction at Bucky's Muffler increased by 41.33 cy at $4.50
per cy = $185.99.
#19 Not used.
Note: Sales tax not included on calculation.
~Co~ BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: ~ ~~C~ · FOR AGENDA OF:
~ending Chapter 7 of the Bremerton ORIGINATING DEPT.: Police Department
Municipal Code ORIGINATOR: Teri Olson, ACO
DATE SUBMITTED: March 22, 2000
2. CLE~CES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
~~ ~,_~ ~ Ordinance No.
RoB~~s ~ POBICE CHIEF~
OpE~T~d~, C~ITTEE
ENDORSEMENT [ ] INFO~ATION [ ] APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR
SUBMITTAL:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Amendments to ~ 7 of the Bremerton Municipal Code to clarify and
address problem areas identified by Animal Control in the current code.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
~ Ordinance No. amending ...... 7 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code; O~ ~ ~~.
g, RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION 1nm
PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] D
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
CHAPTER 7 Agenda Disk - 3/21/00
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
Animal Control will continue to work under the current codes but without
authority to serve the public in the areas that the amendments address.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
CHAPTER 7 - Agenda Disk - 3/21/00
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE regarding Animal Control and amending Chapters 7.04,
7.05, 7.06, 7.07, and 7.08 of Title 7 of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Amendment. Chapter 7.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS of the
Bremerton Municipal Code, Section 7.04.200 shall be amended as follows:
7.04.200 DEFINITION.
As used in this title, except where a different meaning is plainly apparent from the
context, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Abandon" means the act of leaving an animal in a situation where the
conditions present an immediate, direct and sedous threat to the life and safety of the
animal.
(b) "Allow" means to permit by neglecting to restrain or prevent.
.(.~:.~ "Animal control authority" means the Bremerton Police Department,
acting alone or in concert with other municipalities for the enforcement of the animal
control laws of the city and state for the shelter and welfare of animals.
(d)~ "At large" or "running at large" means to be off the premises of the
custodian and not physically restrained by the custodian or by a person authorized by
the custodian.
(e):~-)'. "Custodian" means a person who owns, keeps, harbors, or maintains an
animal.
.(..~ "Dangerous dog" means any animal that according to the records of the
animal control authority (i) inflicted severe iniury on a human beinq without provocation
while on public or pnvate property
~i~L~i~~~~i or Iii). has killed a ~io~;~sti~ ~imal without
provocation:' ......... wA::le ........................................................................................ off the owner's propert;
~!~~~~~~:~~ or (iii) has been previously found to
be potentially dangerous, the owner having received notice of such potential and doq
subsequently aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or
domestic animals ~ ~.'.. ~--. · : '~ . :~' ~.~i -:" ':-'~". ..: ' '-!~ "':: ...... .~:-:
:-:-'.:"~.,,-:.x., .-,'!~ ~'~:~ :':,':': ~.'-±',: .'.~ '. :~..: ~..~..I .':::, ~¢":::+['-".",".'.~:::':"' ~.'Y:~" ~,:$~:" ·:' ': -'.',~'-'~" ~'"""'i~'.-'"::' '. "~ · ?'' .A. ~:~ :- ~'~.'._.'::.'±~.~ ~.:~:. :.:.~: :.:-'.:::.
"Detain" means to place an animal in custody.
h.(~ "Disposed of in a humane manner" means euthanized by a lethal dose of
sodium pentobarbital or adoption.
i~j~'~. "Domestic animal" means any animal, except livestock, commonly kept as
a household pet that lives and breeds in a tame condition.
"Feral Cat" means a cat that is not able to be approached or handled by a
human and has no evidence of an owner.
(k')~ "Fowl" includes chickens, roosters, geese, and ducks.
~ "Harboring" means feeding, sheltering or confining for more than 24 hours
on the property one owns, occupies, or controls.
(m)~ "Holding period" means 72 hours, commencing at the close of a regular
business day on the day of detainment, excluding days the City animal shelter is not
open to the public.
(n)i~ "Household Pets" means dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, pigeons, mice,
hamsters, gerbils, parakeets, canaries, finches, and other similar exotic birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fish and other similar animals kept for companionship or for personal
enjoyment not otherwise prohibited by BMC 7.08.100 (k).
~ "Leash" includes a strong cord, thong, or chain not more than eight feet
(8') in length by which an animal is controlled by the person accompanying it.
(p) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that when unprovoked;
(1) Inflicts a bite or bites upon a human or a domestic animal either
on public or pdvate property, or
(2) Chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or
any other public grounds in a menacinq fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or any do,q
with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury,
or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals. Further delineation
under section 7.07.025.
(~).'~ "Proper enclosure", unless otherwise provided herein, means building,
pen, or other structure suitable to prevent the entry of animals or young children, to
prevent the animal from escaping, and to provide protection from the elements.
(r) "Stray" means any dog, cat, or animal appearing or remaining in a
neighborhood or any public place without an apparent owner or home.
s~(.~ "Trespassing" means any animal, which enters upon the property of
another person, without the authorization of the lawful occupant.
Section 2. Amendment. Chapter 7.05 ADMINISTRATION of the Bremerton
Municipal Code, Section 7.05.100, shall be amended to read as follows:
7.05.100 COMPLAINT FILING AND INVESTIGATION.
The animal control authority shall keep records relating to seizure, impoundment,
violations, and complaints concerning animals, and records of dangerous and potentially
dangerous dogs. Bremerton police officers or animal control officers shall investigate
citizen complaints regarding animals, issue citations for violation of this title, and make
2
initial determinations as to dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs. Any citizen may
request that a particular dog be declared dangerous or potentially dangerous by filing an
affidavit or certified statement setting forth all pertinent known information about such
animal with the animal control division of the police department.
Section 3. Amendment. Chapter 7.06 DOG AND CAT LICENSING of the
Bremerton Municipal Code, Section 7.06.300 shall be amended to read as follows:
7.06.300 ISSUANCE OF LICENSES.
The City Treasurer or animal control authority shall issue licenses to persons
applying therefor upon payment of the license fee and to issue a tag for each dog or cat
licensed. The license application shall be dated and numbered and shall bear the name
of Bremerton, Washington, the 'name and address of the owner or custodian of the dog
or cat licensed, the name of the dog or cat, and a description of the dog or cat including
its age and sex and include a certification that the dog or cat has been vaccinated as
required by BMC 7.06.100. The tag shall bear the name of Bremerton, Washington, a
sedal number corresponding with the number of the license application, and the date of
expiration. Every dog and cat shall be required to wear a collar or harness with a current
license attached. Dogs ~ without current license tags may be impounded.
Section 4. New Section. Chapter 7.07 DANGEROUS DOGS of the Bremerton
Municipal Code shall add a new section to read as follows:
7.07.025 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS
(a) The followinq levels may be used by animal control to define and requlate
a potentially dangerous dog:
(1) Level 1. A doq is Level I potentially dangerous when, without
provocation, it chases or approaches a person upon any property other than the doq's
owner's property in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack.
(2) Level 2. A doq is Level 2 potentially dangerous doq when it
causes injury to or otherwise threatens the safety of a human or domestic animal.
(3) Level 3. A doq is Level 3 potentially dangerous doq when it bites
a human or domestic animal.
(b) Restraint of potentially dangerous doqs. The animal control may place
the following restraints upon potentially dan,qerous doqs:
(1) A Level I potentially dangerous doq, whenever outside of the
owner's residence and not on a leash, shall be restrained by a physical device or
structure that prevents the doq from reachinq a public sidewalk, easement, right-of-way,
road, or adjoining property, and must be located where the doq does not interfere with
legal access to the owner's property.
(2) A Level 2 potentially dangerous dog must comply with the
restrictions on a Level 1 potentially dangerous doq, and in addition, the animal control
authority may require the owner to obtain and maintain proof of public liability insurance
as defined in RCW 16.08.080. The owner may be required to complete a responsible
pet ownership program administered by the animal control authority. All costs
associated with the program shall be paid by the owner.
(3) A Level 3 potentially dangerous dog shall be confined within a
secure enclosure as defined by BMC 7.07.435 whenever the doq is not inside the
owner's residence. The secure enclosure must be located where it does not interfere
with the public's legal access to the owner's property. In addition, the animal control
authority may require the owner to obtain and maintain proof of public liability insurance
as provided in 7.07.425 of this code. The owner shall not permit the dog to be outside
the secure enclosure or off the owner's property unless the animal is humanely muzzled
and restrained by an adequate leash and under the control of a capable person. In
addition, the owner must complete a responsible pet ownership program administered
by the animal control authority. All costs associated with the program must be paid by
the owner. The Level 3 potentially dangerous dog must be reqistered as provided for in
7.07.400 of this code.
Failure on the part of the owner to abide by the restraints placed upon the
potentially dan,qerous do,q by the animal control may result in impoundment of the
potentially dangerous doq by animal control as provided in 7.07.525 of this code.
Section 5. Amendment. Chapter 7.07 DANGEROUS DOGS of the Bremerton
Municipal Code, Sections 7.07.100, 7.07.200, and 7.07.300, shall be amended to read
as follows:
7.07.100 DECLARATION AND NOTICE.
Whenever the animal control officer determines, by his or her records or upon
investigation, that a dog should be classified as potentially dangerous or dangerous, the
officer shall enter such declaration in his or her records and shall personally serve or
serve by certified mail, retum receipt requested, to the address listed on the animal
license within seven days of the declaration beinq made, to the custodian of such dog,
informing the custodian of the applicable laws and ordinances. Service, if by mail, shall
be considered completed three days after mailinq of the notice. If the custodian is
unknown, an animal control officer shall make reasonable efforts to notify the custodian
of the officer's written declaration. Such written notice shall include: (a) A description of the dog;
(b) The name and address of the alleged custodian of the dog;
(c) The whereabouts of the dog if not in the actual control of the custodian;
(d) The facts, incident(s), and date(s) upon which the declaration is based;
(e) The procedure allowed by law to contest such classification;
(f) The penalties for violation of restrictions pertaining to that classification.
A dog shall not be declared dangerous or potentially dangerous if the threat,
injury, or damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a
trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the custodian of the dog, was
committing a crime against the custodian, was teasing, attacking or harming the dog, or
has in the past been observed to have teased, attacked or harmed the dog.
7.07.200 HEARING.
The custodian of a dog declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, may file a
written request within seven (7~ workinq ~iilJi~.~ days from the date of receipt of such
notice for a hearing before the Supervisor of Bremerton Animal Control (hereinafter
Supervisor) or his or her desiqnee as the hearinq officer. The hearinq officer shall be
someone who did not participate in makinq the potentially dangerous or dangerous doq
determination. The owner or custodian's appeal must be in writinq and shall be filed with
Animal Control.
4
(a) Hearinq before Supervisor. Upon receivinq the wdtten notice of appeal
the Supervisor shall promptly schedule an appeal headnq and provide wdtten notice of
the headng before the Supervisor. The Animal Control shall have the burden of proving
that the dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Supervisor shall issue a wdtten decision to the appealing dog owner or custodian
that either sustains or reverses the animal control officer's declaration. The decision by
the Supervisor shall be the final decision of the Bremerton Animal Control. If the
declaration is sustained, the appealing dog owner or custodian shall be notified of the
dght to appeal.
(b) Appeal of Supervisor's Decision. An owner or custodian of a doq
declared potentially dangerous or dangerous by the Bremerton Animal Control may
appeal the declaration if the Supervisor sustains the animal control officer's declaration.
A written appeal shall be filed pursuant to BMC 2.62.045 within seven (7) working days
after the date of the Supervisor's written decision.
7.07.300 FAILURE TO CONTROL A DOG DECLARED POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS LEVEL 1 and 2; DECLARATION OF DOG AS DANGEROUS.
(a) Misdemeanor. After a dog is declared potentially dangerous level I or 2,
~~ the custodian of the dog shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if such a dog again
(i) bites, chases or attacks a human or a domestic animal either on public or private
property or (ii) chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any other
public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or (iii) causes injury
to or otherwise threatens the safety of humans or domestic animals. This section sha!!
(b) Declaration of a Doq as Dangerous. If the owner and/or custodian of a
potentially dangerous dog is found guilty of violatinq subsection (a) of this
section, the municipal court shall make a further determination as to whether the doq
should be declared danqerous.
(c) In addition to citinq the custodian for violation of this chapter, the animal
control officer shall immediately impound any potentially dangerous doq pursuant to
BMC 7.07.525 of this code.
(d) If any dog. declared dangerous or potentially dangerous cannot be
impounded, such dog may be slain by any police officer or animal control
officer.
Section 6. Repeal and Replace. Chapter 7.07 DANGEROUS DOGS Section 7.07.350
of the Bremerton Municipal Code shall be repealed and replaced as follows:
7.07.350 FAILURE TO CONTROL A DOG DECLARED DANGEROUS OR
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS LEVEL 3 - PENALTIES
(a) Any dangerous or potentially dangerous Level 3 doq shall be immediately
impounded pursuant to BMC 7.07.525 by an animal control officer if the: (1) Dog is not
validly registered under this chapter; (2) custodian does not secure the liability insurance
coverage required under this chapter; (3) dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure;
(4) do.q is outside of the dwelling of the custodian, or outside of the proper enclosure and
not under physical restraint of the responsible person; (5) the dog (i) bites, chases, or
attacks a human or a domestic animal either on public or pdvate property or (ii) chases
or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any other public grounds in a
menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or (iii) causes iniury to or otherwise
threatens the safety of humans or domestic animals. In addition, the custodian shall be
guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Section ?. Amendment. Chapter 7.07 DANGEROUS DOGS of the Bremerton
Municipal Code, Sections 7.07.400, 7.07.425, 7.07.430, 7.07.435, and 7.07.525 shall be
amended to read
7.07.400 REGISTRATION OF DANGEROUS OR POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS
REQUIRED.
(a) The custodian of a dog declared to be dangerous or potentially
dangerous Level 3, shall register the dog within fifteen (15) days of the declaration with
the animal control authority; it is a misdemeanor for a custodian to have a dangerous
dog or potentially dan,qerous Level 3 dog within the City of Bremerton without a valid
certificate of registration in effect from the animal control authority.
(b) The annual registration fee for a dangerous or potentially dangerous
Level 3 dog is $100.00. This fee is in addition to the regular licensing fees. The initial
registration fee shall be prorated according to the number of months remaining in the
registration year. A certificate may be renewed without additional fee upon a custodian's
change of address if the custodian provides the animal control officer with evidence that
all conditions necessary for the issuance of a valid certificate of registration are met at
the new address within seven (7) days of that change.
7.07.425 REGISTRATION - GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE.
The animal control officer shall issue a numbered certificate of reqistration, in a
form to be provided by the officer, to the custodian of a potentially dangerous Level I or
Level 2 doq. The animal control officer shall issue a numbered certificate of registration
to the custodian of a dangerous or potentially dangerous Level 3 dog if the custodian
presents to the officer sufficient evidence of a proper enclosure to confine such animal
and the posting of the premises with a clearly visible warning sign that such animal is on
the property. As an alternative to confinement within a proper enclosure, as that phrase
is defined in BMC 7.04.200(n), a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous Level 3 doq
may be confined indoors subject to BMC 7.07.430. An animal control officer shall make
an on-site inspection of the applicant's site for keeping the dangerous or potentially
dangerous Level 3 dog to ensure that the site is properly enclosed and posted. Such
inspection shall occur within fifteen (15) ~~ days of the animal being declared
dangerous or potentially dangerous Level 3. In addition, the custodian shall
conspicuously display a sign with a warning symbol that informs the public of the
presence of such animal, and provide either:
(c) A surety bond in a form acceptable to the City's Risk Manager in the sum
of at least $500,000.00, payable to any person injured by the dangerous or potentially
dangerous Level 3 dog and containing a provision that the bond may not be cancelled,
terminated, or allowed to lapse without ten (10) days pdor wdtten notice to the animal
control authority; or
(d) A policy of liability insurance, such as homeowner's insurance, in the
amount of at least $50,000.00, insudng the custodian for any personal injudes inflicted
by the dangerous dog or potentially dangerous Level 3 dog. Such policy shall contain an
additional provision requiring the insurance carrier to notify the City within thirty (30)
days of any cancellation, termination, or expiration of such liability insurance.
7.07.430 CONFINEMENT INDOORS.
No dangerous dog or potentially dangerous Level 3 dog shall be kept on a
porch, patio, or in any part of a house or structure which would allow such dog to exit
such building on its own volition. In addition, no such animal shall be kept in a house or
structure where the windows are open or when screen windows or screen doors are the
only obstacle preventing the dog from exiting the structure.
7.07.435 PROPER ENCLOSURE REQUIRED.
The custodian of any dangerous or potentially dangerous Level 3 dog shall
provide a locked enclosure with six (6) feet high sides and a secured top. If the pen or
structure has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be imbedded into the
ground no less than one foot. Such a structure must be constructed of chain-linked
fencing or other material of such strength and construction that the dog cannot chew
through or break or dig out of the enclosure. Any gates or entrances to the structure
must be of similar construction and the entire structure must be so designed so that the
dog cannot get out. The area of enclosure shall be no less than 225 square feet, with no
less than 15 feet per side. The enclosure shall be set back at a sufficient distance or so
covered that the dog does not have visual access to a public right-of-way.
7.07.525 IMPOUND OF DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS
DOGS ~~~ .... CONDITIONS- PENALT!ES FOR CUSTODIANS r~c
WHICH ATTACK- HEARINGS
............. r-, ~- .......................... p,, y ~,~, ................
(a) In the even~ that a danqerous or potentially danflerous doff is impounded
pursuant to this section, a hearinfl shall be held within ~en (10) business days by the
Supe~isor to determine whether the doq should be returned to the owner or ~stodian,
forfeited by the owner or custodian, or euthanized by the animal control. Notice of the
hearinfl shall be by personal se~ice or by reflular and ce~ified mail, return receipt
requested, to the address listed on the animal license. Se~ice, if by mail, shall be
considered completed three days after mailinq of the notice. If the custodian is
unknown, an animal control officer shall make reasonable effo~s to identify and
personally se~e the owner or custodian. No doq shall be released to the custodian or
owner until all applicable impound fees and daily boarding fees are paid. An owner may
prevent the dog's destruction by taking the following steps within seven (7) days of the
Supervisor's decision: (a) petitioning the headngs examiner for the animal's immediate
retum subject to court imposed conditions, and (b) posting the boarding fees in advance,
in fourteen-day increments, and continuing for the entire time the dog is placed in the
shelter facility regardless of the owner's decision to appeal to the hearinq examiner or to
the supedor court. A dog is not released, and an appeal is not heard until the owner has
paid the full boardinq fee owing to the shelter facility. The boarding fee is not refundable
regardless of the outcome of an appeal. The shelter facility may euthanize a dog if its
owner fails to pay the full board fee within fourteen days of receivinq notice of the
determination by the animal control authority, regardless of the owner's decision to
appeal, or if the owner fails to maintain payment of the boarding fee. Any boarding fees
required by this section shall also cover the costs of the dog and any offspdng that are in
the dangerous or potentially dangerous doq's care.
(b) If a dangerous dog of a custodian with a prior conviction under this chapter attacks
or bites a person or another domestic animal, the dog's custodian may be
prosecuted pursuant to RCW 16.08.100(2). In addition, the dangerous dog shall be
immediately confiscated by an animal control officer, placed in quarantine for 1_~_0
days the preper !ength cf time, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious and
humane manner.
..:". ~'"~.. ~,~' ',~.~.~,,.'..'<.~ '~ '.'' '..~.~ · :.:<:: 7¢ · ..... ... ~.;. ' ::::::;.~ ~:~..~.~ ~,' ...;-.. -?.~:!~.~:.*, ~. ...
Section 8. Amendment. Chapter 7.07 DANGEROUS DOGS of the Bremerton
Municipal Code shall be repealed and replaced as follows: Sections 7.07.700, 7.07.800,
7.07.825, 7.07.850.
7.07.700 SALE OF DOG OR TRANSFER OF CUSTODIANSHIP WITHIN CITY.
(a) Custodians of a dog that has been declared dangerous or potentially
dan,qerous, who sell or otherwise transfer the ownership, custody, or residence of the
dog shall, within five (5) calendar days of the change, inform the animal control authority
in writing of the name, address, and telephone number of the new custodian, and/or the
address of the new residence where the dog is located.
Such notice shall also include the name, description, and license number of the
dog. In the event the custody of the dog changes, the custodian shall notify the new
custodian in writing of the details of the dog's record relating to being declared
dangerous and the terms and conditions of the declaration. The custodian shall also
provide the animal control authority with a copy of the written notification, which shall
contain a notarized statement by the new custodian acknowledging receipt of the original
notification.
(b) No person shall sell, give, barter, or in any other way transfer ownership
of a dangerous or potentially dan.qerous Level 3 dog required to be registered pursuant
to B.M.C. 7.07.400 to any other person residing within the City, without the new
custodian's pdor compliance with registration requirements pursuant to B.M.C. 7.07.400-
.425.
(c) Any custodian of a dog registered or required to be registered under this
chapter shall notify the animal control authority upon the disposition of such dog to any
person outside the City, together with the name and address of the new custodian.
7.07.800 MUZZLE REQUIREMENT.
It shall be unlawful for the custodian of a dangerous or potentially dangerous
Level 3 dog to permit it outside of its proper enclosure unless muzzled and restrained by
a substantial chain or leash having a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds, not
exceeding 4 feet in length and under the control of a person. The muzzle shall be made
to prevent the dog from biting. These restraint restrictions shall apply from the time a
dog has been classified as dangerous or potentially dangerous Level 3, regardless of the
filing of an appeal, unless and until a supedor court reverses the classification.
7.07.825 IDENTIFICATION PHOTOGRAPHS.
All custodians of dangerous or potentially dangerous Level 3 dogs must, within
fifteen (15) ~~ days of such classification, provide the animal control officer with
two (2) color photographs of the dog in different poses, clearly showing its color,
markings, and approximate size.
7.07.850 TATTOO REQUIRED.
The owner of a dangerous or potentially dangerous Level 3 dog shall within
fifteen (15) days, at his or her own expense, have the registration number assigned to
the dog tattooed upon such dangerous dog's thigh by a licensed veterinarian or person
trained as a tattooist and authorized as such by the appropriate governmental authority.
Section 9. Repeal. Section 7.07.900 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 10. Repeal and Replace. Chapter 7.08 ANIMAL CARE AND
CONTROL, Section 7.08.030 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is hereby repealed and
replaced as follows:
7.08.030 CONSTRICTING SNAKE LICENSE REQUIREMENTS;
GUIDELINES
Any person possessin.q a constricting snake as a household pet, shall obtain a
license therefore and comply with the followin.q license requirements:
(a) LICENSE REQUIREMENTS: Prior to being granted a license for a
constricting snake within the City, the possessor of said animal shall demonstrate to the
animal control officer the following:
(1/ All constrictin,q snakes will be housed in a unit secured with locks,
with a hinged top or doors or a sliding glass front with a Iockin.q mechanism.
(2) VVhen handlinq any of the constricting snakes, another individual
will be present or at least within calling distance.
(3) No minors will own or keep any adult snake over 7 feet Ionq.
(4) All constricting snake owners will be liable for the medical costs of
treating injuries as well as additional dama.qes for traumas or damaqe caused
by their animals.
(b) LICENSE ISSUANCE AND FEE: Followinq an in-house inspection of the
holding cages for the snake(s), the animal control authority shall issue licenses to
persons applying therefor upon payment of a license fee and will issue a certificate of
registration for each snake licensed. The license application shall be dated and
numbered and shall bear the name of Bremerton, Washington, the name and address of
the owner or custodian of the snake licensed, and a description of the snake. The fee
for licensinq each snake shall be Twenty-Five Dollars ($25).
(c) LICENSE RENEWAL: All snake licenses shall be due and payable the
first day of July of each year. If the license fee above provided for is not paid on or
before August 31st of each year, the applicant shall pay a penalty fee of Ten Dollars
($10.00) for each license.
(d) LICENSES NONTRANSFERABLE: Licenses as provided in this chapter
shall not be transferable from one animal to another: Provided, That nothinq contained
in this section shall be construed to prevent a license beinq transferred from one owner
to another.
Section 11. Amendment. Chapter 7.08, sections 7.08.100 and 7.08.200 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code are amended as follows:
7.08.100 NUISANCES.
The following acts are prohibited and will constitute public nuisances, and unless
otherwise specified, shall constitute civil infractions:
(a) Animals at Larqe: It shall be unlawful for the custodian of any animal,
except cats and trained birds, to cause, permit, or allow such animal to roam, run, stray,
or to be at large, or away from the premises of such owner or authorized custodian.
10
Animals are not permitted upon any public property or pdvate property of another, unless
such animal be under the physical control of a person and restrained by a leash that is
eight feet (8') or shorter. Any animal found roaming, running, straying, or being at large
from the custodian's premises and not under control and restraint as herein provided
may be impounded, subject to redemption in the manner provided by Chapter 7.08.300.
Provided, however, That an animal not under the physical control of another or
restrained by a leash shall be permitted upon the private property of another with that
person's permission.
(b) Diseased Animals: To own or keep any animal afflicted with any
infectious or contagious disease and fail to provide treatment for such infection or
disease, or permit such diseased or infected animal to run at large or come into contact
with other animals, or drink at any public or common watering trough or stream
accessible to other animals. To own or keep any animals known to have contagious
disease unless under the treatment of a license veterinarian.
(c) Failure to Confine Cat or Doq in Heat: Failure to confine any female cat
or dog that is in estrus (heat) inside an enclosed structure so that the female cat or dog
cannot come in contact with the male unless the male is admitted by the custodian of the
female.
(d) Damaqe by Animal: Permit any animal (i) to damage public property or
the pdvate property of another or (ii) to spread or spill garbage.
(e) Unlawful Tetherinq: Tether an animal in such a manner as to permit the
animal to enter any sidewalk, street, alley, or to enter any adjacent lot or premises
unless authorized by the occupant of that adjacent premises.
(f) Disturbance: Permit or allow any animal.to unreasonably annoy or
disturb other persons in the vicinity of his premises or upon the public street by frequent
howling, yelping, whining, barking, or other noises.
(g) Threatening Pedestrian: To cause, permit, or allow any animal to snap
at, jump upon, or otherwise threaten persons using the public sidewalks, streets, alleys,
or other public ways.
(h) Biting, Chasing, Attacking: To cause, permit or allow such animal to bite,
chase, or attack persons or other animals.
(i) Harassinq: To cause, permit, or allow such animal to chase or run after
vehicles, bicycles or pedestrians using the public streets or alleys.
(j) Animal Waste Disposal: To fail to immediately clean up and propedy
dispose of any deposits of animal waste or damage while on public property or private
property.
(k) Animals Prohibited: To keep any creature that is venomous/poisonous,
or a wild animal. No person ma,/ own or maintain any lion, tiger, bear, chimpanzee,
gorilla, cougar, swine, mountain lion, badger, wolf, wolf-hybrid, cat family-hybrid, coyote,
fox, lynx, or venomous/poisonous creature or wild animal
Provided, That circuses are exempt from this regulation if a license is obtained pursuant
to B.M.C. 5.36.010.
(I) Confinement in a Vehicle: No person shall confine an animal within or on
a motor vehicle at any location under such conditions that may endanger the health or
well being of the animal, including, but not limited to, extreme temperatures, lack of food,
water or attention. Any animal control or law enforcement officer is authorized to remove
any animal from a motor vehicle, at any location, when the officer reasonably believes it
is confined in such conditions as described in this section. Any animal so removed shall
be delivered to the animal control shelter after the removing officer leaves wdtten notice
of such removal and delivery, including the officer's name, in a conspicuous, secure
location on or within the vehicle.
(m) Outdoor Feeding: To feed or allow any domestic or wild animals or birds
to feed outdoors at such times and in such numbers that (1) feeding birds or animals
create an unreasonable disturbance or accumulation of droppings on surrounding
properties including public property, or (2) feed remains uneaten for more than four
hours.
7.08.200 ~~ IMPOUNDMENT.
Domestic animals may. be impounded by an animal control officer in the following
· · '"':.-:~Z.~.'~ "~ '~:,-,'..,..'~.~' :'.~ ×.':;:-<':.'~:"~' '"~.<"'"'~':.*.' '~'"":~'~'-'<.<~::'-.~::':.<~;~,~.<':~'<': '~ ...... .,.~: ';..;<::: ~'~:.'-.x. -.::~.<.~.*..'~:..~ ................. :.~ .~:.:.:~. ·
s,tuat, ons:
(a) If necessary to abate a nuisance as defined in BMC 7.08.100; or
(b) If the animal bites or injures a person or other animal, or by its actions or
condition, presents a clear and present threat to the public peace, health or safety, and
the public is in imminent danger, go onto the property, seize the animal and detain the
animal; or
(c) If the animal does not present a clear and present threat to the public
peace, health, and safety, post notice to abate the nuisance upon any property wherein
an animal which constitutes a nuisance is harbored. If the nuisance is not abated within
twenty-four (24) hours, the animal shall be detained at the City animal kennel.
(d) If an animal has been or is being subjected to cruel treatment or
conditions as defined in BMC 7.08.600 that present an imminent risk to the animal's
safety and welfare, go on to the property, seize the animal and detain the animal until
the animal's custodian provides assurances that the treatment or conditions underlying
the impoundment will not recur. This right of entry and seizure includes and is subject to
the provisions stated in BMC 7.08.400.
(d) (e_) If the animal is determined by the Animal Control Officer to be a
"potentially dangerous dog" as defined in 7.04.200(p) or "dangerous dog" as that term is
defined in 7.04.200(f) then said animal may be impounded by the Animal Control Officer
and:
(1) Said animal may be detained by the City until the custodian requests
a hearing pursuant to 7.07.200 to contest the declaration of
potentially dangerous or dangerousness and the Hearing Examiner
]2
rules that the "potentially dangerous" or "dangerous dog"
determination was made in error.
(2) The custodian of the doq has the responsibility to contact the shelter
facility within fourteen days of receipt of the potentially dangerous or
dangerous doq notice to make payment of the boardinq fee for the
do.q, regardless of the owner's decision to pursue an appeal.
Payments of boardinq fees must be made in advance, in fourteen-
day increments, and must continue for the entire time the dog is
placed in the shelter facility regardless of the owner's decision to
appeal to the headnq examiner or to the supedor court.
(3) A certificate of registration is not issued, a dog is not released, and
an appeal is not heard until the owner has paid the full boarding fee
owing to the animal control. The boardin,q fee is not refundable
regardless of the outcome of the appeal.
(4) The animal control may euthanize a doq if its owner fails to pay the
full board fee within fourteen days of receivinq notice of the
determination by the animal control authority, regardless of the
owner's decision to appeal, or if the owner fails to maintain payment
of the boardinq fee.
(5) Said boardinq fees shall also cover the costs of any offspdn.q of the
do,q that are in its care.
(2-) 6(¢.1 If the custodian does not request the hearing provided for by
7.07.200 or if such hearing is requested and the Hearing Examiner upholds the Animal
Control Officer's "dangerous dog" determination, said animal may be detained until the
custodian shows proof that he/she has complied with requirements of this Chapter
pertaining to the keeping of a dangerous dog.
(i) If the custodian shows proof that he or she has met the requirements
for keeping a dangerous dog in the City, the dog will be released upon payment of
impound and boarding fees.
(ii) If the custodian has not shown proof that he or she has met the
requirements for keeping a dangerous dog within thirty (30) days of the Hearing
Examiner's decision, the animal may be immediately destroyed.
(3) (7) If the custodian neither appeals the Animal Control Officeds
"potentially dangerous" or "dangerous dog" determination nor shows proof that he or she
has met the requirements for keeping a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog in the
City within fifteen (15) days of the declaration of potentially dangerous or dangerousness
the animal may thereafter be immediately destroyed.
Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days from
passage and publication.
APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this day of __
,2000.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of __
2000.
CAROL ARENDS
Council President
APPROVED this __ day of ,2000.
LYNN S. HORTON
Mayor
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
AGENDA
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIl.
,.
O~G~AT~G D~T: DCD
Non-A~n~a~ve Sp~iM U~ P~: ApprovM O~G~ATOR: Td~ia ~on
BDS I
DA~ S~~D: April 5, 2~
2. C~A~CES: (Commit on back ~n~) 3. E~S:
~,~. CITY ATTO~Y ~utes ~om Plmg Commi~ion Mtg. (3/21)
E~ORSE~ ~ ~O~IO~ ~ ~PRO~D BY CO~C~ P~S~E~ FOR S~~:
-
4. S~RY STA~~ ~ ~Q~~ FOR CO~C~ A~ON:
~e mbj~t site h~ b~ ~m~i~y op~ sm~ ~fom ~ ~pfion of~ Ci~'s p~t zo~g ~ ~ 19~. ~ 1995 ~e
Ci~'s ~reh~ive pl~ w~ ~t~ w~O cl~ ~s ~ea ~ ~ Comm~ci~ (C-G). ~e Ci~'s ~t z~g map,
whch w~ readopted upon ~e adoption of ~e ~mpreh~ive pl~ mm~ ~s ~ea ~ resid~fi~
M~ag~t act w~ch gov~ Compreh~ive Planning ~d zomg acfi~fies mq~es cities ~d m~fi~ to zone l~d m
~an~ m ~k a~pt~ pl~. Givm ~m r~m~ k is ~dmt ~m ~e ~j~t ~ shoed ~ r~m~ to ~m~ci~.
~e propo~ ~ of~e prop~ for ~ e~resm smd is ~e ~d of~ ~ch wo~d be ~ow~ ought m a ~mm~i~ zone.
~, ~e ~ ~om to ~e ~mpreh~ive pl~ but not ~e "~" zone w~ch excl~es ~ch a ~.
~le it wo~d be posmble for ~e Ci~ m comider a rezone request, ~e applic~t h~ chos~ to p~e Sp~i~ U~
approv~ w~ch is ~o~ option w~ch will ~low ~ ~r~m smd at ~s l~ation. ~s Sp~ial U~ P~t is being
pr~s~ ~d~ ~e promsiom of BMC 21.02.790 adhering less mt~ive non-co~o~g ~s.
~e premom t~t ~up~g ~e site w~ G~e R~s (a ~mfion eqmpmmt rm~ comply). G~e vacat~
prop~ m ~d 1999 ~d mov~ to a new l~afion. ~e t~ct ~m ~e prop~ h~ not b~n vac~t for more ~ a ye~
pre--es ~e non~omg ~ ~a~ of~e prop~.
~e Plaming Com~i~ on ~ 2 I, 2~0 ~ ~id~g ~ ~e relev~t f~m ~ ~t ~e ~ ~ ~d is mde~
a less m~ive non-~o~g ~ ~d ~m m~m ~e tern ofBMC S~fion 21.02.790 ~d should be approv~ ~ ~ndifioned.
~at ~e Ci~ Co~cil move to ap for operation of ~ espresso smd ~ a less mte~ive
mpla~ment of a pr~iom non-~omg ~e.
9. ~SPONSlBLE O~~:
E~OR~~ O~~:
EXPIATION DATE:
10. NOTI~ OF A~ION ~EW DATE:
P~LED ~ TABLED ~ ~PROVED ~ DISAPPRO~D ~ ~ED ~ DATE: ~
CO~L DI~I~:
(OVER)
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
ff the application is denied, the applicant will be .mable to undertake the project as proposed.
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Additional staff resources may be required to review any necessary building permits.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Zoning Ordillallc~
Site Visit'
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ~7'~'~
~ V. ESOLUT~ON ~V~OWN~ TH~ SV~C~L USE P~M~T TO ~ZO~ ~N ES~e. ESSO
ST~'r~ ~ ~ L~SS ~NT~-NSr~ US~- ~ TH~ PREWOUS T~.N,~.NT ~ S. C.~~.N
A_VENU~, BREM~RTON, KITSAP COUNTY, ~ASHINGTON,
WHEREAS, Charito Balisi has applied for a Special Use Permit to replace a non-conforming use
with a less intensive non-conforming use; and
WHERF. a~, pursuant to BMC 21.02.790 the proposal meets all criteria noted therein for approval
of such Special Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this matter on March 21, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the Council that the Special Use Permit
be accepted with conditions of approval; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Bremerton does
hereby fred:
That there are adequate services to the site; and
That the proposal conforms to the requirements of 13MC 21.02.790 and is a less intensive
use; and
That the necessary agency approvals have been obtained; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Bremerton does hereby
approve the Special Use Permit for operation of an espresso stand as a less intensive use than the
previous tenant as presented and conditioned in the staff report.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of
~ 2000.
Carol A.rends, President
Bremerton City Council
APPROVED this day of ,2000.
LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor
City of Bremerton
ATTEST:
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISISON
FOR AGENDA OF: March 21, 2000 J~' PUBLIC MEETING
ORIGINATOR: Tricia Y. Bennon [] STUDY SESSION
COMMITTEE CHAIR: Joan Dingfield [] INFORMATION
1. SUBJECT
Special Use Permit
Applicant: Charito Balisi, 2649 Marine Drive, Bremerton, WA 98312
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT & REQUIREMENT FOR COMMISSION
ACTION:
Pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.790, a non-conforming use may be replaced by another
non-conforming use o£ lesser intensity, through the Special Use Permit process. The
Commission reviews the application and makes a determination of whether or not the
proposed use is indeed less intensive than the previous use based on the evidence
available and testimony presented at the public meeting.
3. ATTACHMENTS
· Staff Report w/attachments · SLIP Application
· Zoning Map
· Site Plan
a4
CITY OF BREMERTON
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING:
PREPARED BY: Tricia Y. Bennon
SUMMARY
'1, Applicant: Charito Balisi
2649 Marine Drive
Bremerton, WA 98312
2. Location: 519 S Cambrian Avenue
3. Tax Assessor's Lot No.: 3732-028-009-0000
4. Attachments:
·SUP Application
Zoning Map
Site Plan
5. Comprehensive Plan Map: General & Highway Commercial (C-G)
6. Zoning: Residential Medium Density (MF)
FINDINGS
1. Property & Development:
The property consists of four (4) lots measuring a total of 100 feet by 87 feet
(approximately 8,700 square feet). There is an existing 598 square foot building
which will be remodeled in order to operate an espresso/coffee shop.
The lot is bounded to the north by an alley, the south by Preble Street, and to
the east by Cambrian Avenue. Access to the site will be gained from both
Cambrian Avenue and Preble Street.
2. Surrounding Land Uses:
Relation to Subject Current Zoning Comprehensive Plan Designation
Property
North Medium Density Residential General & Highway Commercial (C-G)
South Medium Density Residential General & Highway Commercial (C-G)
East Medium Density Residential General & Highway Commercial (C-G)
West Medium Density Residential General & Highway Commercial (C-G)
3. Requested Special Use
Pursuant to Section 21.02.790 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), the
applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit in order to replace one non-
conforming use (a construction equipment rental company) with another less
intensive non-conforming use (espresso/coffee shop).
4. SEPA Determination
This project is categorically exempt from the SEPA requirements of WAC 197-11
as specified in WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b) which exempts minor land use
decisions.
5. Background
The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to operate an espresso/coffee
stand which is not allowed by the residential current zoning on the property.
However, the Comprehensive Plan zoning designation identifies this and the
surrounding area as commercial. The applicant would like to see the application
processed under the provisions of BMC 21.02.790 addressing less intensive
non-conforming uses.
5. Analysis
Is this proposal less intensive than the prior use at the site?
Use -
The use as described is to be an espresso/coffee stand type of operation. The
site has not been vacant for over one (1) year. This use is not allowed in the
"MF" zoning designation and therefore is being processed as less intensive than
the previous use pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.790.
2
Traffic & Circulation-
An espresso stand as a general rule would likely generate more frequent trips
and traffic circulation than a construction sales and storage company. However,
the nature of traffic and types of vehicles the proposed espresso stand will be
attracting will be primarily automobile. The construction rental company
attracted full-size and heavy trucks. Therefore, staff anticipates that the overall
impact in relation to the type of vehicle traffic will be considerably less than the
previous use.
..~ As the site currently is not clearly marked for ingress and egress traffic, staff
~,~ recommends that the site be clearly marked to help facilitate the movement of
'- ingress/egress traffic from both Preble Street and Cambrian Avenue. A~
'~ condition has been placed on this permit to address this issue.
Noise-
This use will generate a lower level of noise compared to the noise levels
generated by the construction rental company (operation and moving of large
trucks).
Parking -
The BMC requires that four (4) parking spaces be provided. In addition, parking
must comply with UBC Table 11-F for accessible parking spaces and provide
one (1) of the four (4) spaces as a van accessible parking space. The site plan
as submitted identifies four (4) parking spaces and an accessible space. The
parking must be clearly marked and the accessible parking space must meet the
standards in 21.02.630. A condition has been placed on this permit to address
this issue.
Development Standards -
The applicant states that no building construction will be associated with this
Special Use Permit. However, the existing building will remodeled to
accommodate the espresso/coffee shop. A building permit is required for any
building, plumbing, or mechanical modifications or additions. A condition has
been placed on this permit to address this issue.
Setbacks
The current "MF" zoning designation requires 10 foot setbacks from Preble
Street and Cambrian Avenue and five foot setbacks from the north and west
property lines. All setback requirements are met with the exception of the
setback from the west property line. Currently, the building is setback four (4)
feet from the west property line. The building is legal non-conforming with
regards to the setback from the west property line and complies with other
development standards.
3
Staff finds that the reduced setback for the proposed use would not create an
adverse impact on the neighborhood. This is an existing building which
previously housed a commercial use of a much higher intensity, and therefore
this tenant will not pose any greater impact to the area than the previous
commercial tenant.
Landscaping
All commercial development is required to landscape front yard setbacks and
provide for street trees along right-of-way frontage.
BMC 21.02.700 requires new construction and/or expansion of existing uses to
conform to development regulations. This includes landscaping of the ten (10)
foot setback areas along Preble Street and Cambrian Avenue and installation of
a minimum of three (3) street trees along Preble Street and a minimum of four
(4) street trees along Cambdan Avenue.
The site does not currently have landscaping as noted above. Staff has
determined that application of the landscaping standards would not be
applicable to this use. The applicant is not proposing any new construction
and/or is not proposing to construct an addition to the existing structure at the
site. However, the Planning Commission at their discretion, may condition this
permit to require landscaping be provided to address or mitigate any impacts to
the surrounding neighborhood.
6. Comment Survey: The application was routed to various City Departments for
review and comment.
BuJTdingDeparfment: Permits are required for any construction, plumbing or
mechanical work to be done. All work must be done in
accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building, Mechanical,
and Plumbing Codes as adopted by the State of
Washington.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Bremerton Zoninq Ordinance 21.02.905 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, [d]
"Criteria for Special Use Permits" states that approval of a Special Use Permit
may be granted only if all of the following are true:
1. Is the proposal substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
either desi.qnated "SUP" in the Zonin.q Ordinance, or is bein.q processed as
an "Unlisted Use"?
YES. This non-conforming use is being proposed to replace another non-
conforming use under the provisions of BMC 21.02.780. The proposed
use as an espresso/coffee shop will be less intensive than the previous
use (construction equipment rental) as outlined in the analysis portion of
the report. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as a general and
highway commercial area. Therefore, the proposed commercial use will
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Will the proposal be consistent with all applicable development standards
and requirements, includin.q the availability of all needed utilities and
services?
YES. Not withstanding the use issue, the proposed espresso stand/coffee
shop, as detailed in the analysis section and as conditioned in this report,
does meet all zoning standards for operation in the Medium Density
Residential (MF) zoning designation.
3. Will the proposal, alon.q with any mitigation measures or other conditions
of approval, avoid si.qnificant adverse environmental consequences?
YES. This project is categorically exempt from the SEPA requirements of
WAC 197-11 as specified in WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b) which exempts
minor land use decisions. No significant adverse environmental
consequence will occur as a result of this proposed use.
4. Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surroundinq
neiRhborhood?
YES. Operation of an espresso/coffee shop would be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. Although a residence is located to the north of
the subject property, the area is heavily commercially developed (Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard is located across the street to the east). The site is
also located at the corner of a heavily traveled street. Due to the location
of this site and the proximity in relation to other businesses, this proposal
will be compatible with adjacent uses and the surrounding neighborhood.
5. Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or desiqn .quidelines that
are applicable to the specific use or type of development?
YES. The proposal, as conditioned, complies with all other criteria or
design guidelines associated with this type of use.
5
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that:
1. The proposed use, as conditioned, does appear to be less intense than the
previous nonconformity, meets the zoning criteria, and is in the public
interest.
2. The proposed use, as conditioned, does meet the necessary tests and
criteria required for approval of a Special Use Permit.
Recommendation:
Staff concludes that the proposed espresso stand is less intensive than the previous
construction equipment rental company as detailed in the analysis section of this!
report. The submitted site plan, as conditioned in the model recommendation for
approval, does demonstrate compliance to the City of Bremerton Development
Standards. Staff recommends favorable Planning Commission recommendation to the
City Council.
MODEL RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL:
Upon review of the findings, the Commission moves to conclude that the request for a
Special Use Permit to allow operation of an espresso/coffee shop at 519 S. Cambrian
Avenue as a replacement nonconforming use of less intensity than a previous
nonconformity does meet the necessary tests, and therefore recommends APPROVAL
as described on the attached application and shown on the site plan with the following
conditions:
1. Four (4) off-street parking spaces, which include one (1) van accessible
parking space, must be striped and clearly identified at the site prior to
occupancy.
2. A building permit is required for any alterations to the building or changes
with respect to mechanical or plumbing fixtures.
3. The applicant shall clearly mark the site to guide ingress and egress
circulation.
6
MODEL RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL:
BE IT RESOLVED, the Bremerton Planning Commission, after considering oral and
written testimony and information in the Staff Report, hereby recommends DENIAL the
proposed Special Use Permit as described on the attached application and shown on
the site plan for the following reasons:
Ao
Bo
7
City of Bremerton
Special Use Permit
Application
Fee:
[~ Administrative Decision
~ Ci? Council Decision ....
~.*"Please provide 5 copies of Application and site plan*ff~
Special Use Permit - B,MC 21.02.90S A Special Use Permit may be approved for a land
use that is not specifically listed in the Land Use Tables of Chapter V as an "Allowed
Pr/ncipal Use" or an "Accesso~ Use", and for uses that are listed as "SUP" (Special Use
Permit required).
Instructions'
Please complete the following application with as much detail as possible about your
proposal and submit it along with the application fee. The application must be complete
before any processing can occur.
/
Conta~ Person (if different than applicant):
Address~
Title Holder (if different than applicant)' ----,
Phone Number: ,,/ ~//
Page I of 3
Revtsed c*: ] l 17 97 .~.30 .¢~,I C'.' ,~/y Do~trnenr~ ~pectal [ 2e Pemu't. doc
33.
Site Adress llocation):
Special Use Requested:
/
Proposal (please describe in as much detail as possible the nature of the development):
Criteria for Approval:
Your requested Special Use Permit can be approved onlv if all or'the following criteria
can be answered "TES".
t. is the proposal consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and either
designated "SUP" in the Zoning Ordinance, or is being processed as ~ "Uniiszed
2. Will the proposal comply with Mt appiicable development stand,ds ~d
requirements,, including the availabiIitv of al~ needed utilities and sepdces?
· b ~/ ~," L . ~ ~ ,' ,'~
3. Will the propose, along with ~v mitigation measures or other conditions
aDDrOVa], avoid significant adverse environmental consequences?
4. Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and su~ounding
/
Pa_~z~_? of 3
R~,ised on l ] 17 97 &'30. t~ [ C.' .k/y Documents Special t)e Petwnt. doc
5. Does the proposal comply with alt other criteria or design guidelines that are
applicable to the specific use or type of development? . }/~_~ -~ 7~.~.,.-v ,~,..L?~ ~_ ,,_ ..... -,_
Please ~rovide below (or on a separate paper) detailed explanations or other information
that ,Mit assist in the review o( your request and that will he[p show that ,,'our proposal
meets the abo~:e-crite4:ia.
Applicant's Statement
[ hereby certir% that .'.he statements contained herein are correc:. [ understand that
conditions of approval may be required .:o adequately prote~ the zone or neighborhoed
wihin which the subject use is !ocated. and I' agee ..:o abide by those conditions.
I understand that the decision on r. his application may be appealed and possibly
overturned. [ also understand that an approved Soecial Use Pe,,,:mit is subject to ~ture
review and possibie revocation by the City Councii for any violation of re,was or
limitations.
understand chat approval oftixis S~eciai Use Permit may be appealed and acssiblv
o,,'e, ~'warned by the City Council.
have read. understand, md a~ee with ail of the above statements.
· :- The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex. color, religion.
national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services, in programs or
actMties, or employment opportunities and benefits.
Page 3 of 3
l'qe'vi.~ed on l 1 ! .7 9.7 ,~,'30 .-k~l C: SA' [.)o~tmenrs Special/..'se Perrrttt. doc
GALAXIE RENTALS BUZZBEE ESPRESSO
20 TO 40 CARS A DAY 20 TO 40 CARS A DAY
OUTSDE STORAGE
EQUIPMENT REPAIR & TESTING
LOADING AND UNLOADING OF EQUIPMENT
RETAIL PROPANE SALES
OUTSIDE DISPLAY OF EQUIPMENT
35
' JJT'[IJ['] I [ IE:.l. Tl'J
.ll'J [J I' Jill
llllll'l
llll]l
Commissioner Kosusko indicated he took Commissioner's Boyd's comments to heart, but he
thinks they need to be careful not to regulate what people can put in their garage. I. fthe guy two
doors down has a rototiller that he wants to put in someone's garage, it isn't up to others to
decide.
Commissioner Boyd indicated that's not the point.
Commissioner Kosusko said that it is in the plan review, it's a hard thing to wrestle with.
Chairman Dingfield indicated they had four choices before them wkich were outlined. They can
look at those choices and affirm the building permit, which would be denying the appeal hero're
them. or they can deny the building permit and approve the appeal. There are grounds that are
listed there. They could continue the matter based on the legal question before them of' whether
there is a right to this appeal, or they, can bring the matter back to DCD for further consideration
knowing that they need to give very specific reasons why they are remanding that back because
they need guidance on this issue of accessory structures not only from them but fi.om city council.
Commissioner Grig~ made a motion that the commission affirm DCI)'s building permit
approval for the garage as an accessory structure to proposed adjacent and allowed
primary, residential use.
Chairman Dingfield asked tbr a second. No second was heard so the motion died for lack of a
second.
Commissioner Kosusko moved to continue the matter until they straighten out the legal
challenge of the Type I and if Mr. Henry. is in the scope of filing the appeal.
Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion.
Chairman Dingfield asked ibr a vote fi-om the Commissioners: Commissioner Boyd, yes:
Commissioner Griggs: yes, Commissioner Kosusko, yes: Commissioner .~[oshay, yes:
Commissioner Dingfield: yes. Motion passes
Chairman Dingfield said that the matter would be continued to the April !§ meeting so that they
can resolve the issue of the legality of Mr. Hera2d s appeal to this. Chairman Ding;field asked if
this would close the body of public record. Mr. Rife and Mr. Palmer agr_ eed. There will be no
more taken on this.
// 1. Special use Permit (PL00-0006) to allow an espresso stand in a residential
~ zoned (MF) neighborhood located at 519 S. Cambrian Ave. Applicant:
~ Charito Balisi (Continued from February Planning Commission meeting
because of an addressing mistake in how it was advertised). ~ ~/
Planning Corn.mission Meeting March 21,2000 - Page 16 of 33
Tricia Bennon, Planning Staff, indicated that th/s is a special use permit applied for by Charito
Balisi for operation of an espresso stand. Ms. Bennon wanted to draw attention to changes in the
staff'report. First on page 3 under "traffic and circulation", they have added:
.4s the site currently is t~ot clearly marked for it~.g_ress-eoqresx traffic, stcrff recommend~ the
site be clearly marked to help facilitate the movement of ingress and egress traffic,from
both Preble St. and Cambrian ,4 ye.
The other change is on page 6. The first change would be adding that condition down under
"Recommendation tbr Approval" as condition -~'
,-o. Immediately tbllowing the conclusion on that
same page, she has added a recommendation section. Previously there was no recommendation
included in this report, and staff wanted to include a recommendation as to what they felt should
be decided. The Comprehensive Plan does designate this as a commercially zoned area. The
current zoning is multifamily, which does not coincide with the Comprehensive Plan. Ire use as
proposed is not allowed right now in multifamily zoning but the Comprehensive Plan does
rapport commercial activities in this area. The property, is also located in the Gateway project and
she had a drawing to show them what the Gateway Project is going to look like. She spoke with
~ Price from the engineering department. He is going to be requesting funding ne, ct week
for acquisition of the right-of-way in this area. The subject property is included in the proposal to
acquire this property. He is speculating the offers will be made by mid to late summer for
acquiring this property, and hopethlly within the ne, ct 6 months the properties in this area will be
starring to conform to the Gateway plan. There is no ~,*uarantee at this time, though, that riffs will
go through. However, he is not anticipating any problems with it. Staff'is going forward with
applications tbr development in this area until the time that these properties are acquired by the
C~W.
5taft' is asking the Planmng Commission to consider whether or not this use as proposed is less
:.ntensive than the use that was there prior. The use that was there before was construction
equipment rental. This proposed use is an espresso stand. This is an existing building. There is
not going to be substantial remodeling or enlar~ng of the existing building on the site. [t is not
going ro be a drive through ~.cilirv but rather a shop where 'you oark and go in. The traffic may
generate more fi'equent trips than the construction storage comr>anv. However. the clientele will
be more automotive. There will not be heavy, equipment and heavv trucks coming in and out of
that area. We are recommending that the applicant cteartv idenrir~ how they will be coming in and
our by painting the lines on the road the way people are cormng in and out in an orderlv fashion,
and that :hey are nor just cutting ~.hrough.
Parking: They are providing ample parking. Acmallv they are providing additional parking spaces
as you can see on the North side, an additional two places toward the North end of the building.
Landscaping: New commercial developments do require landscaping and they require that front
yard setbacks be landscaped. In this case, it would be the 10 feet back from Preble and from
Cambrian: Due to the fact that this is an existing building and it has been commercially developed
and has not been vacant for over a year, it was determined that application of landscaping
standards would be not applicable t'or this type of use. The applicant is not proposing any
construction and is not proposing to construct an addition to the existing structure at the site.
Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2000 - Page 17 or' 33
~O
However the Planning Commission at their discretion, may condition this permit to require
landscaping to address or mitigate any impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The
surrounding neighborhood is actually residential to the north and west. The criteria for approval
of the special use permit are listed in the staff report.
1. Is it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Yes it is. The Comprehensive Plan
tbr this area is commercial. This is a commercial development and is therefore
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan'?
2. Is it consistent with all applicable development standards and requirements? Yes.
This is an existing structure. There are existing utilities at the site. The occupant
is only going to be making minor interior changes to accommodate their use.
3. Will this avoid significant adverse environmental consequences? Yes. This project
is categorically exempt fi-om SEPA requirements of WAC 197-l I which exempt
minor land use decision. There is no construction going to be done at this site and
no adverse environmental consequences will result as of the proposed use.
4. Will it be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood? Yes, it
will. Although a residence is located to the north, this area is heavily commercially
developed and the Comprehensive Plan does recognize the tict that this is an ideal
location fbr a commercial development.
5. Does it apply with all other criteria or design guidelines? Yes it does. There is
one legal non-conforming situation with regards to setbacks. If you look over to
the west side of the site, there is a 4 foot setback. It's a existing building. [t is a
legal non-conforming situation, if the other commercial uses that were at that site
didn't cause any real impact, to the neighbors, they think an espresso stand would
be !ess of an impact than a hea,,x, ecmir)ment rental.
The staff concludes that the proposed use conditions in the model recommendation for approval
does appear to I~e less intense than the previous non-conforming use which would have been the
heaw equipment rental, it meets the zoning criteria and the public interest. The proposed use as
condition does meet necessary tests and criteria required for the approval of the special use
permit. Staff's recommendation is that the pro.vosed espresso stand is less intensive than previous
construction equipment rental company as detailed in the analysis section of :he report and the
submit-ted site plan as conditioned in the model recommendation for approval does demonstrate
compliance to the City ofBremerton's devetoument standards. Staff recommended a favorai~le
Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council.
Call to the Public
Carlos Montgomery, 605 N. Montgomery, indicated he had moved here about 25 years ago. He
drove by this area every, single day, sometimes 6-7 days a week, and it was a filling station for
many years. There was quite an accident rate at this particular comer. People coming into the
yard were stopping there to get gas and tried to get back out and cross over. There is no mm
lanes in this particular area. When they had a wreck there, you know what that does to that
comer. It's very severe, and the people w-ill not waste their time waiting for traffic. They will
jump out there and hope everybody else will stop so they can get out. It's a very dangerous
place. This is in the proposed 304 project. [t has not been bought yet and there is always that
Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2000 - Page I8 of 33
possibility, it would not be bought, but he feels that all they are doing here is continuing to
increase the accident rate on 304 and he doesn't believe that is a very good idea. Right now it is
zoned multifamily residence. The Comprehensive Plan designed very many years ago indicated
this as an area they wanted commercial but on this particular comer any kind of a business that
would have people coming from both directions to get into it is very dangerous. He thinks they
ought to take a good look at traffic going through there and get copies of all of the accident
reports for the past 25 years in that particular intersection. He doesn't think it's a good idea to
put that kind of business in this particular location because of traffic. Traffic in the past 25 years
has trippled or quadrupled and it was dangerous back then.
Commissioner Dingfield asked if the staff'or applicants had any comments they would like to
make. She did indicate that that was a question she had having driven to the site. She was
concerned about the idea of people coming into town and crossing 304 to get to the espresso
stand. She was curious where the applicant saw the business come from. Is it serving the
neighborhoods or the heavy flow of traffic coming through Northbound. People might want
espresso in the morning coming into town and that would be crossing that traffic rather than
coming out of town and headed in a different direction later in the day.
3,Is. B~ennon indicated the applicant is intending to provide for commuter traffic. A traffic study
was not done for this project. She doesn't know what they could do for mitigation on that.
Mr. Palmer said that although this is not before the commission tonight if the proposal were to
rezone ir to commercial before taking this action, they would have no choice but to issue the kind
of use, traffic or no traffic.
Mr. Rife indicated that the present comp plan zone here is CT {'General Highway Commercial).
The zoning doesn't comply with the comp plan zoning. They have now reached the point in
GNLA where our zoning has to comply with the Comprehension Plan. If they were to come in
w/th rezone application to GB ( General Business I, we would effectively be stuck with rezoning it
and there would be no conditions whatsoever.
Commissioner Boyd asked if it was reasonable to ask for a traffic study there.
3,lt. Palmer indicated that he didn't think it was reasonable. He can't denv the fact that there
may have been a lot of accidents in that area but if you look at the .v,,pe of use that it's replacing,
you have to judge that this is a small potatoes kind of use compared to what was there even if you
go back to the time when it was a service station. It's still a less intensive use than that. To
require a traffic study for this small a project, he thinks, is inappropriate.
Commissioner Moshay indicated that she felt the staffhas done a pretty good job in studying the
pros and cons. Times change. Espresso is not the same as a gas station or heavy equipment
rental.
Commissioner Kosusko said that staff has limited the access points and talked about doing that
with painting in and out arrows. He is wondering if it might help if the entrance and exit points
were defined a little more. There are no curbs or anything and they wouldn't want to require
Planning Commission Meeting March 2 I, 2000 - Page 19 of 33
them to go in and curb the property and that's too much for the size of the use and the potential
that it goes away in two years anyway. He would like to see how the entrance and exit areas
could be defined pretty specifically.
Ms, Bennon pointed out that this is the intent of condition #3, that they clearly mark the site
regarding ingress and egress circulation, whether that be with paint or barriers or maybe even
landscape but somehow restrict the traffic so that people know when the.v' re turning where
they're turning to, it's not just one big area.
Commissioner Boyd moved that the Commission recommend approval as described in the
attached application and shown site plan with the conditions as listed for off street parking
spaces, the requirement of a building permit for alterations to the building and that the
application shall most clearly mark the site to guide ingress and egress circulation.
Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion.
Chairman Dingfield asked for a vote fi-om the Commissioners: Commissioner Boyd, yes:
Commissioner Griggs: yes. Commissioner Kosusko, yes: Commissioner Moshay, yes:
Commissioner Dingfield: yes. Motion passes.
Commissioner Dingfieid indicated that this ,mas a recommendation which will be going to the
City. Council who will hold a public hearing on this at which time any members of the public do
have the opportunity to make any additional comments and that is where the public record will be
built on this tbr determination of the Special Use Permit approval or denial.
2. Application for rezone (P199-0076) to change the current zoning from
residential "SF-3" to commercial "PO" zoning and a site plan review for the
proposed Walgreen's. Location: Eight lots at the SW corner of Sylvan Way
& Wheaton Way.
Tricia Bennon, Planning Staff. indicated the proposal consists of eig.~t separate lots, each of
wi'rich has a residence on them fight now. The whole area of the proposed development is about
1.8 acres. There is an existing right-of-way, Harkins Place, located in the center of the
development. That is proposed to be vacated pending approval of the proposed rezone. The
proposed development is bounded on the north by Sylvan and to the east bv Wheaton Way. On
the Comprehensive Plan, there is a commercial zoning definition placed on that piece of property.
at the comer of Sylvan and Wheaton Way. The current zoning is SF-3 which is a residential zone
designation. What is being asked of the Planning Commission are three things. First is a rezone
to make the current zoning consistent with the comprehensive zoning that is there right now. The
comprehensive zoning is commercial. The current zoning is residential, but the applicant has
asked that they approve Professional Office. To the north there is commercially developed
property, Wheaton Mall. To the east is also commercial and to the west and south there are
residence properties which will remain at the site. There were two previous proposals which were
denied. These proposals were considered under different zoning and a different Comprehensive
Plan. The City adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The previous applications were
before that. A SEPA determination was issued for this project made on November 1, 1999 for
Planning Commission Meeting March 21,2000 - Page 20 or' 33
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. S~CI': R~solufion# ~;~'~ ~'q FORAG~A OF: Ap~ 12,2~
R~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~G~G D~T: DCD
O~G~ATOR: THcia ~on
Reg~g ~v~ of~e ~d ~te pl~ ~ BDS I
for~e SW C~ of ~lv~ & ~ W~ DA~ S~~: ~ 5, 2~
E~O~~ ~ ~O~N ~ ~PRO~ BY CO~C~ P~S~E~ FOR S~~:
4. S~RY STA~~ ~ ~Q~~ ~OR CO~
~ 1977 ~e Plug Commion ~mm~ d~al of~o ~ate bm~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~e H~ Pla~ c~-de-
sac ~ea. ~e~ requem w~ ~b~u~fly d~ by ~e Ci~ Co~cfl or w~e ~&am by ~e applic~m. ~ ~fion to ~e
r~one d~s, ~e Planing Commi~ion p~ R~lufi~ ~27 ~ Au~ 1977 w~ ~~d~ d~ of ~
co~i~ r~ones ~ ~e H~ Pla~ ~ea ~d reaffi~ ~e Ol~ic ~or pro~ ~ a residmfid ~m.
The 1995 Compreh~ive PI~ ~ desi~at~ ~s ~ ~ Co~cid ~d Pmf~on~ ~. ~e ~of~ion~ Offi~ zo~g
~ct is ~t~d~ m be a b~ zone pla~ ~ nei~~ md more ~t~ ~mm~i~ ~.
Upon ~e ~opfion of ~e Compreh~ive PI~, ~e Ci~'s c~mt zomg ~p w~ re-~p~ by Ci~ Co,cfi. ~e r~t of
~s readopfion is ~t ~e ~mpreh~ve pl~ ~ pr~m~ ov~ ~e c~mt zomg. Ovm &e pro~siom of ~e
Compreh~ive PI~ ~e obj~fiv~ of ~e ~o~ ~agmmt Act ~d ~e ~ph~is of ~e Re~am~ R~om Ack ~e Ci~ is
well ~ m brag ~e efi~g zomg ~to ~o~ ~& &e Comp~h~ive PI~ ~s ~ne req~ on~ approv~ by
· e Ci~, roll brag about ~at ~o~.
~e Plmning Commion on M~h 21, 2000 r~mm~d~ approv~ of ~e R~one, fo~d~ ~e i~e m~ reg~ m ~e
desi~afion) r~md~ approv~ of~e site pl~ ~ ~fion~.
8. ~CO~~A~ON:
(S~ a~mt)
9. ~SPONS~ O~C~;
10. NO~ OF A~ON
P~ ~ T~D ~ ~PRO~ ~ DIS~PRO~D ~ ~ED ~ DA~: ~
5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The applicant will not be able to develop the property as proposocL
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING~ BUDGETS~ FACILITIES~ EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCF~:
No impacts have been identifiecL
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Zoning Code
File
Sit~ Visit
A~FACHMENT TO:
AGENDA BHJIJ
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FORAGENDA OF: April 12, 2000
ORIGINAT~G DEPT: DCD
Approval of rezone and site plan r~vi~w. ORJGIN^TOR: Tri¢ia B~non
BDS I
DATE SUBMITTED: April 5, 2000
2. STAFF RECO~ATION:
That the City Council move to approve the proposed rezone fi.om "SF-3" to "PO" and approve the site plan as submitted
and conditioned in the staff wport regarding the SW comer of Sylvan and Whealon Ways and approving Resolution
MODEL MOTION FOR APPROVAL:
I move that the City Council approve tl~ Rezone from single-family residential "SF-~" to Professional Offioe "PO". Fu~d~cr,
the City Council finds that the use is consistent with the '~PO" zoning designation and therefore approves the Site Plan
Review as detailed and conditioned in thc staff repor~
MODEL MOTION FOR PARTIAL APPROVAL:
I move that the City Council approve:
a. the Rezone fi.om "SF-3" to "PO"; and/or
b. the Site Plan Review upon finding that the use is consistent with thc "PO" zoning designation as detailed and
conditioned in the staff report.
However, the City Council does not approve:
a. the Rezone from "SF-3' to "PO"; and/or
b. the Site Plan Review upon finding that the use is not consistent with the "PO" zoning designation.
MODEL MOTION FOR DENIAL:
I move that the City Council deny the Rezone from "SF-3" to "PO". Further, the City Council finds that the use is not
consistent with the "PO" zomg designation and therefore denies the Site Plan Review for the following reasons:
MODEL MOTION FOR REMAND:
I move that the City Council remand this matt_ff back to staff for further considea'afim for the following masons:
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW TO AT.TOW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A WALGREEN'S AT THE SW CORNER OF SYLVAN WAY AND
WHEATON WAY, BREMERTON, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
WHEREAS, Peter Powell has applied for a Site Plan Review for construction of a Walgreen's; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on March 21, 2000 reviewed and forwarded the
consideration as to the consistency of the proposed use in the Professional Office '"PO" zoning designation
to the City Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on March 21, 2000 approved the attached site plan as
conditioned in the staff report contingent on the City Council concluding the use is consistent with the "PO"
zoning designation; and
WHEREAS, an environmental checklist has been prepared and considered by the responsible
official and a determination of nonsignificance issued on October 29, 2000;
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the Planning Commission recommendation, meeting
transcript, and staff report;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Counc~ of the City of Bremerton does
hereby fred:
1. The proposed use is primarily a drag store/pharmacy. Such a use is permitted outfight
in the ''PO" zone. Size and height restrictions imposed on the proposed structure by
the requirements of the "PO" zone will ensure compatibility with adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
2. The record includes a document tided Bremerton Planning Commission Findings of
Fact, Analysis, and Recommendation which is in fact a staff report and is referred to as
such in this resolution.
3. As set out on pages 4 - 8 of the staff report, the site plan is adequate under the
following conditions:
a. Glare from lighting must be restricted as to not impact neighboring residential
properties or traffic along Wheaton Way or Sylvan Way.
b. Permits are required for construction or grading work.
c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed in accordance with the Depaxm-~ent of Ecology's
Stormwater management manual for the Puget Sound Basin and existing water, sewer,
and storm mains shall be abandoned.
d. Channelization revisions and other mitigation measures as detailed in the traffic impact
study prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants must be implemented and inspected by
the Public Works Department prior to occupancy of the building. They are as follows:
1. Construct standard commercial driveway approach (30 feet wide) to SR-303/Wheaton
Way plus install modified "pork-chop" traffic island per WSDOT design standards.
Install standard "No Left Turn" (R3-2) traffic sign and "right arrow" pavement
marking, per MUTCD standards, on the driveway's exit approach plus inbound arrow
on the entry lane.
2. Construct standard commercial driveway approach onto Sylvan Way, with 'qeft/right
arrows" pavement markings on the exit lane and inbound arrow on the entry lane.
3. Extend the center let-mm lane on the Sylvan Way EB approach to the SR-303 signal as
a two-way left-mm lane (2WLTL) as far west as the western driveway to Wheaton Mall
(and possibly to Solie Avenue). This channelization improvement along Walgreen's
frontage and further west requires no widening of Sylvan Way, since 23 feet are available
for the 2WLTL (11 feet) and the EB through/curb lane (12 feet).
4. Provide directional arrows and "Drive-Thru" legend pavement markings to route drive-
through vehicles from the SR-303 entrance around the retail building to enter the 2-bay
drive-through facility.
5. Provide internal pedestrian walkways and crosswalks, with appropriate signs and
markings per MUTCD standards, between the Walgreen's drug store entrance and
adjacent SR-303 and Sylvan Way.
6. Install standard stop signs and stoplines per MUTCD guidelines at both site access
approaches to Sylvan Way and SR-303 to safely control exiting maneuvers.
7. Provide adequate on-site parking spaces including handicapped stalls near the
Walgreen's drag store entrances to satisfy County (City) code requirements.
e. The drive-thru stacking spaces must be clearly marked prior to occupancy of the building.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Bremerton does hereby approve the
Site Plan Review as conditioned in the above findings, and that the applicant provide traffic calming on Solie
Avenue if, at the discretion of the City Engineer, there axe findings ora resultant increase in traffic on Solie
Avenue.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ,2000.
Carol Arends, President
Bremerton City Council
APPROVED this day of ,2000.
LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor
City of Bremerton
ATTEST:
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REZONE OF THE SW CORNER SYLVAN WAY AND
WHEATON WAY, BREMERTON, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
WHEREAS, Peter Powell has applied for a rezone for the SW Comer of Sylvan Way and Wheaton
Way from single-family residential (SF-3) to Professional Office (PO); and
WHERF_A~, the Planning Commission on March 21, 2000 reviewed and recommended approval of
the rezone; and
WHEREAS, an environmental checklist has been prepared and considered by the responsible
official and a determination of nonsignificance issued on October 29, 2000;
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the Planning Commission recommendation, meeting
transcript, and staff report;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RF-,SOLVED, the City Council of the City of Bremerton does
hereby Fred:
1. As set out on page 8 of the staff report, the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site
is General & Professional Offices (C-P). The "SE-3" zone is not allowed under the "C-
P" designation. The '`PO" zone is allowed under the "C-P" designation. The rezone is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2. As set out in Finding Nmber 1, the present zoning is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and has been since it was adopted. The rezone will therefore
correct a classification that was inappropriate when established.
3. As set out in Findings Numbers 1 and 2, present zoning is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the City has, through the Comprehensive Plan
process, deemed the site appropriate for "PO" zoning. It is in the public interest for
zoning to conform with the Comprehensive Plan as required by law. The rezone
therefore clearly benefits the community of Bremerton.
4. As set out in the staff report, especially on pages 9 and 10, all essential public facilities
and services are available and adequate for this rezone.
5. As set out on page 2 of the staff report, the site is adjacent to present commercial
development. As further set out in the staff report and in Finding Number 1, the site is
designated for commercial development in the Comprehensive Plan. The rezone will
not create an isolated development or "spot zone."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Bremerton does hereby
rezone the following parcels from "SF-3" to "PO": 3955-001-001-0006; 3955-001-002-0005; 3955-
001-003-0004; 3955-001-004-0003; 3955-001-005-0002; 3955-001-006-0001; 3955-001-007-0000;
3955-001-008-0009.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of
,2000.
Carol Arend~, President
Bremerton City Council
APPROVED this day of ,2000.
LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor
City of Bremerton
ATTEST:
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISISON
FOR AGENDA OF: March 21, 2000 ~ PUBLIC HEARING
ORIGINATOR: Tricia Y. Bennon [] STUDY SESSION
COMMITTEE CHAIR: Joan Dingfield I-I INFORMATION
1. SUBJECT
Rezone and Site Plan Review
Applicant: Peter Poweil, PO Box 97070, Kirkland, WA 98083-9770
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT & REQUIREMENT FOR COMMISSION
ACTION:
The applicant has applied For a rezone of the subject property (at the SW Comer of
Sylvan Way and Wheaton Way) from "SF-3" to "PO'. The comprehensive plan
supports this rezone.
The applicant has also applied for a site plan review for the subject property for
construction of a 15,020 square foot pharmacy/drug store (Walgreens). Site plan review
applications are generally processed administratively. However, because the rezone
requires Planning Commission review and recommendation before City Council, the
applications are being processed collectively in accordance with BMC 21.02.870 (3) (b)
Optional Consolidated Permit Process.
3. EXHIBIT
A. Application
4. RECOMMENDATION:
MODEL MOTIO. IM. I move that the Bremerton Planning Commission find that the
proposed Rezone and accompanying Site Plan Review is in the public interest and that the
application be:
1. approved
2. approved with the following conditions:
3. denied.
CITY OF BREMERTON
BREMEI~TON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING:
PREPARED BY: Tricia Y. Bennon
SUMMARY
1. Applicant: Peter Powell
PO Box 97070
Kirkland, WA 98083-9770
Location: Eight lots at the SW Corner of Sylvan Way and Wheaton Way
3. Tax Assessor's Lot No.: 3955-001-001-0006; 3955-001-002-0005
3955-001-003-0004; 3955-001-004-0003
3955-001-005-0002; 3955-001-006-0001
3955-001-007-0000; 3955-001-008-0009
4. Attachments:
·Rezone Application
· Site Plan Review Application & Checklist
Vicinity Map
· Comprehensive Plan Map
· Current Zoning Map
· Proposed Site Plan
· Landscaping Plan
· Open Space Plan
5. Comprehensive Plan Map: General & Professional Offices (C-P)
6. Current Zoning: Single-Family Residential (SF-3)
Proposed Zoning: Professional Office (PO)
FINDINGS
1. Property & Development:
The proposed development will consist of eight separate and adjoining lots
measuring a total of 294.64 feet by 267.31 feet. The total area of the proposed
development will measure approximately 78,760 sqft (1.8 acres).
Harkins Place is an existing public right-of-way which is located directly in the
center of the proposed development. The applicant proposes to apply for
vacation of Harkins Place pending approval of the proposed rezone.
The proposed development area has a single-family dwelling located on each of
the eight lots. Upon acquisition of the property and approval of the rezone
application, the applicant will demolish the existing structures and grade the site
for construction of a 15,020 square foot building to accommodate a proposed
pharmacy/drug store. A permit will be required for this work and a condition will
be placed on this permit to address this issue.
The proposed development area is bounded to the north by Sylvan Way and to
the east by Wheaton Way (SR 303). Access is proposed from both Sylvan Way
and Wheaton Way.
2. Surrounding Land Uses:
A land use inventory was conducted of the area surrounding the subject
property. This included the property surrounding the intersection of Wheaton
Way and Sylvan Way. The surrounding area consists of a mixture of residential
and commercial development, with the commercial development centered along
Wheaton Way and at main arterial intersections.
The general trend over the past several decades has been toward commercial
development along the Wheaton Way corridor in this area. The comprehensive
zoning supports and encourages that trend.
Relation to Current Zoning Comprehensive Plan Designation
Subject Property
North General Business (GB) General & Highway Commercial (CG)
South Single-Family Residential (SF-3) Low-Density Residential (LDR)
East General Business (GB) General & Highway Commercial (CG)
West Single-Family Residential (SF-3) Low-Density Residential (LDR)
2
3. Request
Pursuant to Section 21.02.920 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC):
The City Council may approve a change in zoning classification of
property within the City limits by passage of an ordinance, following a
public hearing, provided the new zone is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and adopted approval criteria. Approval of a
Rezone results in a change to the Official Zoning Map.
The applicant is requesting a rezone from the current zoning of SF-3 (Single-
Family Residential) to PO (Professional Office). The Comprehensive zoning at
the site is C-P (Commercial and Professional Offices) which supports the
proposed rezone classification.
Pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.930 (a) "A technical site plan review shall be
conducted for all projects that involve new development or expansion of existing
structures or other exterior improvements that will change the physical condition
of the site. The applicant is asking for approval of the attached site plan in
conjunction with the proposed rezone.
4. History
The 1966 Comprehensive Plan indicated this area was to be a transition area
between neighborhood shopping center and medium density residential zoning
designations.
In 1977 the Planning Commission recommended denial of two separate
business rezone requests in the Harkins Place cul-de-sac area. These requests
were subsequently denied by the City Council or withdrawn by the applicants. In
addition to the rezone denials, the Planning Commission passed Resolution
#427 in August 1977 with recommended denial of all commercial rezones in the
Harkins Place area and reaffirmed the Olympic Manor properties as a residential
area.
The 1995 Comprehensive Plan has designated this area as Commercial and
Professional Office. The Professional Office zoning district is intended to be a
buffer zone placed between neighborhoods and more intense commercial uses.
Upon the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City's current zoning map
was re-adopted by City Council. The result of this re-adoption is that the
comprehensive plan takes precedence over the current zoning.
Given the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the Growth
Management Act and the emphasis of the Regulatory Reform Act, the City is well
advised to bring existing zoning into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
This rezone request, once approved by the City, will bring about that conformity.
5. SEPA Determination
A Determination of Non-Significance has been issued for this project in
accordance with WAC 197-11.
6. Site Plan Review Analysis
Use
Currently, the site has eight (8) single-family homes which will be demolished in
preparation for construction of a building for a new use.
This proposed rezone will allow any commercial use listed in BMC Chapter 21
Figure 140 (Land Use Tables). The applicant is proposing to construct a
pharmacy/drug store upon rezone approval. A change from residential to non-
residential activities, as allowed by the Bremerton Municipal Code, may result in
compatibility issues with the surrounding neighborhood. Issues such as use
consistency, noise, light & glare, drainage, and traffic are discussed below.
Use Consistency
Figure 140 "Land Use Tables" found in the Bremerton Municipal Code allows a
drug store/pharmacy use within the "P.O." zoning classification. This use is
consistent with and supports the proposed rezone classification.
The comprehensive plan supports a commercial rezone for this site. The "P.O."
zone includes Drug Stores and pharmacies among the list of permitted uses. An
analysis of the applicant's use proposal appears to be consistent with both the
permitted uses and intent of the "P.O." zone. Since the Planning Commission is
completing the technical review, it also has the duty to find the use compatible
with the P.O. zone.
The proposed store does have accessory retail sales typical of a drug
store/pharmacy. Approximately 55% of the gross floor area will be dedicated to
the sale of pharmaceuticals and over the counter drug items and health and
beauty aids. Approximately 30% of the store will be dedicated to storage and
check out area and 15% will be for accessory retail sales.
Noise
The site in question is located on a busy commercially developed highway. The
operation of a pharmacy will not substantially increase the level of noise
presently experienced in this area. In order to mitigate any noise impacts to the
residential properties to the south and west, the applicant is proposing to
construct a concrete wall (ranging in height from zero (0) to ten (10) feet with an
average height of seven (7) feet) at the perimeter of the site.
In addition to the constructed barriers to mitigate sound travel, the subject site is
physically elevated approximately twenty-three (23) feet above the adjacent
residential properties. This elevation separation will mitigate any sound
transmission from the subject site to the adjacent residential properties. The
applicant has also moved all customer parking to the front of the site, away from
the adjacent residential properties. There will be eleven (11) parking stalls
located at the west boundary for employee use only.
D'ght & Glare
Due to the location of this site, there is a concern with regards to light and glare
impact to the neighboring residential property. The applicant has provided glare
shields on all south and west boundary luminaries. This should mitigate any
adverse impact to the adjacent residential property. Additionally, the site plan
review is conditioned to require that lighting along the north and east boundaries
be directed onto the subject property and not cause a visual problem to traffic
along either Sylvan Way or Wheaton Way.
Drainage
The engineering department has identified some concerns with regards to
drainage and the issues with handling the drainage. They have noted that
stormwater facilities shall be designed in accordance with the Department of
Ecology's Stormwater management manual for the Puget Sound Basin. In
addition, the existing water, sewer, and storm mains shall be abandoned.
Permits are required for this work, and conditions have been placed upon the
site plan review approval to address these issues.
Traffic- & Circulation
The proposed development is located at a main arterial intersection (Wheaton
Way & Sylvan Way) with access proposed from both Wheaton Way and from
Sylvan Way. The applicant has provided a traffic study detailing the potential
and possible affects this development will have with regards to traffic flow,
pedestrian and traffic safety, and circulation. The channelization revisions and
mitigation measures are required on Sylvan Way as defined in the traffic impact
study prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants dated January 3, 2000. The study
has recommended the following measures to be taken in order to adequately
mitigate any concerns with regards to traffic congestion and pedestrian safety at
this intersection:
5
1. Construct standard commercial driveway approach (30 feet wide) to
SR-303/Wheaton Way plus install modified "pork-chop" traffic island
per WSDOT design standards. Install standard "No Left Turn" (R3-2)
traffic sign and "right arrow" pavement marking, per MUTCD
standards, on the driveway's exit approach plus inbound arrow on the
entry lane.
2. Construct standard commercial driveway approach onto Sylvan Way,
with "left/right arrows" pavement markings on the exit lane and
inbound arrow on the entry lane.
3. Extend the center left-turn lane on the Sylvan Way EB approach to the
SR-303 signal as a two-way left-turn lane (2WLTL) as far west as the
western driveway to VVheaton mall (and possibly to Solie Avenue).
This channelization improvement along Walgreen's frontage and
further west requires no widening of Sylvan Way, since 23 feet are
available for the 2VVLTL (11 feet) and the EB through/curb lane (12
feet).
4. Provide directional arrows and "Drive-Thru" legend pavement
markings to route drive-through vehicles from the SR-303 entrance
around the retail building to enter the 2-bay drive-through facility.
5. Provide internal pedestrian walkways and crosswalks, with appropriate
signs and markings per MUTCD standards, between the Walgreen's
drug store entrance and adjacent SR-303 and Sylvan Way.
6. Install standard stop signs and stoplines per MUTCD guidelines at
both site access approaches to Sylvan Way and SR-303 to safely
control exiting maneuvers.
7. Provide adequate on-site parking spaces including handicapped stalls
near the Walgreen's drug store entrances to satisfy County (City) code
requirements.
The above conditions have been added to the permit and must be implemented
and inspected by the Public Works Department prior to occupancy of the
building.
Parking
Classification Stalls Required Stalls Provided ..,
General Vehicle 75 79
Motorcycle 3 3
Bicycle 8 8 ...
Barrier-Free 3 3
Drive-thru Stacking 4 on entrance side/1 on exit side none shown
The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the parking requirements as
per BMC Section 21.02.670 with the exception of clearly detailing the drive-thru
stacking spaces.
6
The site plan provides adequate area to provide for a total of five (5) stacking
spaces to meet the requirements of the Bremerton Municipal Code. A condition
has been placed on this permit that the applicant clearly mark the required drive-
thru stacking spaces prior to occupancy of the building.
Setbacks
The Professional Office "PO" zoning designation requires building setbacks as
follows:
Property Line Setback Required Setback Provided
North 15 feet 86 feet
South 10 feet 46 feet
East 15 feet 127 feet
West 10 feet 85 feet
The above chart demonstrates compliance with the building setback
requirements of the Professional Office zone. The applicant has provided
setbacks in excess of those required in order to help mitigate any impacts to the
residential properties to the south and west and to provide an open visual area
at the corner of Sylvan and Wheaton Way.
Landscaping
The front yard setback areas along both Wheaton and Sylvan Way are required
to be landscaped per BMC 21.02.700 standards. Although the building setback
would require this to be a twenty (20) foot landscaped strip, the applicant is
locating it's Class "B" (customer/employee) parking lot along the north and east
property lines.
Class "B" parking lots require five (5) foot setbacks from property lines.
Therefore, while the applicant is still bound to a twenty (20) foot construction
setback, a minimum five (5) foot landscaped setback must be provided along the
north and east property lines.
The landscaping must be provided with at least 50% living material and the
placement of twelve (12) street trees along Sylvan Way and ten (10) street trees
along Wheaton Way. The landscaping plan as submitted demonstrates
compliance with these requirements.
Open Space
Open space in the amount of 11,814 square feet is required per BMC 21.02.750
for this project. The applicant is proposing that the landscaped setback areas be
included in the open space calculations. The applicant is providing a total of
17,256 square feet of setback landscaping. This provides almost 22% of the
total site as open, pervious surface and exceeds the open space requirements
by 7%.
Staff has determined that this landscaping meets the intent of the code with
regards to required open space, due to the fact that the landscaping provided
substantially exceeds the City's requirements. Therefore, the open space plan
submitted does meet the requirements of BMC 21.02.750 and does provide
adequate open space for this project.
Interior Parking Landscaping
Interior parking lot landscaping for "Class B" parking lots which provide for a
combination of customer and employee parking needs within an intense
business environment are exempt from the provisions of BMC 21.02.610 (j) (8)
for interior parking lot landscaping. The parking lot which is provided does meet
the definition above, and therefore, the applicant need not provide interior
parking lot landscaping.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Bremerton Zonin.q Ordinance 21.02.920 REZONES, Id] "Criteria for
Rezones" states that approval of a rezone may be granted only if all of the
following are true:
1. Is the proposed Rezone Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
YES. The area affected by the proposed rezone is situated in a "C-P" or
Commercial and Professional offices zoning designation. Presently, the
current zoning is residential "SF-3'. The proposed Professional Office
"PO" zoning will bring the current zoning into consistency with the
comprehensive plan zoning.
2. Is the Rezone justified for one or more of the followinq reasons?
a. Is it in the public interest to approve the Rezone to accommodate
needed changes within the immediate vicinity or neighborhood?
YES. The proposed rezone will bring the City's current zoning map into
compliance with the City's 20-year comprehensive plan. During the
comprehensive plan process, it was deemed that commercial zoning, at this
location, was both appropriate and necessary to accommodate the City's
future commercial growth.
b.
Will the proposal correct a zone classification or boundary that was
inappropriate when established? _ ~., ~ -?~..~ ~.W~'']
YES. This proposal will bring the current zoning map designation into
compliance with the comprehensive plan zoning designation. Currently, the
comprehensive plan designates this area as commercially zoned (C-P) while
the current zoning is residential (SF-3). This rezone will bring the current
zoning into compliance with the comprehensive plan zoning designation of
commercial by changing the classification from residential (SF-3) to
commercial (PO).
c. Is this a planned step in a phasing process to gradually bring zoning
into consistency with the 20-year Comprehensive Plan when
appropriate?
YES. This rezone application will bring the zoning for the subject site into
compliance with and be consistent with the 20-year Comprehensive Plan.
d. Will the rezone place or remove an overlay zoning designation without
affecting the underlying zoning?
NOT APPLICABLE. There is no overlay zoning at the site currently, nor will
there be one placed over this site as a result of this rezone.
3. is there a public need for the proposed Rezone that will clearly benefit the
local neighborhood and/or the community of Bremerton?
YES. This rezone will benefit the community of Bremerton by bringing the
current zoning into compliance with the overall 20-year Comprehensive
Plan. T~he city has, throu.qh the comprehensive plan process, deemed
this property as both needed and appropriate for commercial
development. The applicant, through this rezone, is bringing the current
zoning into compliance with the comprehensive plan, and thereby
performing a public service.
4. Are all essential public facilities and services available and adequate, or
can be made available, to serve the types and levels of development
permitted in the requested zone?
YES. The primary advantage of this site is the availability of all urban
utilities and services. It is also located at a major arterial street
intersection, which allows easy access to the site and access to and from
public transit services.
Commercial zoning at this location will maximize use of. existing
infrastructure while help. ing to discourage sprawl in other City or rural
areas. The applicant will be required to alter or add any main
water/sewer lines as identified by the City Engineer as a result of this
project.
5. Will the area being proposed for rezonin.q become part of a laraer zoninq
district or form a new district which will not be considered an isolated
"spot zone".
This rezone request is being brought forward to bring the current zoning
designation at this location into compliance with the City's 20-year
Comprehensive Plan in order to commercially develop the site.
This site has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan process as
appropriate for commercial development. This rezone will become part of
a larger zoning district, in that commercial development at all main arterial
intersections along Wheaton Way is commonplace and encouraged.
Criteria for Approval
Bremerton Zoning Ordinance 21.02.960 SITE PLAN REVIEW [e] "Criteria for
Approval" states that a site plan that complies with all applicable land use and
development requirements and guidelines shall be approved.
The site plan as submitted and conditioned, is consistent with the development
requirements as conditioned and detailed in the analysis section of this report.
CONCLUSIONS
1. This requested rezone satisfies all five applicable rezone criteria of the
Bremerton Zoning Ordinance as specified in Chapter 21.02.920.
2. The location is particularly suitable because it is on a public transit line, has
direct access to a major arterial street, and has all necessary utilities
available.
3. The site plan as submitted and conditioned does meet all applicable land
use development requirements and guidelines.
lO
Recommendation:
Staff concludes that this rezone request is reasonable and justified. The
submitted site plan demonstrates compliance, as conditioned, to the City of
Bremerton Development Standards and staff recommends a favorable Planning
Commission recommendation to the City Council.
Staff also recommends the proposed pharmacy/drug store type of use be
deemed consistent with the intent of uses to be allowed outright in the P.O.
zone.
Model Motion for Approval:
BE IT RESOLVED, the Bremerton Planning Commission, after considering oral
and written testimony and information in the Staff Report, hereby recommends
City Council APPROVAL of the following:
A. Rezone request from Single-Family Residential (SF-3) to General &
Professional Offices (PO) based on it's consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. The proposed pharmacy/drug store use is consistent with the stated intent
of the PO zone, because drug stores and pharmacies are allowed t~se in
a professional office zone and because the use will be contained within a
building of limited size and height.
C. The proposed site plan as illustrated in the staff report be approved, on its
consistency with the intent of the PO zone with the following conditions:
a. Glare from lighting must be restricted as to not impact neighboring
residential properties or traffic along Wheaton Way or Sylvan Way.
b. Permits are required for construction or grading work.
c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed in accordance with the Department
of Ecology's Stormwater management manual for the Puget Sound Basin
and existing water, sewer, and storm mains shall be abandoned.
d. Channelization revisions and other mitigation measures as detailed in the
traffic impact study prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants must be
implemented and inspected by the Public Works Department prior to
occupancy of the building. They are as follows:
1. Construct standard commercial driveway approach (30 feet wide) to
SR-303/Wheaton Way plus install modified apork-chop" traffic island
per WSDO T design standards. Install standard ~No Left Turn" (R3-2)
traffic sign and aright arrow" pavement marking, per MUTCD
standards, on the driveway's exit approach plus inbound arrow on the
entry lane.
2. Construct standard commercial driveway approach onto Sylvan Way,
with a/eft/right arrows" pavement markings on the exit lane and inbound
arrow on the entry lane.
3. Extend the center left-turn lane on the Sylvan Way EB approach to the
SR-303 signal as a two-way left-turn lane (2WL TL) as far west as the
western driveway to Wheaton Mall (and possibly to Solie Avenue).
This channelization improvement along Wa/green's frontage and
further west requires no widening of Sylvan Way, since 23 feet are
available for the 2WLTL (11 feet) and the EB through/curb lane (12
feet).
4. Provide directional arrows and ~Drive-Thru' legend pavement
markings to route drive-through vehicles from the SR-303 entrance
around the retail building to enter the 2-bay drive-through facility.
5. Provide internal pedestrian walkways and crosswalks, with appropriate
signs and markings per MUTCD standards, between the Wa/green's
drug store entrance and adjacent SR-303 and Sylvan Way.
6. Install standard stop signs and stoplines per MUTCD guidelines at
both site access approaches to Sylvan Way and SR-303 to safely
control exiting maneuvers.
7. Provide adequate on-site parking spaces including handicapped stalls
near the Wa/green's drug store entrances to satisfy County (City) code
requirements.
e. The drive-thru stacking spaces must be clearly marked prior to occupancy of
the building.
Model Motion for Denial:
BE IT RESOLVED, the Bremerton Planning Commission, after considering oral
and written testimony and information in the Staff Report, hereby recommends
City Council DENIAL of the proposed rezone and site plan as illustrated in the
staff report and accompanying zoning map for the following reasons:
City of Bremerton
Application for
A ZONE RECLASSIFICATION (Rezone) of property fi.om one zoning district to another may
be approved by. the City Council, following a public, hearing before the City Council and, in most
cases, one or more public neighborhood meetings to gather information and ensure adequate
opportunities for public comment.
To apply for a REZONE, plea~ complete this application form with as much detail as possible
about -your proposal and submit it along with the required attachments and application fee.
NOTE: The process for a rezone is described in the Brernerton Municipal Code, Section
21.02.920.
1. APPLICANT:
Name: P~ter Powell
Address: P.O. Box 97070
City: Kirkland State: WA ZIP: 98083-9770
Telephone: WORK: (425) 828-4444 HOME:
2. CONTACT PERSON: (If other than applicant).
Name: Joe Geivett /~u~ ~-~o
Telephone: WORK: (206) 522-9510 HOME:
· 3. TITLE HOLDER: (If other than applicant).
Name: SEE A~I~ACI-IED
Address:
City: State: ZIP:
Telephone: ( )
(Rev. 7/97)
4. PROPERTY LOCATION:
Address:
General Location (intersecting streets, etc.): South-~~rner of Sylvan
Way and wheaton Way.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General & Proffesional offices (CP)
6. SHOREIJNE ENVIRON/M]gNT DESIGNATION: N/A
7. CURR~ ZONING: Sinqle Family (SF-3)
8. REQU]~STEI) ZONING: Professional Office (PO)
9. ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):.(Parcels to be Rezoned)
39§-001-001-00! 002-00~ 003-00g 004-00, 005-00, 006-00, 007-00,
008-00
10. COVENANTS, EASEMENTS OR OTI:~R RESTRICTIONS:
Briefly describe here and also show on map.
There is currently a 20' buildinq setback; a 5' wide easement for
utilities, per plat; A 10.69' -U2t. ility Easement
11. BASIS FOR REQUEST:
State clearly arid completely the reasons or rationale for this li~7.0NE request.
Attach additional pages as necessary..
Rezone to commercial to acconmodate retail proposal is consistent
with city comprehensive plan.
12. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL:
T~s REZONE request can be approved by the Breme~on City Council offiy Wa~ of the
following can be amwered "YES":
1.Is the proposed Rezone consistent v~th the Comprehensive Plan? (See Breme~on
Municipal Code, Section 21, Figure 090, "Plan/Zoning Consistency" of this code.)
· Yes
2
2. Is the Rezone justified for one or more of the following reasons?
It is in the public interest to approve the Rezone to accommodate needed changes
within the immediate vicinity or neighborhood.
It will correct a zone classification or boundary that was inappropriate when
established.
It is a planned step in a phasing process to gradually bring zoning into consistency with
the 20-year Comprehensive Plan when appropriate.
It will place or remove an overlay zoning designation without affecting the underlying
zoning designation without affecting the underlying zoning.
3. Is there a public need for the proposed Rezone that will clearly benefit the local
neighborhood and/or the community of Bremerton?
4. Are all essential public facilities and services available and adequate, or can be made
available, to serve the types and levels of development permitted in the requested
zone?
¥e$
5. Will the area being proposed for rezoning become part of a larger zoning district or
form a new district which will not be considered an isolated "spot zone"?
* Please provide below (or on separate paper) a detailed explanation to show as clearly as
possible how your REZONE request is consistent with each of the above criteria:
See Attached
13. ATTACHMENTS:
· A. Notification List: Typed name/address labels for the owners of all property within a
radius of 300 feet of the subject REZONE area are required. These may be provided
by the applicant, or the City Planning Division will assemble the labels at a cost to the
applicant of $2 per label, at the applicant's option.
B.Location Map: A map showing the general location within the community of the area
subject to the REZONE, including streets, shorelines and other major features.
C.Vicinity. Map: A Kitsap County Assessor's map or similar map at a scale of' 1" = 100'
or 200'.
· The subject REZONE area shall be in the center.
· All existing streets, lots, shorelines, and other physical features shall be shown on the map.
· Existing land uses within a radius of 300 feet of the subject area shall be clearly indicated.
· Any additional information that will help to clearly define the proposal.
D. Environmental Checklist: Obtain form at Planning Division Office.
14. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE:
The Planning Division should be consulted to discuss the proposal and specific
information needs prior to submittal of the gl.ZONE application package.
15. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
I hereby state that I am the applicant, or the authorized agent for the applicant and that ail
foregoing statements and information provided herein are, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, true and complete. I understand that the filing fee accompanying this
application is not refundable, is for the purpose of partially defraying the administrative
expenses of processing this application, and that the payment of said fee does not result in
automatic approval of this request.
Appli[ant {_.t~-e'') Date
The City of Bremerton does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion,
national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services, in programs or
activities, or employment opportunities and benefits.
Rg/O~. fire Rev. 7/97
Zone Reclassification (Rezone)
15. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
Signature:
Date Submitted:
Date Submitted:
Date Submitted:
3. Title Holders
Dan and Malvina Barsay
P.O. Box 651
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Marion E. Fredrickson
3301 Harkins Place
Bremerton, Washington 98310
William and Harriet McLaren
8741 Deeridge Place SE
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
The City of Bremerton
Application for Zone Reclassification
The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Bremerton and its 20-year
Comprehensive Plan. The rezone will benefit the local community by providing an aesthetically
pleasing drugstore and future employment. All of the essential public facilities and services to the
drugstore are available or will be available to serve the level of development in the requested zone.
The proposed rezone area will compliment the already existing commercial corridors along
Wheaton Way (SR 303).
F:\Washington\Bremerto\POWELL\WALGREENS\Reports\Rezone\The City of Bremerton.doc
XII. Criteria for Approval
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2. The rezone is a planned step in a phasing process to gradually bring
zoning into consistency with the 20-year comprehensive plan, which
designates this property as commercial.
3. The proposed rezone will provide convenient access to prescription
drugs and other products in a neighborhood store setting. Additional
revenue to the community will be generated by the proposal. Additional
jobs will be generated in the community.
4. All essential public facilities and services are available and adequate
including fire, police, medical, and utilities (water, sewer, power,
telephone, gas).
5. The proposed are for rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan,
which identifies a larger zoning district to avoid an isolated "spot zone".
F:\Wash i ngton\B remerto\POWE LL\WALG RE E N S\Reports\Rezone\ltem XII.doc
FEB 15'B0 17:54 FR MAF "38 OFFICE 4258~2S509 TO 2F 728344 P.02
Commercial Site Plan Review
Application & Checklist
SPRY: ?~ qq - 006 s l~uilcting Permit g:.
Rqulre~ent - Zoning Ordin~c~ Chapter 21.02.930 S~ PI~ ~i~w
A ~m p~ mh,w ia r~umd for ~ ~d m~ ~d ~Bpm~at ~r~s ~ovot~ new
d~glopm~nt or ~O~ioa of ~ ~~ ~ o~r ~ed~r ~provemen~ w~ch
~e ~ physi~ c~~ of ~e ske.
~mpl~e b~fo~ ~y p~mg ~ ~cur.
Appa~
A~s: P~no Namb~r:
~/~kln~ o~ Y8o~3- YZz~
[Con~ Pemou (ff d~ent ~n ~p~t):
Phone N~ber:
'A~e~:~7o~ 2~ ~v~vc ~g, ~,r~ ~o~ (~) ~z~
Site A~
Pro~ (pl~e describe ia ~ much ~il ~ ~aible ~e ~re of~e ~evelopment):
Created on 10/31/97 8%t2 AlVlC:LMy Documcnts~orm$\Applications\Commcr¢ial Site Plan
FEB 15'88 17:54 Fl~ MA~ - 38 OFFICE 42588285E~ TO 2[ ?28344 P.03
I. Lot Development Requirement~
Front Yard $~back
-Rear Yard Set.ok
Allowable Den$;~
~ot Coverage
B~g L~ Cl~ou: A B C
ParM~g Cal~onon Fable , ,
To~ S~¢~ ~q~m~:. .. (from p~g c~cutafion)
Motorcycle & Bicyct~ Providcd:~~
}. Propo~ Signage (state number, ~1 Wpes of si~, ~d ~ in ~.~)
Crcatcd on i~Y31/97 8:42 AMC;X.My DocumentmkFormsLa. pplications\Commercial Size Plan Rc'vievv,doc
FEB 15'00 17:55 FR IM~ :T 30 OFFICE 425~2S509 TO L:~ ~2S344 P.04
Proposed Landscaping: (dimensions of ~,'ca.~/~trlps & square footage)
P~ Lot ~efior Ar~ ([0 ~ ~r sp~e): ~z ~
O~n Space (required for proj~s otone ~¢re or more), ~ incl.~ plan
re~onnbte care and m~nte~ce of o~n ~p~ce ~e~:
~ou~ Required (~cr~ ~ ~e~): ~z, 7~ ~ ~
C~a for 8~ ~an R~i~:
PI~e include ~, aecess~ i~o~on on ~c si~e p~ ~ ~s ~mp~ ~
~li~ble ~d ~e ~d devei~m~: requ~ens ~ g~delines.
B~menon Zoning O~ce C~p[cr 21.02.930 Si~ P~ ~vi~ mcla~ ~e ente~on
p~ mvi~. ~ Direr of Co~W Devel~m~t ~l ~pr~ ~ Sim P~ if~c
A~p~t' s ~t~:
h~by cema' ~ ~ ~ea~ co--ed hereto ~ ~o~. I ~~ ~ con&fio~ of
~rov~ ~y be ~ired ~ ~e~ly pr~ ~a ~ ~ ~i~o~ w~ which
~bj~t user.re is t~e& ~ I ~ to ~idc by ~ose ~on~6o~.
~~a ~t ~ apor~ed Sim P~ ~ ~ubj~ m P~ Co~s~oa ~ Ci~- C~cil
r~ew ~d eo~d ~ t~~ for ~o~n of ~ or
~e~d ~ ~PROV~ of &m ~ pl~ ~y he app~ a~d po~bty ove~ by
P~mg C~asion or Ci~
~v~ ro~ ~~& ~d ~ wi~ ~l of ~e above
AppEc~t ~ Da~e
Craa 0a 10/31197 $;42 AMC:~My Doeaments~nnsk~.pplicadons\Commercial 5itc Plan Rcvi~v.doc
SF-3
~FI'SF-3
kl MF
MF
;SF-3
........... SF-3"
N I N CO R !)O RATE !) M F
SF-3
SF-3
0
,~ MF DR -
~~t~ CURRENT ZONING MAP
.... · ., I Pacific Land Desi~,n
... _ /, ~ ~ ~. ,, ..................................... ~'.._,,..j, .~,,...,::-'~, -"~ :: .... ~
..... . - , - , -,,,~: ,~ ~ -.:.-:.,~ . :~::. ~ "::'" ..,,,,... ..... - f: ,.,'. ,.,
'.'.'-'.'. ~ ' . '"::':':'~: ~"~ "' .... · o,.::~ "'~. ' ~ ' ·"
:':~ ~ ~'~ :~.' ' ~ LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
'.',' ~ ~ ~'"~ :~:'~:: ..... !~ [
..... , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:'~ . ,:~,.. ~ ~ ~,~ ~
s~ ,~ - ~ Lo .~.,, ..
} ~ ' e~ ~ ; '~ : -'" NOTE
~A~ WAY ~ ~V~ WAY
~ ~ ~ L ~ ~' T T
~ L '=~"~ PL-I.0
" ~V~ WAY
-. ~ DATA
.... ~~ T T
~T~ W~ ~ ~V~ WAY
~W~
them to go in and curb the property and that's too much for the size of the use and the potential
that it goes away in two years anyway. He would like to see how the entrance and exit areas
could be defined pretty specifically.
Ms. Bennon pointed out that this is the intent of condition #3, that they clearly mark the site
regarding ingress and egress circulation, whether that be with paint or barriers or maybe even
landscape but somehow restrict the traffic so that people know when they're turning where
they're turning to, it's not just one big area.
Commissioner Boyd moved that the Commission recommend approval as described in the
attached application and shown site plan with the conditions as listed for off street parking
spaces, the requirement of a building permit for alterations to the building and that the
application shall most clearly mark the site to guide ingress and egress circulation.
Commissioner Moshay seconded the motion.
Chairman Dingfield asked tbr a vote fi-om the Commissioners: Commissioner Boyd, yes:
Commissioner Griggs: yes, Commissioner Kosusko, yes: Commissioner Moshay, yes:
Commissioner Dingfield: yes. Motion passes.
Commissioner Dingfield indicated that this was a recommendation which will be going to the
CiW Council who will hold a public hearing on this at which time any members of the public do
have the opportuniw to make any additional comments and that is where the public record will be
built on this (or determination of the Special Use Permit approval or denial.
~ " ~ frm
~or rezone (P!99-00~6)to change the current zon'ng ~um ~
// residential "SF-3" to commercial "PO" zoning and a site plan re~vi.ew fo,r,~he
~ proposed Walgreen's. Location: Eight lots at the SW corner of Sylvan Way
~ & Wheaton Way. ~
Tricia Bennon. Planning Staff. indicated the proposal consists of eight separate lots, each of
which has a residence on them fight now. The whole area of the proposed development is about
I.$ acres. There is an existing fight-of-way, Harkms P!ace, located in the center of the
devetopmem. That is proposed to be vacated pending approval of the proposed rezone. The
proposed development is bounded on the north by Sylvan and to the east bv Wheaton Way. On
the Comprehensive ?tam there is a commercial zoning definition placed on that piece of property
at the corner of Sylvan and Wheaton Way. The current zoning is SF-3 which is a residential zone
designation. What is being asked of the Planning Commission are three things. First is a rezone
to make the current zoning consistent with the comprehensive zoning that is there right now. The
comprehensive zoning is commercial. The current zoning is residential, but the applicant has
asked that they approve Professional Office. To the north there is commercially developed
property, Wheaton Mall. To the east is also commercial and to the west and south there are
residence properties which will remain at the site. There were two previous proposals which were
denied. These proposals were considered under different zoning and a different Comprehensive
Plan. The City adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The previous applications were
before that. A SEPA determination was issued for this project made on November 1, 1999 for
Plarming Commission Meeting March 21, 2000 - Page 20 of 33
this proposal. On March 9, an amended SEPA document was submitted to DCD detailing traffic
revisions as a result of the traffic study which was conducted ~br the site. Staff'determined on
March ! 5 that the changes were not substantial enough to warram change in the previously issued
Determination of Non-Significance. There are three issues: the rezone from SF3 to Professional
Office. The proposed zoning will bring the current zoning into conformity to the Comprehensive
Plan. This action is encouraged by the Growth Management Act.
Given the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the objective of the Growth Management Act,
and emphasis of the Regulatory Reform Act, the city is well ad,~ised to bring the existing zoning
into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. This rezone request and approval by the City will
bring that into conformity. This is also a combined application, in addition to the rezone request,
they are looking at a technical site plan review. Normally these types of site plan reviews are
done administratively however because there are two applications, the rezone and the site plan
review, we are bringing both before you to review them together as a whole. We have identified
potential issues with the site plan review for your consideration. The third item is the use
consistency of[he proposed pharmac~v drug store to the PO zone designation. This is a task
normally undertaken with a technical site plan review to determine if the use is consistent with the
intent of the zone in which it is going to be located. The proposed use is a Walgreen's store. The
proposed use is consistent with the proposed rezone. Because the site plan review is brought
before the commission for consideration, [he consistency must be determined as well. A copy of
the site plan is shown. The applicant has taken a lot of action to buffer and shield the residential
properties to the left and to the south of the site. All the parking provided tbr the customers is
located adjacent to Sylvan Way and Wheaton Way, with rune stalls For employees to the west of
the sire. There are light ~are shields which will be installed to the site to make sure that the
residential properties are not impacted by the parking lot lighting. A traffic study was conducted
.:o the site and several mediation measures were derailed in that traffic study. Those measures
?~ave 5eon detailed and are tbund on page six of the staff report. The apvlicant has met these
conditions and implemented them into their site ~lan.
The Sylvan Way access is proposed to be 205 feet west of Wheaton Way so it's located at the
~rthest end of the site. The Wheaton Way access is located ro the ,itrthest point south of the site
and is located 250 feet south of Sylvan. That will be a right mm in and out only. This is ro
prevent traffic over the tbur lanes there. The Svtvan Way access is going to be a thll access and
ro mediate measures with cars stacking up to turn ieft onto Wheaton Way. The traffic study
projected the average storage area ~br stacking up chose cars is now 100 feet that they provided.
The average stacking was 155 feet with a maximum of 250 ~eet. That's 250 feet of cars lined up
waiting to turn !eft. The traffic report recommendation was ro exrtenci that center left turn lane to
provide room for those cars to be stacked, that would be emending that two way left turn lane
to about 300 feet. That would be down to Solie Ave. There is a problem now because of the
stacking. There is a problem because of Harkins ['lace coming in there. That stacking area is
limited because you've got people wanting to turn into Harkins place. With the vacation of
Harkins Place, they can e,,ctend that two way left turn down to 300 feet which will solve the
existing problem for people wanting to turn left there and also provide relief for the Walgreen's.
This is covered in the conditions of the traffic study and the applicant is providing an approximate
300 foot left turn lane to accommodate left turn traffic there onto Wheaton Way. In looking at
the landscaping plan, the applicant is providing buffers in excess of that the Bremerton Municipal
Planning Commission Meeting March 21,2000 - Page 21 or' 33
Code requires. Right now they require 10 foot buffering to the left and to the south because of
the residential properties. They are providing appro.,dmately 15 feet of buffering around that area
that way. Along Sylvan and Wheaton Way, they only actually have to provide five feet of
landscaping and buffering because of the tact that the parking lot is oriented towards those two
streets. They are actually providing about 15 feet around those areas as well with a pedestrian
plaza located at the Northeast comer.
Setbacks: RefErring to page seven - the applicant is actually providing building setbacks in
excess of what is required. They are trying to take ~eat len~hs to not impact residential
properties. They are t~ing to move that building away so that the residences won't be as
impacted. They could build up to 10 feet of the west property line and are providing 55 feet. Ire
landscaping does comply, it provides street trees, red sunset maples to the north, cedars to the
west, douglas firs, black pines to the south and more maples to the east. They are retaining as
much of the old trees at the site as possible. The criteria for approval for the rezone.
t. Is it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan'? Yes. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this as a commercial area. They are asking for commercial current
zoning.
2. Is it in the public interest to approve the rezone to accommodate these changes
within the immediate vicinity or neighborhood? The proposed rezone will bring
the city's current zoning map into compliance with the City's 20-year
Comprehensive Plan. During the Comprehensive P~an process, it was deemed that
commercial zoning, at this location, was both appropriate and necessary to
accommodate the City's future commercial ~owth.
3. Will it correct a zone classification or boundary that was inappropriate when
established? This proposal is brining the current zoning map designation into
compliance with the Comprehensive P!an zoning designation.
4. rs This a planned step in the phasing process'? Yes. it's going to bring the current
zomng into consistency with the Comprehensive ?!an.
5. is there a public need tbr the proposed rezone? Again through the comprehensive
process, it was deemed the property, was ,both needed and appropriate for
commercial development.
6. Are all essential public facilities and services available? Yes the primary, advantage
of this site is the thct that there are all rte services and utilities available right there.
Kitsap Transit is just fight across the street. Letters are distributed fi-om Kitsap
Transit that the applicant has been working with Kitsap Transit to help with this
project.
7. Will the area being proposed rezoned become part of a larger zoning district or
form a new district which will to be considered an isolated spot zone? Again, this
request is being brought forward to bring the current zoning in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. This rezone will become part ora larger zoning district
in that commercial development at all main arterial intersections is commonplace
and encouraged.
Planning Commission Meeting March 21,2000 - Page 22 of 33
Criteria for approval for the site plane review was laid out in the report. This meets landscaping
requirements, it meets parking requirements, it meets buffering requirements. Zone Conclusion -
the rezone satisfies all five applicable rezone criteria. The location is particularly suitable because
it is on a public transit line, has direct access to major arterial streets and necessary utilities, and
the site plan as submitted and conditioned does meet all applicable land use development
standards and guidelines. Staff recommendation is that they conclude the rezone request is
reasonable and justified. The submitted site plan demonstrates compliance, as conditioned, to the
City, of Bremerton Development Standards, and staff recommends a favorable Planning
Commission recommendation to the City Council. They also recommend the proposed
pharmacy/drug store type of use be deemed consistent with the intent of the uses to be allowed
outright in the P.O. zone. The applicant has resolved traffic problems by implementing proposed
mitigation measures detailed in the traffic study. The applicant meets and, in fact, exceeds
minimum parking requirements and buffeting requirements. They provide generous buffers for
adjacent residential properties in excess of what would normally be required.
Commissioner Kosusko said that Mrs. Bennon stated that :he Comprehensive Plan calls out this
area tbr commercial use. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan, it calls it a general professional
office. What does that mean? What is meant by that Comprehensive Plan designation and does
this use fit in there,
Ms. Bennon said that according to figure i20 in the BMC chapter 21, it details uses that are
allowed in Professional Office zoning designation. The Comprehensive Plan lists current
commercial zoning definitions that are allowed and appropriate in that comprehensive zoning
designation, professional office being one of those. A pharmacy drug store is allowed in the
orofessional office zoning designation.
Mr. Palmer indicated that the Comprehensive Plan speaks to the issue of what the appropriate
· ase is. it says appropriate use is professional office. When that is translated into zoning that
would implement the Comprehensive Plan, then we get ro the list of uses that a Professional
Office zone will allow. This is where they get to the drug store use, but the Comprehensive Plan
is saving Professional Office which generally means doctors offices, offices tbr real estate firms
and a whole host of things, but it's an emphasis on office as opposed t° retail commercial.
.~[r. Rife indicated when you have Commercial Plan which is designated general professional
office, there are three zones that are set up for that, PO is one, protEssional office health care, and
SMU Shoreline Mixed Use. So any of these three would be appropriate. ,although Shoreline
· fixed Use would be hard pressed justifying that here tsince this is not located on a shoreline).
Commissioner,,Briggs said that he didn't quite understand the traffic mitigation on Sylvan Way
and the extending of the left turn lane onto Wheaton Way.
Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2000 - Page 23 of 33
Ms. Bennon indicated that currently the lef~ turn lane is 100 feet long. According to the traffic
study, the average back up was 155 feet long in a 100 foot space so people are constantly backed
up past there which causes confusion for people wanting to turn into the Wheaton Mall and
people wanting to turn onto Harkins Place. What the traffic study has laid out is to extend the
turn down to approx/mately 300 feet long. It will be a two way turn lane which will also
accommodate people staking up to turn lefL
Commissioner Kosusko indicated that if people are stacked up for the leR turn, then you
wouldn't be able to get out of the Walgreen's driveway.
Ms. Bennon indicated that the driveway is located at the thr west of the site. The turn lane will
extend beyond that as a two way turn lane and that will help Wal~een's and the businesses across
the street.
Commissioner Kosusko asked if cars are stacked up, how are they going to be able to get out on
the street.
Mr. Palmer suggested that the applicant be allowed ro address that issue directly.
Jim Tracy, Land Use Attorney, Poulsl~o, WA representing the applicant and Powell
Development Company. ~Mr. Tra~ noted that Mr. Peter Powetl and Mr. Joe Geivett (site
designer) were also available for questions. They are proud not only of the final product, but of
the process that they have utilized to get to this point m terms of having to incorporate
neighborhood concerns, the input the traffic study. The commissioners may not have had time to
~lly read the 8 page tome that he submitted tbr the record on this process. In general terms,
1995 was a big year tbr Bremerton. Not only was the Comprehensive Plan adopted, but the
Regulato~ Reform Act was also adopted that year. As your ciW attorney has said regarding a
previous matter befbre you this evening, there is a mandate, a very. precise mandate to counties
and cirv which plan under the Growth Management Act RCW 36.7'0 (a) and here is a quick quote:
The coun~ and the city :vhich is located ;vtthtn ,~he counrv ~xhall adopt
Comprehensive Plan and development re,rations :hat are consistent w~th and
implement the Comprehenstve Plan.
That is why you heard in the previous matter the citw attorney ,and planning staffsay, if they came
in after a rezone, you would have to allow it. The reason is ',he legislature five years before 1995
set up the t~ Growth Management Act. What the Growth Management Act told cities and
counties to do was get your house in order. Develop a vision tbr your jurisdiction, develop
Comprehensive Plan classifications that implement that vision and get on with the business of
developing your community. In 1995 the legislature came back and said to those same cities and
counties, do not, do not use the development review process as a second bite at the apple at the
Comprehensive Planning process. The two are separate. He provided a significant commenta~
on that principle.
planmng Commission Meeting March 21, 2000 - Page 24 or' 33
Mr. Tracy said that the Commissioners that they were specifically instructed not to consider: the
type of land use permitted at the site (RCW 36.70 (b) 030 (2)(a)). Secondly, the density of
residential development. They were not supposed to consider nor are they to consider the
availability and adequacy of public facilities identified in the Comp Plan if the plan or development
regulation provides for funding of these facilities required by growth management.
Peter Powell indicated that they had had a voluntary meeting in front of the neighbors before the
end of the year and that's why the site plan was re-introduced. They spent one year with the
neighbors. Some of the things they actually tried to do included the extra buffeting, about 15 feet
on the south side, 20 feet on the west side. They have subsequently agreed to put a concrete
masonry wall on the property, line. They will have ~are shields so the ambient light won't be
going onto the neighbors property. In the rkr comer, they have provided a pedestrian plaza.
They are working with Kitsap Transit and actually will provide a bus stop shelter. They also have
their permission to come to the front of the store with mini buses tbr people who are disabled and
need help getting around. They have provided park benches in the right-of-way area. The trees
come across both Wheaton Way and Sylvan. One of the concerns was visibility. The trees will be
brought back.. The turn lane goes back 300 tbet. [t does go back most of the time past our
intersection. A right mm out is no problem. A left turn out will stack onto the Walgreen
property and will not block the neighbors from turning left on Sylvan. The stacking is on the
Walgreen property. In doing this traffic modification, there will be less cross traffic on Sylvan
Wav. They can't regulate that but they can help. Kitsap Transit was thrilled by their proposal
because it will help the amount of people being able to make a left: hand mm.
Mr. Rife asked what they were asking the city do with the eight lots.
Mr. Powell replied that the lots become absorbed in the development proposal.
Mr. Rife asked if they are asking the city to vacate them.
Mr. Powell said that if the citw wants to, they can certainly do that. There is no reason why there
:an': be an assemblage of eight individual parcels. He indicated that thev are asking for vacation
of Harkins. but recommended that that not be done until the end.
Call to the Public (comments in thvor of proposal) - None.
Call to the Public {comments against proposal)
John Hawk. 3243 Solie Ave., said he had lived there since December of 1952. Business
Protkssional does not in any way mean high volume retail. He represents a lot of the people there.
He is a retired educator who spent 31 years in the Central Kitsap District while living in
Bremerton and has been driving this intersection and Solie Ave. for all that time. He happens to
have lost a 6 !h year child at that intersection there while she and two others were trying to get to
school across the street. He is really sorry that the maps only show one side of the street as he is
of the opinion that you can't do something on one side of the street that's not going to aff~ the
other side. In that area within the first 320 feet there are five driveways going north in the
Wheaton Mall area. The first one is only 25 feet from Wheaton Way. The other ones involve the
Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2000 - Page 25 of 33
back e,,dt to the bank. He feels that even with 300 feet when you put three of those big buses
turning out there, nobody is going to get into or out of Harldns Place or maybe even offof
Wheaton Way. The neighborhood's basic objection is not to Walgreen's. He has never heard
anything bad about Walgreen's. Their basic objection is to any commercial development of that
area, and the main reason for their objection is the traffic. He has lived in this area even before
there was a light up at the intersection. It is a traffic mad house fi-om the end of the bridge on out
and the development problems are continuing.
.Mr. Hawk provided a copy ora letter which the neighborhood had presented in 1979, 1981, and
1986. Ire only thing that has changed is all the conditions they objected to then have gotten
worse. Traffic is their number one concern. Ihey were wondering about two major chain drug
stores right across the street that have since closed. They base their objections on the following
major thctors. He had a deed that has covenants on it. One of them says single family residence
and the other one says no access or egress to Hwy 303. He has been there since the house was
built, the deed hasn't changed. [fit was changed, it's not legal because he wasn't notified. He
asked how this could be resolved. Another concern is the traffic on Wheaton Way. Solie Ave. is
taldng a terrible beating. It took them years to even get a stop sign at the end of the street even,
:hough a block away there is an elementary, school. When Wheaton Way is road blocked, all the
traffic goes down Solie Ave. The intersection actually has become comparatively safe although
slow since recent channetization and control improvements. Further traffic in this area,
particularly vehicles entering or leaving into the flow. would be re_m'essive. Whatever is put at
this location will add to the traffic.
Their objection to any commercial development is bad enough but they can't think of anything
ixigher volume than a drug store. This is why they have a problem with Professional Office. It
doesn't take many buses to take up that 155 feet which is already overloaded. The lights ri~t
now ~e so that the 3ra or 4'h car through is on amber. They see no real need tbr more business
property, in this area. If you drive over there, look and see how many empty, buildings there are
with tremendous plans being made tot ~rther north on Wheaten Way. There is a tremendous
need in this area rbr single thmily housing which is reasonable quality, in price, close to public
transportation, needed businesses and schools. This development removes eight residences.
_&cross the street is the post office and the main library,. Across the street the other way is the
Kitsap Transfer Station. Transportation is available whether you have a car or not. This is an
excellent example of a well planned and carethtly maintained community of houses as well as one
of the few that has not been seriously encroached on by convenience commercial development.
Manv of the neighbors have lived here ~br 45 years or longer and they deeply resent having to
constantly renew this battle to keep their area flee of one place you ought to be able to make a
right rum without getting killed.
Harvey Mantyla said he was one of the original people to move on Solie Avenue. This type of
change was fought in 194l, 1979, 1986, and now 2000. In 1941 was initiated and it is a
courthouse law.
No str~tcture shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any residential
building plot other than one detachable single family dwelling not to exceed 2 ~,5 stories
height and a private drive no more than 2 cars.
Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2000 - Page 26 of 33
Mr. Mantyla walked two petitions in 1970 and 1986 and they had 100% participation from the
people. It should be kept as a single family. He is concerned about the people that live on Heron
Street, which is just in back of Harkins Place. This is directly on the corner they would have to
put access out onto Wheaton Way in order to get out of there.
Bill Lewis lives right nero to the property. He has been there since 1952. This is the fourth time
he has come down city hall to tN to keep the city from turning this area into something besides
residential. He would like to see it stay residential just like it is. There are nice houses there.
He's seen thmilies raised there and he would like to see it stay like it is. If the city lets it, he
wouldn't have anything against Walgreen's being there. Traffic is a mess. If he had a business
there, he doesn't think it would last ve~ long. [f'Walgreen's goes in there, he's sure they will
move out after a while because of the traffic situation. He would like to see it stay residential just
like it is.
Craig Tompkins, 3253 Solie, stated he had been there t'br over 25 years. He agrees with Bud
Hawk's reasons to oppose the rezone and redevelopment of Harkins Place. Most people here
don't have anything personally against Walgreen's, they want to keep the neighborhood
residential. He understands the compelling reason to rezone and to develop it to put it in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan that was changed back in t. 995, which no one had any
Lnput to. He finds it frustrating to hear from a lawyer that it doesn't make any difference what we
:he public wants or even what people decide as by [aw it will be rezoned and they don't have any
control over it
Chris Gavin, 920 Tacoma Ave.. Tacoma. stated Se ~ew ,ap ~t o__8 Neron .&venue, where his
mother still lives. This property, abuts the proposed site. Mr. Tracv read something from the
RCW stating that during the project review the local government or any subsequent reviewing
:oodv shall not re-examine alternatives or hear appeals of any of the items identified in the
subsection underneath. Mr. Gavin ti~it that Mr. Tracv tbrgot one thing :hat was also in that code
which says, "except for issues of code inte~retations." Mr. Gavin feels stated that the gentleman
5efore laim stated that the 1995 Comprehensive Plan has designated this area as commercial and
orofessional office. That's a done deal and he accepts that. The professional office zone is
intended to be a buffer zone placed between neighborhoods and more intense commercial uses.
He chinks they are talking about an area between general and highway commercial and Iow
densi~ residential. That puts the staff and the Commission's decision into averv difficult
situation because the responsibiliw of the zone is intended to be a buffer between two things that
seem to be incompatible. How do you decide what' s the brunt of that buffer zone. What is going
to release the shock of two things. One is the high density or intense area of the commercial zone
on the highway and the other one is, according to your Comprehensive Plan, a residential area and
,Mll remain a residential area. It's one of the few areas in Bremerton that has this particular
problem. How do you determine what is that buffer and what's necessary. They made a
determination that this w/ll be professional office. What constitutes professional vs. commercial
and what' s a buffer is the key point. Walgreen' s is more than just an area or a business that falls
into the professional area of all the other listings cited. This is talking about doctor's offices, and
this application is talking about your local pharmacy not a commercial business that also has
pharmaceutical sales.
Planning Corranission Meeting March 21,2000 - Page 27 of 33
Mr. Gavin stated that intensity has been spoken to a lot about the amount of traffic. This is a
15,000 sq. ff. building 24 hours a day with a drive in. This is not a doctor's office that has a
certain number of people that's open 5 days a week from 8 to 5 or even 6 hours. He also referred
to the landscaping plan, page 8.
Interior parMng lot landscaping for class 8 parking lots should provide for
accommodation of customer and employee parking needs within an intense business
environment are exempt from the provision oft he B3,[C' for interior parking lot
landscaping. [he parking lot which ts provided does meet the definition above and
therefore the applicant will not be providing interior parMng lot landscaping.
He reels that somehow the word "intense business" was applied to this project as a way to exempt
them from interior parking landscaping which again he feels relates ro the kind of business that's
there. It is intense. It is not a buffer. It is not a transition fi.om general commercial zoning to a
single thmily residence. It extends that :,one of commercial business right ne, ct door. Your
intention calls tbr a buffing zone which is the intention of a professional office space, a doctor's
office space. This should be about intensiW in regards to the amount of traffic. This is a major
concern and people who live there or even drive in that area ,know that. A traffic study was done,
and it covered a lot of areas. They said in the traffic study repo~ that there would be 680 new
cars daily into that area. You are talking about all the statistics and codes done by that study that
that averages 88 car trips per thousand square feet tbr a pharmacy drug store with drive-in. A
medical dental ~hcility would have 36 trips per sq. ~'oot. Drofessionai general office has I 1 daily
r. rips. Home Depot 35. A shopping center 42. Their study is saving 88 cars per 1,000 sq. ff or
680 new trips into that area.
One thing that was talked about in the meeting at the junior high was his concern tbr his mother's
:,mmediate property and the backing up of traffic along Wheaton Wav which would back up
directly into her property.. He had talked with them in regards to not having a lea turn into the
site off of Wheaton Way going north. That's still oart of the plan. The traffic study says that will
back up traffic in that turn lane about 25 seconds. Going further into the residential area, they are
?.aiking about going down 300 additional feet for a mrn lane on one street. He reels that on
Wheaton Way that will continue going down as they tU to turn into the property., if they desire to
go ahead with this, the staff has not included in the motion anything with regard to the
landscaping plan, they did not talk in that motion with regard to the wall, the concrete masonry
wail. He feels that if it passes, some of that specifically needs ro be included in the motion.
Lynn Eathorne Bradley, 1009 Knute St., stated she has lived in Bremerton most of her life. Her
family is all educators. Her concern would be the number of schools in the area. Children cross
Wheaton Way to come from the junior high into their area. Any more cars on Wheaton Way puts
those children in jeopardy. There is a crossing for the junior high, for View Ridge, for Sylvan
Way Baptist and Arman Jahr. These are hundreds of elementary and grade school children.
These children deserve consideration.
Knute Rife indicated that whatever the decision, the city council is going to require a formal legal
opinion from the city attorney's office before it proceeds with this matter, and he suggested that
be part of the recommendation.
Planning Commission Meeting March 21,2000 - Page 28 of 33
Dixson Doff, 3224 Heron Ave, stated he had lived there approximately seven years and he
wanted to reiterate that he understands that something is going to happen on that corner but what
does go in there is of prime concern. He goes down Solie and up Sylvan Way to go to work.
With the bus transportation center fight there, it is a bad situation with the buses. This is just
going to cause more chance for Kitsap Transit trying to skirt around Wheaton Way and cut
through the neighborhood via Solie. Since he is on Heron Ave., he is wondering how long it will
be before the city decides to suck up all of Heron and determine that's going to be their next tax
break tbr the city to get more businesses in there.
Joella Toppi, 3235 Herron, indicated that this is a question of trust. The residents have put their
trust in the City of Bremerton to protect them and now people want to break that trust. At the
school meeting, they were given a slip of paper that were told the ~types of businesses that could
go in that area. It read like the yellow pages. That plus the fact that there are empty buildings in
that area that Walgreen's could go into. There is the old Ernst Hardware. It was said it wasn't
fair to the developer tbr him to put his time and money into something and then have it denied, is
it fair to the residents of that area to have their livabilitv taken awav fi-om them by developers who
may not even live in the area.
Jim Goodman, 3336 Birch Ave., - stated that Bremerton as the most livable city in America - it
used to be until this raikoad job come through At the junior high school meeting a man who is
not here now stood up behind me and said he wanted this. He's not here. Somebody put in a
finger and that's not right. We haven't seen him since, but to say he lives where I live isn't right.
i'm tired of these lawyers saving law is the rule. It seems to me the constitution says "we the
people" not "rule or' law". I don't want this monstrosity on the hillside looking down at me. 300
feet, that's 100 yards down the hill already to Solie Ave. How are you going to mrn lef~ to go
down the hill where [ live or how are you going to go up the hill and to get to Solie. Have you
seen ;he buses come through there'? When the buses come through, you can't get nothing
:brough there. We want rd kee~ a sense of community.
David Richards, 3263 Solie Ave, said that he wanted to say amen rd what everyone has said
tonight. The Iegai counsel told us, opinions you can': use them, well that is nothing but an
opinion fight there. We don't want :any commercial development in our neighborhood period.
5lichael Hawk. l t02 E. 33*d, stated that he was concerned about :he traffic. He has a 3-year-old
daughter and a 9-month-old son. They just moved into the area and their kids are going to ~'ow
,ap here. If the store goes in and the volume of traffic increased, he is concerned about the kids in
his neighborhood.
Mr. Tracy said he wanted to respond specifically to three points that Mr. Gavin made. He is
correct in his citation that there is an exception in the 30.70 (B) regarding code interpretation.
The reason he didn't read it is that it is irrelevant to this proceeding. There is no code
interpretation here. His obligation and his oath is to be ~:k>rthcoming and there was no intent to
deceive involved. Mr. Gavin was very, concerned that the staff report wasn't specific because it
didn't mention the wall. There are dozens of elements to this application that are part and parcel
of the applicant's proposal. They don't need to be stated as a condition. Everything that is in this
proposal, everything in the staff report is incorporated into the applicant's proposal and it will be
Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2000 - Page 29 o£ 33
the job of the city, to assure that they meet those requirements. Passions nan high. These issues
are probably only second to domestic and child abuse in terms of the passion around them. He
was concerned that the attorney said before he le~ that before the council holds a heating on this
matter, they may need a formal legal opinion and therefore the Commission should not make their
decision until the opinion has been given. He objected to that. He feels that the Commission's
duty, is to review the proposal and the initial staff recommendation at a public meeting and
tbrward their recommendation to the ciw council. It's up to the city council to do the legal work.
That is why he made those legal arguments and he would very much appreciate the Planning
Commission make its call among the alternates they have been provided. He hoped that they
would accept the staff's recommendation for approval of the project as conditioned by the staff
report.
Chairman Dingfield said that she thought Mr Rife asked the Planning Commission for their
recommendations to recognize that there may be some legal issues and did not ask for them not to
do it. She also asked ~h'. Powetl if they were going to be allowing a leR turn offWheaton Way?
Mr. Powell said that this is already established - all the way down. If they had to put up a sign
sa~ng no left turn at all, they would do whatever ,;vas required to make that happen.
Ms. Bennon indicated that staff understands that there are traffic problems at the site now which
the traffic study acknowledges. The traffic studv also states that the mediation measures that the
rraffc studv details will alleviate not only the ex/sting problems but also mitigate the impact of the
development. A lot of the public concerns about the traffic as it is now will be alIeviated by these
measures. They also recognize the history associated with this. They would like to reiterate that
.:Ms proposal is being reviewed under a different Comprehensive Plan and a different zoning code.
They have to review the application under the current regulations and not based on the precedent
that was set of a ruling under previous regulations. They are dealing with the codes that are in
place now'.
Commissioner Boyd asked how the traffic changes :hat are proposed will alleviate the problems
of Solie.
Ms. Bennon said that was detailed in the report and asked Joe Givat to respond.
Joe Givat, said that they had been working with Walgreens, the developer and the city on
preparing the site plan. To clari~ the traffic issue, what they are proposing to do based on the
traffic study will not fix all of the problems that the area has, but it will improve Sylvan Way and
will mitigate the traffic they are adding. It won't solve all of the traffic on the cut through from
Solie, it won't make the traffic signal work perfectly, but it will make it better than it is now.
Peter Powell indicated that the author of the traffic report is not here but if they would look at
the traffic report, there is a specific paragraph called the Solie cut through problem and that
explains the answer to her question.
Commissioner Boyd said that she is also concerned about the safety of the children.
Planning Commission Meeting March 2 I, 2{)00 - Page 30 of 33
Mr. Poweil replied that there is a significant pedestrian plaza areas and wide sidewalks, which
allows pedestrians to get away from the street. The sidewalk is at least 6' wide and there is a
whole plaza area plus a wide protected plaza area at the corner.
Commissioner Griggs asked that on the protbssional office zoning, why pharmacies were
included as a professional office.
Mr. Palmer said that his guess is that the zoning code that is now in place was modified
somewhat to implement the Comprehensive Plan and as ~h-. Tracy has observed, there is a lot of'
inadequacies in the present zoning code to make it an effective instrument to implement the
Comprehensive Plan. What we have to live '<th is what the code now says. Whether it is right
or wrong can be addressed later in a different context, but in terms of this project, it's what the
zoning ordinance now provides.
Ms. Bennon pointed out that a lot of the traffic concerns were with regards to the bus traffic and
they have reviewed the traific analysis study and have agreed with the mitigation measures so
KStsap Transit is aware of what is going to be done to correct a problem that exists. For
ctarificatior~ the three issues that they are asking the commission to consider is that it is a rezone
~om SF-3 ro Professional Office. The proposed zoning will bring the current zoning into
corttbrmance with the Comprehensive Plan. This action is encouraged by the Growth
Management Act. They are also asking review of the technical site plan and the use consistency
in conjunction with the technical site plan review.
Commissioner Moshay indicated that while she certainiv would welcome a new business in
Bremerton. she doesn't think rezoning a residential area is appropriate at this time. She thinks
:hat the comments about the schools are very. well taken and there is a [or of other land available
that would welcome Walgreen with open arms. so she is not in favor of it.
Commissioner Boyd said that she felt that the design was excellent but she wished that there had
been a professional office placed on this property. She is concerned that the rest of the residential
area along Wheaton Way will go, which she ~tt is unnecessary.
Chairman Dingfield said that one of the things the city is dealing with particularly on Wheaton
Way has been something that is out of the city's control and that is the amount of development
that has been dumped onto Hwv 303 outside of the citv limits particularly to the north. This has
put a lot of pressure on Wheaton Way because that traffic will be coming through Wheaton Way.
[t is the county's intent to do something to mitigate that traffic. They are planning on taking two
other arterials through, Perry Ave. and Alrnira Dr. to start taking pressure off of the Wheaton
Way corridor because it's a serious concern. This is a commercial corridor for the city and the
Comprehensive Plan speaks to moving toward that. This move would bring the zoning into
compliance with the comp plan. They are putting a great number of conditions on this and the
developer seems responsive to that and she would be concerned about saying no to a development
in this area because it fits with the zoning codes, it fits with the nature of the wheaton Way
corridor and there are some opportunities that they can take in the future to do other things to
help mitigate the pressure that has been put on by entities other than the city.
Planning Commission Meeting March 2 l, 2000 - Page 31 of 33
Commissioner Kosusko pointed out that it is not the commission's position to re-evaluate the
Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning of this property should come into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The question is examining that Professional Office zone. They understand
why it would allow the pharmacy. The retailers have taken it to the next step and have taken it to
the ne,ct larger scale and brought iht hat much more traffic. He will be voting in favor of the zone
change but would recommend to the council that this use not be consistent.
Commissioner Moshay moved that they recommend to the city council to deny the
proposed rezone and site plan as submitted because of the traffic and the disruption of the
res/dents in that area. No seconds were heard so motion died for lack of a second.
Commission Kosusko moved to approve the rezone from SF-3 to PO but moved that the
proposed pharmacy/drug store is not consistent with the stated intent of the PO zone or the
Comprehensive Plan. Commission Boyd seconded the motion.
Chairman Dingfield asked why he felt the use was inconsistent with the PO zone.
Commissioner Kosusko indicated that in this place, there was much more retail component than
he feels was intended.
Chairman Dingfield asked for a vote fi.om the Commissioners: Commissioner Boyd, no:
Commissioner Griggs, yes; Commissioner Kosusko, yes: Commissioner Moshay, no:
Commissioner Dingfield, no.
The motion does not pass.
Commissioner Kosusko moved to approve the rezone request from SF-3 to PO based on
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan but that they cannot come to an opinion on
consistency, of the pharmacy and drug store use. Should the city council find that this is
consistent with the stated intent of the professional office zone, they recommend that all of
the conditions for the site plan be approved. Commissioner Griggs seconded the motion.
Chairman Dingfield asked for a vote fi.om the Commissioners: Commissioner Boyd, yes:
Commissioner Griggs, yes: Commissioner Kosusko, yes: Commissioner Mos. hay, no:
Commissioner Dingfield, yes.
The motion passed.
Mr. Palmer indicated that in the normal process, there would be approximately three weeks
before the hearing on this before the City Council.
Planning Commission Meeting March 21,2000 - Page 32 of 33
CERTIFIED MAlL
~.~ ~ ~ O. l.i~n~u
3237 Solie Avenue
Bremerton. Washington 98310
April 03, 2000
Bremerton City Council
239 Fourth Street
Bremertort, Washington
Dear Council Members:
We would like to voice our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the SW Corner of Sylvan Way and
Wheaton Way bom "SF-3 to "PO," based on a number of issues that may not have been addressed or
considered of importance by the Planning Commission.
First and foremost is the fact that this rezoning has been proposed three (3) previous times and each
time the Planning Commission has denied them. The last time the Planning Commission members not
only denied the rezone request, but made it clear they were opposed to further strip zoning of Wheaton
south to Sheridan. Also, the fact that the Olympic Manor residents vehemently oppose the Harkins
Place rezone due to the additional traffic it would generate. It should be noted that there are over 150
signatures opposing the rezone on file with the Planning Commission.
· How many times must this family-based neighborhood suffer the threat of encroachment for profit
which wouM result in devaluation of property?
· According to the applicant's proposed plan, they indicate an exit on to Wheaton Way. There are
specific convenants in our deed which restricts these properties to single family residences with no
a or to Highway 303 (Wheaton Way). This is a State Highway and it would seem that any
exit on to Wheaton Way (Highway 303) would require the approval of the State. If an exit is approved,
it would set a precedent for all residents bordering on Wheaton Way to also request exits.
· No consideration has been given to the number of students from View Ridge School and Bremerton
Junior High School that have to cross an already busy Wheaton Way to and from home. Nor for the
students attending Armin Jahr and Sylvan Way Baptist Schools who must walk along the northside of
Sylvan Way where there are no sidewalks. The additional traffic would create an extremely unsafe
condition for these children.
· Kitsap Transit is cooperating with the Powell Development Company and their proposal as evidenced
by their letter of March 21, 2000. Apparently, they (Kitsap Transit) didn't take into consideration the
problems that exist with the traffic in that area, and ignored the fact that the Wheaton Mall on Sylvan
Way is the center for the Eastside Transfer Station for Kitsap Transit. Hourly, or more often, four (4) to
six (6) buses enter and exit the area. There are times when all buses may leave the Mall at once, then no
one can enter or leave Harkins Place because the buses block traffic in both directions including the
traffic offWheaton Way and Solie Avenue.
· No matter how many lanes Powell Development Company proposes, there is nothing that will relieve
the added traffic congestion that will be generated by another commercial business in the area of
Wheaton and Sylvan Way.
· It is our understanding that the only study of the traffic pattern in the area of Wheaton Way and Sylvan
Way has been done by the proponents of the rezoning. Therefore, in all fairness to this issue, an
independent study should be done by the Planning Commission before any consideration be given to
rezoning.
Mr.,~ l',lrs Arvi O. Mantyta
3~3'"/&:,lie Avenue
Beemerton. Washinston 98310
independent study should be done by the Planning Commission before any consideration be given to
rezoning.
According to the State Patrol, there have been thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) in traffic accidents from
Dibb Street to Riddell Road since Wheaton Way became State Highway 303.This fact alone should conv/nce
the Planning Commission as well as the Traffic Division there is a traffic problem in this area.
Apparently the so-called 1995 Comprehensive Plan designated this area as a Commercial and Professional
Office and it was done without the knowledge of the residents of Olympic Manor. Then this is ludicrous,
since it would allow any neighborhood to be rezoned without their knowledge. For example, Commercial
businesses could purchase a block of residence, have it rezoned and the remaining property owners would
be in a similar position as Olympic Manor.
The definition ora Pharmacy is "preparation of drags and medicines"and it does not include accessory retail
sales, and we do not think Walgrens qualify under the definition of a Pharmacy.
It would seem that it is time for the Mayor and City Council to be as concerned with the people of the
community as they are with the prospects of gaining tax dollars from businesses which may or may not
remain.
The well-maintained residential neighborhood known as Olympic Manor has been here for many years; taxes
have been paid, and people have been productive citizens.
If strip zoning is allowed, the neighborhoods will die; and thus, the tree heart of the community. Bremerton
will join Silverdale, not as a city, but as an area of urban sprawl.
Thank your for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Arvi O. Mantyla '- ¢~
cc: Planning Commission ~
Bremerton City Council
Mayor Lynn Horton
File
Dear Bremerton City Council, April 11, 2000
We Bill and Harriet Mclaren own a home at 3309 Harkins Place Bremerton,
Washington. We purchased the home in 1978. This has been a rental for us. We have
tried on several occasions to sell the property. In 1995 the City of Bremerton adopted a
new comprehensive zoning plan. In this plan the property is designated a
Professional/Office. A pharmacy/Drug store is an allowed use for this designation.
We have had a significant amount of our savings tied up in this Bremerton residence for
nearly a quarter century. We invested in the home due to its potential as a commercial
site. The property is located on a cul-de-sac at the comer of Wheaton Way and Sylvan
Way. The property is in a very high exposure commercial corridor. The designation to
Professional/office by the City of Bremerton is a common sense idea that has allowed
us to finally reap the rewards of a commercially zoned piece of property.
The property has very low rents due to its poor condition. It is in need of a new
roof among other things. The high traffic volume and busy intersection does not make
this a good location for a residential neighborhood. Walgreens has followed the city
requirements and satisfied all current City of Bremerton ordinances.
We will be severely financially damaged should this sale fail to close. Our equity
will diminish to half what it is now if the City of Bremerton ignores their own adopted
comprehensive plan. If a few outspoken neighbors want to control the use of my
property they should have stepped up before the comprehensive plan was adopted back
in 1995 or agreed to purchase it just as Walgreens has agreed to do.
We are 73 and 80 years old and need to move on with our investments. Make the
right choice, Welcome a quality business like Walgreens to Bremerton. Please do not
penalize us for the actions of some neighbors. After all, we are only asking for what
we have a deserved and legal right to obtain.
Thank You,
Bill and Harriet Mclaren
Bremerton City Council 4/12/00
Dear Bremerton City Council,
Hello, My name is Dan Barsay. My wife Mary and I own 6 homes on
Harkins Place, in Bremerton, Washington. We are not able to personally
appear here tonight due to health problems. The addresses of our
properties are 3302, 3304, 3305, 3308, 3314, and 3315 Harkins Place. We
invested in the majority of these properties over 20 years ago. All of these
homes are and have been rentals. We have provided affordable housing for
Bremerton tenants since purchasing these properties as a means to carry
our investment. Our investment consists of a lifetime of savings. These
homes were all constructed nearly half a century ago in 1952. Due to their
age they are all more and more burdensome and expensive to maintain.
These properties have been listed for sale with Real Estate Brokers
since 1993. We have had a commercial for sale sign posted on the
property since then. These properties have been available for anyone to
buy all this time. The select neighbors that are against this property being
used for its highest and best use have had every opportunity to buy these
properties and keep them as rentals if they so desired. Please do not forget
we have petitions signed by over 50 neighbors that want Walgreens located
near them.
We made a tremendous investment into these properties and should
have the right to use them as the City of Bremerton Comprehensive zoning
plan has designated. The City of Bremerton adopted this location at the
SW comer of Wheaton Way and Sylvan Way in the Comprehensive
Zoning Plan as Commercial/Professional Office over half a decade ago.
This is a legal and binding document. If there were any objections to this
adopted use they should have been voiced prior to its adoption on April 5,
1995. Pharmacy/Drug Store is an allowed and designated use for this
property per the current City of Bremerton zoning ordinances. Walgreens
is an ideal user for this property. They have meet or exceeded all
requirement per the current City of Bremerton ordinances. Harkins Place
is geographically seperated from its neighbors by a natural elevation buffer
of 15' to 20'. Harkins Place towers way above its neighbors on all sides.
The property has road frontage on both Wheaton Way and Sylvan Way. All
the other 3 comers of this intersection are currently commercial properties.
No neighbors share its access. Harkins Place consists of 8 homes on a Cul-
de-sac. No one has forced anyone to sell these properties, and they have
been available for sale for a long time. We now have a purchaser who
desires to also invest into the City of Bremerton, use it for its designated
use, and let us realize a return of our investment of many years.
We strongly urge you, the Bremerton City Council to approve the
application by Walgreens for the construction of a new Pharmacy/Drug
Store. Failure to do so will send a loud message to the business
community that Bremerton does not welcome business nor do they adhere
to its current comprehensive land use plan. Failure to approve this
application will effect us in a much more personal manner, by diminishing
the long term investment we have put into the City of Bremerton for all
these years. We would be burdened to suffer unfair and unjust financial
hardships by the greatly diminished value of our investment for no
apparent or valid reason.
Sincerely,
Dan and Mary Barsay
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr.~ Hr~ Ar~i O. H~t~a
3237 $olie Avenue
ISt'cmerLon, Washington 98310
April 03, 2000
Bremerton City Council
239 Fourth Street
Bremerton, Washington
Dear Council Members:
We would like to voice our opposition to the proposed rezoning of the SW Comer of Sylvan Way and
Whezton Way from "SF-3 to "PO," based on a number of issues that may not have been addressed or
considered of importance by the Planning Commission.
· First and foremost is the fact that this rezoning has been proposed three (3) previous times and each
time the Planning Commission has denied them. The last time the Planning Commission members not
only denied the rezone request, but made it clear they were opposed to further strip zoning of Wheaton
south to Sheridan. Also, the fact that the Olympic Manor residents vehemently oppose the Harkins
Place rezone due to the additional traffic it would generate. It should be noted that there are over 150
signatures opposing the rezone on file with the Planning Commission.
· How many times must this family-based neighborhood suffer the threat of encroachment for profit
which wouM resuIt in devaluation of property?
· According to the applicant's proposed plan, they indicate an exit on to Wheaton Way. There are
specific convenants in our deed which restricts these properties to single family residences with no
~ Highway 303 (Wheaton Way). This is a State Highway and it would seem that any
exit on to Wheaton Way (Highway 303) would require the approval of the State. If an exit is approved,
it would set a precedent for all residents bordering on Wheaton Way to also request exits.
· No consideration has been given to the number of students from View Ridge School and Bremerton
Junior High School that have to cross an already busy Wheaton Way to and from home. Nor for the
students attending Annin lahr and Sylvan Way Baptist Schools who must walk along the northside of
Sylvan Way where there are no sidewalks. The additional traffic would create an extremely unsafe
condition for these children.
· Kitsap Transit is cooperating with the Powell Development Company and their proposal as evidenced
by their letter of March 21, 2000. Apparently, they (Kitsap Transit) didn't take into consideration the
problems that exist with the traffic in that area, and ignored the fact that the Wheaton Mall on Sylvan
Way is the center for the Eastside Transfer Station for Kitsap Transit. Hourly, or more often, four (4) to
six (6) buses enter and exit the area. There are times when all buses may leave the Mall at once, then no
one can enter or leave Harkins Place because the buses block traffic in both directions including the
traffic offWheaton Way and Solie Avenue.
· No matter how many lanes Powell Development Company proposes, there is nothing that will relieve
the added traffic congestion that will be generated by another commercial business in the area of
Wheaton and Sylvan Way.
· It is our understanding that the only study of the traffic pattern in the area of Wheaton Way and Sylvan
Way has been done by the proponents of the rezoning. Therefore, in all fairness to this issue, an
independent study should be done by the Planning Commission before any consideration be given to
rezoning.
Mr.& !qrs Arvi O. Mantyla
3237 Solie Avenue
15remerton, Washington 98310
independent study should be done by the Planning Commission before any consideration be given to
rezoning.
According to the State Patrol, there have been thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) in traffic accidents fi.om
Dibb Street to Riddell Road since Wheaton Way became State Highway 303.This fact alone should convince
the Planning Commission as well ms the Traffic Division there is a traffic problem in this area.
Apparently the so-called 1995 Comprehensive Plan designated this area as a Commercial and Professional
Office and it was done without the knowledge of the residents of Olympic Manor. Then this is ludicrous,
since it would allow any neighborhood to be rezoned without their knowledge. For example, Commercial
businesses could purchase a block of residence, have it rezoned and the remaining property owners would
be in a similar position as Olympic Manor.
The definition of a Pharmacy is "preparation of drugs and medicines"and it does not include accessory retail
sales, and we do not think Walgrens qualify under the definition of a Pharmacy.
It would seem that it is time for the Mayor and City Council to be as concerned with the people of the
community as they are with the prospects of gaining tax dollars fi'om businesses which may or may not
remain.
The well-maintained residential neighborhood known as Olympic Manor has been here for many years; taxes
have been paid, and people have been productive citizens.
If strip zoning is allowed, the neighborhoods will die; and thus, the true heart of the community. Bremerton
will join Silverdale, not as a city, but as an area of urban sprawl.
Thank your for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Arvi O. Mantyla ~''//~ 2~r
cc: Planning Commission o-~
Bremerton City Council
Mayor Lynn Horton
File
TI~I~WOmCES O~ 0RIClNAL
JAMES C. TRACY
ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW
OLYMPIC PEAKS BUILDING
18887 STATE H'vVY #305 NE - SUITE 500
POULSBO, WA. 98370-7401
Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197
April 12, 2000
City of Bremerton
City Council
City Hall
Bremerton, Washington 98337
In Re: Powell Development Company - Walgren's Drug Store
Dear City Council Members:
As you know, at its March meeting the Bremerton Planning Commission voted to approve the
request by Powell Development Company for a rezone from SF-3 to PO on their property at the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of Wheaton and Sylvan Ways.
However, the Planning Commission also indicated that they were unable to come to an opinion
regarding the consistency of the proposed use with the PO Zone and the Comprehensive Plan.
As the attached materials, incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth, indicate, the
proposal is clearly consistent with both the intent of the comprehensive plan and the
specific content of the City of Bremerton Zoning Code.
In summary:
- the uses proposed are squarely within specific categories set forth in the City's Land Use
Tables as allowed outright within the PO Zone;
- the proposal represents development of the site which is much less intense than that
which is allowed outright by the Zoning code;
- the proposal is designed to meet, or in some cases far exceed, the design requirements of
the Zoning code (see particularly, proposed design elements related to open space and
buffers);
- the proposal, as conditioned by the staff report and Determination of Non-Significance,
successfully mitigates all probable significantly adverse environmental impacts associated
with this project.
City Staffhave also concluded upon this evidence that the proposal is consistent with the kinds of
use deemed consistent with the intent of the PO Zone and that the rezone (along with its
accompanying site plan which meets for exceeds required standards) should be approved. (See
Staff Report at page 11 .)
Clearly, the evidence that the PO Zone was contemplated to contain much more that exclusively
office uses is overwhelming. Of the fourteen (14) categories contained in the City's Land Use
Tables, the PO Zone allows uses in each of these categories outright in the PO Zone. Many
additional uses in these categories may be allowed subject to compliance with specific design
standards.
At this time, it is entirely inappropriate and improper to entertain any consideration whether these
uses should be allowed in the PO Zone. As required by the Growth Management Act, should the
City now feel that these uses and the Land Use Tables are inappropriate, the appropriate
procedure would be to identify the proposed inadequacies/changes, docket them, and conduct
appropriate consideration of all proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations during the City's annual plan and regulation update.
RCW 36.70A. 740 states:
"Project review--Amendment suggestion procedure--Definitions.
(1) Project review, which shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.70B
RCW, shall be used to make individual project decisions, not land use planning decisions.
If, during project review, a county or city planning under RCW 36.70A. 040 identifies
deficiencies in plans or regulations:
(a) The permitting process shall not be used as a comprehensive planning process;
(b) Project review shall continue; and (c) The identified deficiencies shall be docketed for
possible future plan or development regulation amendments.
(2) Each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall include in its
development regulations a procedure for any interested person, including applicants,
citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, to suggest plan or development
regulation amendments. The suggested amendments shall be docketed and considered on
at least an annual basis, consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A. 130.
(3) For purposes of this section, a deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development
regulation refers to the absence of required or potentially desirable contents of a
comprehensive plan or development regulation. It does not refer to whether a
development regulation addresses a project's probable specific adverse environmental
impacts which the permitting agency could mitigate in the normal project review process.
(4) For purposes of this section, docketing refers to compiling and maintaining a list of
suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner that
will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the county or city and will be
available for review by the public."
In the instant case, this application and applicant has agreed to perform every reasonable
condition asked of him, has presented a site plan that is consistent with (i.e. meets or exceeds) the
Comprehensive Plan and City Development regulations, and proposes a use that is consistent with
the intention of the Comprehensive Plan. As such, this application should be approved by the City
Council without delay.
Thank you for your expeditious consideration of and response to this request.
Sincerely,
Counsel for Powell Development
Attachement
cc file
client
POWELL DEVELOPMENT CO
P.O. Box 97070 Kirkland, WA 98083-9770
(425) 828-/.'/.'/.'~.' Fax (425) 822-8297
April 6, 2OOO
James C. Tracy, Esq.
Attorney & Counselor at Law
18887 Hwy. 305, Suite 500
Poulsbo, WA 98370
RE: PROPOSED WALGREENS STORE
USE CONFORMANCE WITH P.O. ZONE
Dear Jim:
I've attached the Land Use tables from the City of Bremerton. The tables outline
allowable uses for different zone classifications. The P.O. zone allows for several different
office and retail uses. Pharmacy/drugstore is allowed outright in this zone; it does not
require any variance or special use permit.
By any definition, Walgreens is a pharmacy/drugstore.
The merchandise mix carded in a Walgreens store is typical of neighborhood
pharmacy/drugstores like Rite Aid, Bartells, and countless independent drugstores. I am
attaching three copies of the Walgreens floor plan illustrating building use allocation as
follows:
Backroom 3,774 SF (25.1%)
Pharmacy 1,533 SF (10.2%)
OTC Drug Sales 7,576 SF (30.5%)
Health & Beauty Aids 2,236 SF (14.9%)
Convenience Sundries & Food Mart 2,236 SF (14.2%)
Check-out 773 SF (5.1%)
TOTAL 15,020 SF
Although the pharmacy is allocated a relatively small area, it accounts for over 50% of
total store sales. Per the 1999 Walgreens annual report, pharmacy sales accounted for
52% of total store sales. This percentage of pharmacy to total store sales is growing
rapidly. In 1995 the pharmacy accounted for only 43% of total store sales. Walgreens is
first and foremost a pharmacy.
James C. Tracy, Esq.
April 7, 2000
Page Two
The P.O. zone is not restricted to professional office and pharmacy/drugstores. Several
other retail uses are allowed in the P.O. zone including:
* Food/Beverage Take-out (no inside seating) - Walgreens offers a convenience
"Food Mart" selling food and beverages for off-premises consumption.
* Bookstore (newspaper, magazines, etc.) - Walgreens offers a limited selection of
paperback books and magazines.
* Stationery_, Paper Products, Office Supplies - Walgreens offers a limited selection.
* Flowers, Gifts and Greeting Cards - Girls and greeting cards are an important part
of any drugstore.
* Cameras, Photo Supplies and Services - Walgreens offers one-hour photo service
and related products.
Page 10 of the Title 21 Appendix gives a description/intent of the P.O. zone. Our
development accomplishes the P.O. zone intent of establishing a buffer zone. The staff
report details how we can successfully mitigate all environmental impacts associated with
our project including - noise, light and glare, drainage, traffic and circulation. We
accomplish the buffer zone by far exceeding P.O. zoning requirements for setbacks,
landscaping/open space and lot coverage. To further illustrate, consider:
Allowed Under P.O. Zone Proposed Walgreens
Lot Coverage 45% 19%
Bldg. Height 30 FT (2 story) 21 FT (1 story)
North Setback 15 FT 86 FT
South Setback 10 FT 46 FT
East Setback 15 FT 127 FT
West Setback 10 FT 65 FT
Open Space Required 11,814 SF 17,256 SF
Under the P.O. zone, it would be allowable to build a two-story professional office
building covering 45% of the lot. This building could exceed 70,000 square feet. In
addition, the building could be located 10 feet from the property line separating our site
from the residences west and south.
James C. Tracy, Esq.
April 7, 20OO
Page Three
We clearly meet the letter and intent of the P.O. zone. I will call you on Monday to
discuss how best to present the use conformance issue to the city council.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
POWELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
David W. Messner
Director of Development
End.
cc: Peter W. Powell
ZONES Description/Intent Min. Standards (See Table Z-4)
MF This zone is designed to maintain existing areas of Base Density: 8-18 DU/ac.
multiple-unit dwellings and to provide for new Min. Lot Size: 3,000 s.f.
Residential development of needed housing within the medium- Max. Coverage: 40%
Medium density density (8-18 DU/Acre) level. Such development may Min. Lot Width: 30 ft.
include small-lot single-unit clustered housing, garden Max. Bldg. Ht: 40 ft.
and larger apartment complexes, condominiums, and
other housing alternatives, along with their customary SETBACKS:
related or accessory uses. Front: 10 ft. (20 to garage)
Side: 5 ft.
Rear: 20 ft.
CBR The "Central Bremenon Residential'' zohe is designed Base Density: 8-18 DU/ac.
to maintain and improve the character found primarily Min. Lot Size: 3,000 s.f.
Residential in the older central areas of Bremerton. It allows the Max. Coverage: 50~o Resid.
Medium density integration ofsmall multi-unit structures with an 80% Non-resid.
-, assortment of customary accessory and compatible Min. Lot Width: 30 1t.
uses. It recognizes the his, toric development patterns Max. Bldg. Ht: 30 ft.
characterized by small lots, narrow streets, minimal
setbacks, accessory dwellings, and often deficient off- SETBACKS:
street parking. It encourages residential in-fill and Front: 10 tt. (20 to garage)
promotes general overall neighborhood improvement. Side: 5 ft.
Rear: 15'ft.
MR This zone provides areas that are most suitable for the Base Density: 8-44 DU/ac.
highest density multiple-unit development allowed Min. Lot Size: 5,000 s.f.
Residential anywhere in Bremerton and at the greatest allowed Max. Coverage: 50% Resid.
High density building heights. It is intended for use in high 80% Non-resid.
intensity areas, areas with exceptional views or other IVlin. Lot Width: 40 ft.
amenities, and along or near arterial streets. To take Max. Bldg. Hr: 120 ft.
advantage of Iocational advantages, this zone allows
some mix of compatible non-residential uses. Mixed ,SETBACKS:
use developments are encouraged. Front: 10 ft. (20 to garage)
Side: 5 ft.
Rear: 10 tt.
PO The PO zone provides areas for low-intensity small- Min. Lot Size:' None
scale office uses. Limitations on the size and height Max. Coverage: 45%
Professional of.office structures will help ensure compatibility with Min. Lot Width: None
Office adjacent residential neighborhoods. This zone is Max. Bldg. Ht: 30 ft.
intended, in part, as a buffer zone that can be placed
between neighborhoods and more intense commercial
uses, industrial uses, arterial streets, or other SETBACKS:
incompatible land uses. It may be used along arterial Front: Same as abutting zone.
streets to take advantage of'mixed or limited lot sizes, Side: None from non-res, zones.
or as a softer alternative to strip commercial I 0 ft.. (from R zones only)
development. This zone is particularly suitable for Rear: 20 ft.
inclusion in a mixed use PUD development.
Title 21 Appendix: Page 10
' Walgreens Drugstore Annual Report 1999 - Drugstore Sales Overview Page 1 of 1
FIRST WALGREENS STORE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 1901
DRUGSTORE UNIT AND SALES OVERVIEW
Fiscal Year 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995
Drugstore Units Openings
New Stores 386 303 247 205 202
Acquisitions '1 4 5 4
Remodelings 33 47 46 71 84
Closings' 114 113 86 102 89
Year-End: Units (4) 2,82'1 2,549 2,358 2,193 2,085
Year-End: Sales Area 29,230 26,024 23,935 22,'124 20,73'1
(2)
Product Class Sales Prescription Drugs 52% 50% 47% 45% 43%
Nonprescription 12 '12 13 13 13
Drugs (3)
Cosmetics, Toiletries 8 8 8 8 8
(3)
General Merchandise 28 30 32 34 36
(3)
(0 Includes 70 pharmacy-
only units and two mail
service facilities.
(2) In thousands of square
feet.
(3) Estimates based, in part,
on store scanning
information.
Back I Report Ir~lex { Finance Index I Next
http://investor.walgreens.com/annua199/drugstore.html 4/6/00
Figure 130
LOT REQUIREMENTS
I
~ ALLOWED 2 3 MIN. MIN.
: ZONES RESID. I FRONT SIDE REAR LOT LOT MAx. MAX.
i DENSITY SIZE WIDTH HEIGHT COVERAG.g
Setback
§etback
Setback
SF-I 1-3 DU/Ac. 20 R. 10 ft. 15 ft. 13,000 s.f. 60 ft. 30 ft.. 25 %
SF2 1-8 DU/Ac. 20 ft. i 0 ft. 15 ft. 9,000 s.f. 50 ft. 30 ft. 30 %
SF-3 3-8 DU/Ac. 15 ft. 2 5 ft. 15 ft. 5,000 s.f. 40 ft. 30 ft. 40 %
DR 3-8 DU/Ac. 15 ft. 2 5 ft. 15 ft. 4,000 s.f. 40 ft. 30 ft. 40 %
MF 8-18 DU/Ac. 10 ft. 2 5ft. 20ft. 3,000 s.f. 30ft. 40ft. 50%
CBR 8-I8 DU/Ac. I0 ft. 2 5 ft. 15 ft. 3,000 s.f. 30 ft. 30 ft. 50 %
MR 8-~4 DU/Ac. 10 R. 2 5 fl:. 3 10 ~t. 5,000 s.f. 40 ff. 120 ft. 60 %
NB 7 ....... 10 ft. - .... 5 20 ft. - ...... 30 ft. 50 %
GB ....... 20 ft. - ..... 5 ..... 5 .............. 60 ff. 100 %
SC 6 ............. 4 ....... 4 ..... 4 ....... 6 ....... 6 ....... 6 ...... 6
BC ..................... 5 ..... 5 .............. 120 ft. 100 %
~CD .............. 8 ...... ~ ..... ~ .............. 60 ft. 100 %
"BP ....... 20ft. - ...... 5 ....... 5 ............. 30ft. 50%
IP ....... 20 fl. - .... 5 ....... $ .............. 40 ft. 50 %
IG ....... 20fl. - ...... s ....... 5 .............. 40ft. 100%
MX 8-44 DU/Ac. 10 fl. - ...... 5 ....... 5 3,000 s.f. 30 ft. 30 ft. 50 %
SMU ....... I0 fl. 5 ft. 10 ft. - ............. 40 ft. 50 %
HC ...... 10 ft. - ...... ~ ....... 5 ............. 60 ft. 60 %
PS ....... 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. - ............. 40 ft. 25 %
I Base density ranges do not include additional incentive "bonus" densities that may be offered.
2 All garages and carports shall maintain a Front setback of 20 feet.
3 Zero Lot Linc development shall add the normally-required side yard to the opposite side of the lot. ZLL development along
a rear property line may be approved only through the PUD process.
4 Development is subject to the same setback that is required on the residential side of the lot line for any development abutting
a residential zone. Structures higher than two stories or 30 ft. (whichever is higher) shall double the setback when abutting any
other residential zone.
5 A 10 ft. setback is required from any residential zone.
6 Development within this zone shall be consistent with a master plan approved lhrough the PUD process.
7 An individual building may not exceed 5,000 SCl.ff. in this zone.
~ 8 Maximum setback of 10 fi. from Callow frontage between Burwell and Eleventh Streets.
Title 21 Appendix: Page 19
MEANING OF sYMBOLS:
-'I. Residential
--2. Other Lodging A The use is allowed outright as a principal use.
; 3. Entertainment / Culture
Figure 140 ,,n. Medical & Social Services
~* 5. Recreation & Health S The use is subject to approval of a Special Use Permit.
LAND ~. Other Public/Quasi-public ,.
,~7. Government & Utility Services P The use is allowed only within an approved Planned Unit Development
~9. Other Retail Business * Uses with an ~terisk may not be located on prol:~rties that front on
~I.0. Personal Services Callow Avenue between Burwell Street and Eleventh Street.
~~'12. Auto / Transportation No Symbol The listed use is NOT PERMITTED in this zone.
~13. Constmction Related
~a. Industrial / Manufacturing
Uses allowed-- byzone sv sr sv
1 2 3 Da M~' CaR M~ PO Na aB §C aC CD at' ~P la MX SMU tic
Single-unit Dwelling -- Detached A : A A A A A P :
Single-unit Dwelling o Attached (ZLL) A A A A A A P
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) A A A A A A A*
Duplex (Two dwellings in one bldg.) A A A A
Triplex (Three dwellings in one bldg.) S A A A
Multi-unit Structure (4 or more units) S A A S* A
Townhouse (attached units on own lots) S A S A A* A
Manufactured Home on Individual Lot A A A A A
Manufactured Home Park P P P P P
Residential --- as a secondary use. A A A A S S S A S A A S
· Title 21 Ar,,~endix: Page 20
Uses owed -- by zone sr sE
, 1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR PO NB GB SC BC CD. BP IP IG MX SMU ac.
Boarding/Rooming House S S S S A A A
' Foster Home ~ A A A A A A A A A A A A A' A A A A A A
Convalescent / Rest Home S S S S A
Day C~e Facili~ (13 or more - ali ages) S S S S S S S S S S S S S* S S S S A A
Day Care Faciliw (12 or fewer- all ages) A A A A A A A A A A A A A* A A A A A A
Group Residential Facili~ --- Class 1 S S S S S S S S S S S A S
Group Residential Facili~ --- Class II S S S S S S S
Bed & Bre~f~ S S S S S A A A A A A
Hotel or Motel A A A* A A
Resid. ~otel or Inn (weekly/monthly) S' A S A A* A A
~eater (Perf. ms or motion picture) S A A A A
~eater --- dfive-~ S S S
Adult Business (see deffmition) S S
Video~ball ~cade S A S S
Bowling L~es A S A
Pool / Billiard FaciliW A A A A A
Title 21 Appendix: Page 21
Uses allowed -- by zone sv sv sr
, I 2 3 tm Mr CaR MR PO NB Ga SC aC Ca BP ~P m ~nX SMU nC.
Youth or Teen Center (social/recre'l) S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
:Senior Center (social/recreational) ~ S S S S S A A A A A A S S
Community or Neighborhood Center S S S S S S A S S A A S S
Dance Hall or Ivlulti-purpose Hall A" A A S S S
Clubhouse, Frat. Lodge, or similar S S S S S A A A A* S S S
i MEDiC L~OCi :: ....:. i : :: ~ '
svcS,~. ::.:i · .... : : ..
Hospital A A A
[
Medical -- Out-patient Clinic $ A S A A A A A A A
Medical Services (diagnostic. ENT, etc.) S A S A A A A A A A
Medical Laboratory S A A A A S A A A A
Veterinarian & Animal Hospital . A A A A A A
Animal Boarding Kennel S
Social Service Facilities S S A S A A A I S S S A A
Welfare & Charitible Svcs./Fac's. S S A S A A A S S S A A
Detoxification Cntr. & similar facilities S S A A S A
· HEALTH :::::::::::::::::::?::::::::::::::::: : . . .::- . ,J ii::: i : : i .
: .:..:-.:::.'.:':.:'.... .. , , . : .. ::'?.. .:: :: '::.:. [::: '.'
Golf Course S S S S
Gymnasium or similar facility S S S A S A A A A* S S A S
Title 21 Appendix: Page 22
Uses allowed--byzone sv sF sF
1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR PO Nil GB SC BC CD lip IP IG MX SMU HC
.Indoor Athletic/Recreation Facility S S S A S A A A A S S A S S A
Tennis or Swim Club (or similar fac.) S S S S S S S A A S A' S A A A S
Weight Control and Aerobics S S A S A A A A S S A S A A
Tanning Salon, Spa, and similar uses S , S A A A A A S S A A
Park, Playground, Rec. Area &Fac's. S S S S S S S A A A A A A A A A A A
StadiundAthledc Field/Sports Complex S S S S S S . S S A
Rifle and Pistol Range S S
o '
"6: TILER .j~':":::'~:'i:"" . ?. .i..i. ~i?: :: .--'~.-~:':-':. ..:?~..::.:..~ ..... :.i~:i?.~!.. ?:::..: ....... ¢::.iii!:.~i::ii 'i.~::::...!.; :~:~ . · .... ..
:'::-'".QUASI~PUBLIC.':: ".:' : 7'-:.:...: ~'i!- · : ';i : !":i . ~1 ::::
Public Schools (see "PS" zone) S S S
Private Educ. Facilities (see "PS" zone) S S S S S S S A S S S S S S S S
Religious Worship & Related Facilities S S S S S S S S S A A A A S S S S
Library S S S S S A A A A A A A A
Cemetery S S S
Museum -- in designated historic bldg. S S S S S A A A A A A A A A A A A
Museum -- other S S S S A A A A S
Art Gallery (2,000 sq.ff, or smaller) A A A A A A A A ' A A A A A
Art Gallery (larger than 2,000 sq. fl.) S S S A A A A A
GOVERNMENT- i ' -: · :. <-''' i~i~?:'' ~.ii"'~ii::i :.
: , · ~ .!i' ' " .:':-.ii' :5 · ." ::~.?:::'. · :
... :.. UTILITY....:..:SERVICES..... :: .... ... ' :: ! i=-;;:' '::' :';i.:.::': :~."".:'i :' :'.:'?~.'.: )'}~?'i~ I:..i:;::::;!::ii:};::iiii~......... ~..;.:.-,::::~ii :"'~;. :'"~'" ~ ..... .
Title 2I Appendix: Page 23
Uses'allo ved-- by zone sT sv sT
1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR PO NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
-.Law Enfomement & Fire Facilities S S S S S S S A A A A A A A S A
Equipment &/vlaterials Storage Yard S S A
I
Water, Sewer, Stormdrain Facilities A A A A A A A A A A ,. A A A A A A A A A
Sewage Treatment Facilities S
Utility Substation S S S S S S S S S A A A S S A A $ S S
Communication Antenna/Relay Tower S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S $ S
Antenna Tower (non-commercial) S S S S S S S S S A A A S A A A A S
· . . .'.:..: '.:... i. !: !i: ..::~':.:...::.::1 ..
Restaurant/Cafe (2,500 sq.ft, or larger) S A A A A S S A A
Restaurant/Cafe (Under 2,500 sq.ft.) S S S A A A A A S A A A . A A
Fa.st Food Restaur. (no drive-through) ,. S A A A A S A
Fast Food Restaur. (w/drive-through) A A A S S
Food/beverage take-out (no inside S S A A A A A A A A A A A A
seating)
Donut Shop, Baked Goods -- retail ::A ~A A A A A A A A A A A
Delicatessen S S A A A A A A A A A A A
Drinking Place --- with entertainment A A A S
Drinking Place - without entertainment S A A A A
Title 21 Appendix: Page 24
Uses, allowed -- by zone sv sE sv
1 2 3 OR MF CBR MR PO NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC'
..~.:::~i: & ' :' ' .': i ' '~': · -.. :.:ii; ...... ;:i i:31~:. :i!.::.i!!.:i' '. ::. ..:. .i .':!i:i~i.. i:!!i~-::! i' .:.:!::.::... 7: i:.:i ... i::' :..ill ~::i. ii.ii':::::dl-..!;~/~i:.'!i, i .i .' i ' '
.... ' :! :' ' ':":: :' ""i 'i" ..: .: :: ' , .: .:: :' ! · ; ::":. 7 '.' ' : i ::. : ; ':: i -'::: !!':!::':% .:"': ' '": .: :. :":":;i .'.;.?:::!!:' ::'i ..': .:,'':.1 '.
:.9..O R RETAIE :.:-.. .: ............ · ......... -: :.:' ....... - ................. ':-::'.'. .... ":..:- · ...... · ?':'::!',.'::::::::':~ ........
Market - general (7,000 sfor larger) A A A A
Market - convenience (Under 7,000 sO A A A A A A A
Any business w/accessory gasoline sales S A A S S* S S A S
Specialty Food Sales S A A A A S A
Liquor Store A A A A A
Drug Store/Pharmacy S A A A A A A A
Fum. & Appliance Sales & Leasing - A A A A S S
Music systems, Instruments & related A A A A
Pre-recorded Movie/Music sales/rental A A A A A
Book store (newspapers, mags & related) S 'S A A A A A A A
Stationery, Paper Products, Ofc. sup. A A A A A A A A A
Antiques and Second Hand Goods S S A A A A A
Sporting Goods -- sales and services A A A A
Clothing (incl. shoes, hats, uniforms..) A A A A A
Department Store (variety retail) A A A A S
Factory Outlet (accessory to on-site mfg.) A A A A A A A A
JeweLry, Clocks, Watches and related A A A A
Flowers, Gifts and Greeting Cards S S A A A A A A A A
Pipes, Tobacco and related products ~llll~ A A A A
Title 21 Appendix: Page 25
Uses allowed -- byzone sv sF sE
1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR PO NB GB SC Be CD BP IP IG MX SMU ac
Toys, Hobbies, Am and Crafts A A A A A A
Cameras, Photo Supplies and Servic~es A A A A A A A A A
Glasses & Optical Goods and Services A A A A A A A A A A
Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services S S A A A A A A A
Self-service Laundry (laundromat) S S A A A A A
Non-auto Repair (rum., appliances, etc.) A A A A A A A A A
Small Engine Repair 'A A S* S A A
Persona! Apparel Repair/Alterations A A A, A A A A A A A A A
Hair Care and Personal Grooming S S A A A A A A A. A A
Tatooing, Body Piercing and related S A A A A A A
Photographic & Art Studio S S ~ilt ' A A A A A A A A A
Funeral Services S S S A A
Personal/Family Counseling Services A A A A A A A A A A A A
Personal Services --- other than listed S S S A A A A A S S S S
Home Occupations (subj. to guidelines) A A A A A A A : A A A A A A A A A A A A
Banking & Other Financial Services L, A A A A S A A
Title 21 Appendix: Page 26
Uses' allosved -- by zone sv
1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR PO NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
Insurance and Investment Services A A ~ A~ A A A A A A A A A A A
Real Estate, Title, Escrow & sim. svcs. A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Accounting, Tax Prep. and sim. svcs. A A A A A'- A A A A A A A A A
Copying, Mailing, FAX, and sim. svcs. A A ' A ~ A A A A A A A A A ~ A A
Office/Business Assistance Services A A A ~ A A A A A A A A A A
Communicatiorts/Broadcasting Studio S A A A A A A A S
Property. Mgmt./Maint. Svcs. Offices A A A A A A A A A A A A
Property Maint. Svcs. w/supply storage S S S S S A A A S
Consultants (Arch., Plan, Design, etc.) A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Computer assistance, training & repair A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
General Offices (other than listed) A A A S A A A A A A A A S A
Auto, Truck, Trailer and RV Sales A S S* S A
Automotive Services (rcpair,maint. etc.) A S A~'
(See ** footnote at end of table)
Motorcycle & Bicycle Sales & Service A A A A S A
Automobile, Motorcycle, Rental A S A S* A A
Bicycle Rental A A A A A A A A A A A A
Truck, Trailer, RV rental S S* A A
Title 21 Appendix: Page 27
Uses'allowed -- by zone sF sF
1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR PO NB CB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
.Marine Craft Sales and Service A S S S* S A A
Tires, Batteries, & related sales & svcs A A S S* A A
Other Auto & Marine Accessories A .. A A A A A
Gas Station (incl. related services) A A A S* A A S
Automotive/Marine Painting & Detail S S* S A
Car Wash (self-service or automated) A S S S* A A
Non-accessory Parking (see LPO zone) S A A A A* A A A SUP A
Commuter Parking (see LPO zone) S S S S S S
Parking Structure A A 'A A A A A A A A A
Auto Impound Lot S S* S S
Motor Freight Transportation Facility S S* A A
Marine Freight or Passenger Terminal A A S S A
Bus Passenger Terminal S S S S A* S S A S
Bus Maint. and/or Storage facility S S A
· ...:.:. :.....::.:v... . ..::..- ....: :..:. -:. .: ;..:..., .... , : ... . ...t:':'!~ ..... ': /.i.i.':-:..i.' ~ . ].::i~:t:i~:::.:.~.i~. iiii:~ii...:'.:.::' i.::::.:~::~i.':!~:'. :::::7112;:. :::::::::::::::::::::::: i:z:[ii:::~:(:. ::i" . ~ ' :..: 1 .: ...:~: .': i: .'.i, :'. :: '
Construction Services Office A .. A A A A .~ A A A. A
Construction Services with Yard S A
General Hardware Sales and Services S A A A A A
Lumber & other Bldg. Materials sales A A $* S A
Title 21 Appendix: Page :28
Uses allowed -~ by zone sv sF sF
1 2 3 oR MF CBR MR PO NB GB SC BC CD BP IP Ia MX SMU HC
Heating, Plumbing, A/C Equip. & Svcs A A A S* A A A
Electrical Supplies and Services A A A A A A A
Paint, Glass, Int. Decor (carpet, drapes) A A A A A A A
Nursery & Garden Supplies , A A A A* S A S
Greenhouse (primarily retail sales) A A A* S A A
Greenhouse (primarily wholesale) S A
Automotive Manufacturing/Assembly S A
Rec. Vehiele and Trailer Manufacturing S A
Marine Craft & Related Manufacturing S A
Manufactured Homes - Mfg. / Assembly S A
Manufactured Home Sales Lot S S A A
Wood, Lumber and Paper Milling S
Paper Products Manufacturing S A A
Wood Products Mfg. (rum, cabinets...) S A* S A A
Electrical & Electronics Products Mfg. A A* A A A
Wholesaling - Products PermiRed in Zone A A S A A
Warehousing -- General S S A A
Mini-warehousing (small-unit storage) A A S* A A A S
Title 21 Appendix: Page 29
Uses ,allowed -- by zone sF sT sF
1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR PO NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
· Research, Dev. & Testing Svcs. S A A S* A A A
Professional / Scientific lnstm. Mfg.~ A A S* A A A
Printing, Publishing & Related Svcs. A A ,. A A S A A S
Paints & Allied Prod. Mfg. or Processing S S A
Electrical Machinery & Equip. Mfg. S S A A
Apparel and other Textile Prod. Mfg. S S* A A A
Drugs, Chemicals & related Mfg. S S
Soap, Cleaning Products Mfg. S S
Food Products lMfg. ' S S A A
Machinery & Metal Products Mfg. S A A
Machine Shgp - general purpose S S A
Recycling Center S A
!
Recycling Collection Station S S S* S S A
Recycling Collection Sta. (Limited) * S S S ~ A A A A A* A A A A
Jtmk Yard S S
Petroleum bulk Storage & Terminals S A
* Allow only when it meets all design standards.
** These uses are permitted by SUP on properties fronting on Callow Ave. between Burw¢ll and Eleventh Streets.
Title 21 Appendix: Page '29-1
Figure 220
MEASURING STRUCTURE HEIGHT
The height of a building is. the vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the
hil~est point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the average
height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference datum shall be
selected by either of the following, whichever yields the greater height ora building:
1. The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five-
foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or
ground surface is not more than ten (10) feet above the lowest grade.
2. An elevation ten (10) feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or
ground surface described in item 1 above is more than ten (I 0) feet above lowest
grade. The height ora stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any
segment of the building.
Exceptions: Penthouse for elevators, fire walls, chimneys, and flagpoles may exceed the
height limits of the zone. None of these exceptions to the height regulations shall be used
for advertising of any kind.
CASE
Title 21 Appendix: Page 30
CEIVEO Clff C6 i :CIL OFFIC["
CITY OF BREMERTON · 239 4th Street, Brem~rton,~8]~'
Notice of City Council Hearing
An application has been received from Peter Powell, PO Box 97070, Kirldand, WA 98083
(PL99-0076) for a rezone of the SW Comer of Sylvan Way and Wheaton Way from "SF-3"
to "PO". A technical site plan review is being processed in conjunction with this
application. A DNS has been issued for r. his projeca The application w/Il be heard at the
public hearing listed below:
Public Hearing: Brvmerton City Council
April 12, 2000 at 5'_30 PM
The above public hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers o£the Bremerron Ci~
Hall, 239 4'~ Street, Bremerton WA.
_-x21 interested persons may appear and provide resnrV, ony on the matter at the public heanng.
The City Council office will receive written comments and other eaehibi~s err the aboveitem
tlp 5fl~M,the day of the hearing. Staff reports and copies of pertinent materials can be
obtained from the Depa~ianent of Community Deve!ovment. Please contact Tricia Bennon
at (360) 478-5275 for additional information.
Equal Opportunity Employer
October 21, 1999
TO: Bremerton Planning Commission and
Bremerton City Council
RE: Proposed Harkins Place Rezone from R-1 to Business or Commercial
We, the residents of Olympic Manor area, continue to strongly object to any commercial
development of the Olympic Manor area, and in particular the Harkins Place Properties.
This is the fourth time the residents of Olympic Manor have had to voice their objection
to this issue. In 1979, 1981 and again in 1986 it was brought before the Bremerton
Planning Commission and the Bremerton City Council, and each time the application
was denied.
The residents of Olympic Manor base their objections on the following major factors:
First, we have specific covenants in our deeds restricting these properties to
· ,#~glefarnily residences with no access or egress to Highway 303
(Wheaton Way).
Second, The traffic load on the Wheaton Way-Sylvan Way intersection is
tremendous. It has only become reasonably safe, although slow, since recent
channelization and ~ntrol improvements. To add further traffig~ this area,
particularly vehicles entering or leaving directly into the flow, would be
regressive. Sylvan Way presently provides what must be considered the main
flow of safe or controlled exits and entrances to the Wheaton Way Mall
complex and it already has 5 driveways on the Northside in a distance of only
320 feet from Wheaton Way. One of these, to a bank parking lot, is a bare
25 feet from the Wheaton Way intersection.
Third, traffic impact on surrounding areas must be considered. Traffic flow
into this complex would have to come eastbound on Sylvan Way. The
physical aspects of the area means that a great deal of traffic would have to
approach on the surrounding streets, Solie Avenue in particular, since it is
parallel to Wheaton Way and affords the only real fight mm access. This
street also carries exceedingly heavy traffic generated by the Wheaton
Mall and people seeking to avoid the heavy flow on Wheaton Way. This is
also true of the Robin Avenue connection with Sheridan Road.
It must also be considered that the Wheaton Mall is the center for the East-
side Transfer Station for Kitsap Transit. Hourly, or more often, 4-6 buses
enter and exit the area. It should be understood that when all buses leave the
Wheaton Mall on Sylvan Way at one time, no one is going to enter or leave
Harkins Place. Any of the aforementioned vehicles will then be blocking
-2-
traffic, probably in both directions, including off of Wheaton Way.
Fourth, we see no real need for more business property in this particular
vicinity considering the growth of new properties and zone business
developments to the immediate North, and many are still vacant.
Fifth, there is a tremendous need for single family housing which is of
reasonable quality and price, yet close to public transportation, and needed
businesses and schools. We submit that these residences offer all these needs
very well and should not be sacrificed for commercial businesses.
Sixth, Olympic Manor is an excellent example of a long time, well planned
and carefully maintained community of houses as well as one of the few which
has not been seriously encroached upon by convenience commercial
development. Many of us have lived here over 45 years and some longer;
therefore, we deeply resent having to constantly renew this battle to preserve
our area every time the legal restrictions allow a new attack to be made.
We ask that this request be denied and everything possible be done to reduce this
constant attack on the quality of our community and life.
Respectfully submitted,
Avenue
/
Arvi O. Mantyla
· 3237 Solie Avenue
CITY OF BREMERTON
Department of Economic and Community Development
286 Fourth Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Description of Proposal: Construction of a new Walgreens Pharmacy
Proponent: Peter Powell
Project Number: PL99-0078
Location of Proposal: Southwest corner of Whec~tcn W~,y and Sylvan Way
Lead A.qency: City of Bremerton Department of Economic & Community Development
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(ELS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-355(4)(a) & iSi with copies sent to appropriate
state departments, agencies with jurisdiction, thcse who commented, and anyone
requesting a copy.
Responsible Official: Jon Holan
'Position/Title: Planning Manager
Phone: (360) 478-5243
Address: 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton WA 98337
You may appeal this determination to: ~emerton City Council No laterthan: November 16, 1999.
Be prepared to make specific factual objections.
Contact: James Coombes for procedures regarding SEPA appeal. (360) 478-5845
WAC
197-11-970 DNS
10/29/99 C~ of Bremerton
We, the undersigned residents of Olympic Manor, wish to voice the strongest, continuing
objection to any Business or Commercial development of the Olympic Manor area, and
in particular the Harkins Place properties.
NAME ~DRESS DATE
/ ~4~~ ,/i -/
4.-.x":, ~ '~.-.-: ,:'~ ~.:-*~-' ,. .~- , -'--- - ' -~ /
t .
," ' ~.~_.~_..~ /./~ x~- ~ :: ~ ~_._2 ~__t_ ~ o , ~'/
~. ,~ r '
/ /
,.% ... ~ ,
...,-:',~..-~ .- .(j :'/ . , ,.
. ,' ::_z~ , ~\ .- ! ' : ~fi? .,~ ~ .'
c:: .."/ ',,,; -, s ;---' I.
- -' -t ~,,.",'~.~d>~.,~ ~ °,'
'lq "~ -!' -' / / ' '-o. '"' / / -
i~ i'::/f:¥w,~' ,~, ,.
' '
.... ~,,.:~..s. ,,~. :r,,:.~ ,...,..
,."~z,,,~/~, ~> ~>?~ o.~.: ~ 6.,;,,"~ ./~/~/q
- ~' ....... ~ .....'- "' ' '" I- 7" /
~ge / ,of__~__Pages
We, the undersigned residents of Olympic Manor, wish to voice the strongest, continuing
objection to any Bnsine~ or Commercial development of the Olympic Manor area, and
in particular the Hark/ns Place properties.
We, the undersig~ted residems of Olympic Manor~wish to voice the strongest, continuing
objection to any Business or Commercial development of the Olympic Manor area, and
in particular the Harkins Place properties.
/I-7 f~l~ ~ K ' ~, , ~ '" / ....
.
Page....~ of & P~es
We, the undersigned residents of Olympic Manor, wish to voice the strongest, continuing
objection to any Business or Commercial development of the Olympic Manor area, and
in particular the Harkins Place properties.
NAME ,&D.D.,EF.,S2 DATE
' / -7- ' ' ' I - ' ~ .~,.~
Page 2-¢ of/: Pages
We, the undersigned residents of Olympic Manor, wish to voice the strongest, continuing
objection to any Business or Commercial development of the Olympic Manor area, and
in particular the Harkins Place properties.
Page .~ of___~Pages
We, the undersigned residents of Olympic Manor, wish to voice the strongest, continuing
objection to any Business or Commercial development of the Olympic Manor area, and
in particular the Hark/ns Place properties.
Page (x~ of ~ Pages
We, the undersigned residents of Olympic Manor, wish to voice the strongest, continuing
objection to a~y Business or Commercial development of the Olympic Manor area, and
in particular the Hark/ns Place properties.
We, the undersigned residents of Olympic Manor, wish to voice the strongest, continuing
objection to any Business or Commercial development of the O~ympic Manor area, and
in particular the Harkins Place properties.
We, the undersigned residents of Olympic Manor, wish to voice the strongest, continuing
objection to any Business or Commercial development of the Olympic Manor area, and
in particular the Harkins Place properties.
NAME ~ DATE
' Page~'~ of.~ Pages
We, the undersigned residents of Olympic Manor. wish to voice the strongest: continuing
objection to any Business or Commercial development of the Olympic Manor area, and
in particular the Harkins Place properties.
~ ~ DA'YE
· '~, ',~ ~
Page ~ges
345571
~o~,~, AS '~0 ~U~,~,O
BE ~T R~-~dBERED, that DANTEL 80LT~ and V. O. RARKTNg, Vice-
Yrenidnet and Secretary of the Olympia Building and Supply
Corporation, a corporation, do her. shy, on behalf of the said
corporation, and on behalf of subsequent purchasers o~ the
property hereinbelow described, and their &asigns and euccessoms
in interest, certify and agree to the following restrictions
upon the hereinafter described real property, tho same to bo
incorporated in and considered a par~c of every contract and
sale and deed to any part or portion of the £ollowing described
real propel'tM, to-wit:
The Southeast .Ouarter of th~. Soutl~east .lustier
of Section 2, Tov~ahip 24 North, R~Ce 1 East,
',';. M., l~itaap Co.tiM, Washington,
of which t~ac~ Ol~p~c t~or ~ubd~vlsion to the city of
Eitaap County, Washin~2on, is a part, which ~lvision has been
platted and filed in the office of ~he County Audi~o~. ~itsap
:~ash~af.~on, or to be filed therein; it bein~ ~derstood a~d agreed
tha~ any ~rther pl~ o~ su~ivision of the above described
property shall also be subject to the Follow~n~ restrist[ona, and
tha~ the p~otective covenants shall ~ with the l~d ~ aho~o
loath in ac~oPdanee with the 2eras ~d pPovisiona, as follows:
1. 'f~n~ coven~ta a~o to ~ with the land above dmac~-ibod, and
shall be bindinc on ~1l nar~iea and all persona clal~Inm u~der
until ~am~ary 1, lg~7, aT. which time said covenants shu~l
autocratically ex~ond~d fo~ successive ps.leds of ten (10)
~nl~ss by vote of a majority of the th.n o~ora cO tho lot~
~,:r~,~ to chnn~ uufd coven~a in whol~ oP
2. If th~ parties hnreto, ox' any of them, or their heirs o~'
~hall violate, o~. atte~,~pt to viol. abe any of the covenants
it shall bo lnwful fo? any o~her person o;- yom. sons owning any real
ur,;: p~'oco~:dtn~$ ut ]~w or in oq,~!ty aEulnnt tho Demon or f~e.~ons
violah%n.- om atte'~l,~.l~,~; to violate ~n'/ suc]~ covenant nnd ~.~,ar to
f,~-ove,~t ~i,., or them. from doin[: ac. o~. tn I'ncover d~age8, or other
3. Invaltdat. lon of any one of thn~o covenants by Jud~ent o~' court
oP'er ~hall tn nowise affect any o~ tl~o other provisions which s}~l!
re,aais in ~i1 force and e~feot.
4, Ail lots in the ~uact shall be ~o~ and deaoui~d aa ~eaidential
loh~,
-: to remain O~ any residential ~lld~g plot o~her t~n ~e detached
~ eingle-famll2 dwellin~ mot to exceed ~wc and ona-l~lf ato~iea
,~ height and a p~iva~e garage fo~ not mo~o t~n two oa~e.
I 6. No ~ilding ~hall be e?ooted, placed, or altered on ~y bulldog
~e not leas t~ 6~ g~ feet ~ t~ ease o~ a ~8to~
ot~oture, no~ leos t~n 5~ Iq~ feet ~ the ease of a one
~d oneself, two, o~_t~ and omo-~lf otor2
12. ' ~. easement is reae~ed ove~ the ~ea~ 5 feet o~ each 1~ for
u~ili~7 i~a~allabion an~ ~e~oe.
1~. T~b an7 ~welling or a~o~ure ereobed o~ placed ~ any lo~
in ~bis au~ivision shall ~e completed as ~o exbernal appearance
~nclud~nc finished paint~n~ within 6 months f~om da~e of co~encemen~
of conat~ction and al~ll be come.ted to septic tank o~ ~blic
14. ~o ~ersons of an~' r~oe othe~ th~ ~h. ':.~e o~ Cauo~sian race
s~ll use o~ occupy ~2 ~lld~g or ~y lot, excep~ that this
covenant shall not prevent ooeup~cy by d~est~c secants of a
d~ffe~ont rase domiciled wl~h ~ ~e~ o~ tenet.
15. T~2 as to ~ta alo~ Bro~svllle Itishway no bu~ldinf~ nor ~y
driveway no~. ~y o~he~ st~cture almll be ~laced or ~intained
b~tveen the east bo~da~' of aa~d lo~s along Brom~av[!lo
and ~ 1~ l"~u~ pa~'~l;ol ~ho~.oto ~u,,'. a dl~.,,~'~ o~ 10 ~'oet
~.' .i.-.'.~' '" DAT~ ~t l;ro~ol't,o~,, ';;asa,Inchon, tht. 6th day o~
FTATE 01" W.%~HINCTOF )
alV,e,rod r.A~:iZL ~OLTE ~d V. O, ~AT~I~:~, to me ~c~ to be
~ Vlce-Preniden~ and Secrotax, y of ~he co~o:,a~ion tl~ executed
?~ ..... tho fol.oEoins ir. nt~ent. ~d aeknowledo~d sat~ innt~mcnt ~o %e
~ ~:' '~',~'~"~:*~ee and vol~ta:'y ac~ and deed cf said corpo~ati~, fo~ the
~' ., .:..~?,:'~
· ;~son ~Heroin mentioned, and on otth st~ t~t,J' "}" they were
~j] 'j. a~.[~~ to execute ~aid ~ot~en~ ~ ~mt the seal affixed ~' JFA~t~o~orate seal of said ooF~o~atl~.
:~_. ,~j~] · ~lv~ ~e~ m7 ~d,~ seal t~ da~ md ~ea~ last
I
"' '|' ~" I'-"' ::"1' :.'1 I'. '/:' L 'I ..... '..',.'..t:...:.';~'1. :'. ,,~r~r~,,~,~--~:: · .....~.: :... I~1
ii.il.iiii -,, , ,
EAST ELEVATION
II kl i~ ...........
i ~ L'::. "; ';::.".';I.';:: ':; ~:;~L_-JJ"_'~ ;'1.';:(:1'?;:1 ';; :.; :1".i",..'i'1.::';; ;1:'.~.:'.:..1..': .': .II
~1 ~ I I ~ ~:.. ;.': :'1:;'.' .'. ~?;'~:f~:~..~"',".l-'".':t";'. f.l' :',':::l."f-';'...I....-....I 'f/:'tl :'.'.t f. f.'l.
I I~f-4 Ixl'-"L'-'.'..;'-f.'.'.:.' .'.:;'' -:'.~.".'1-."...'.'1.;;':".' :.".'".'1.:.".":1:;-."-.'1:.'."-. 1:;'.-.: '.'4~.: .:'..h~ '..1'-."-. 1:.";'
'~iil iiiii
NO~TH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
3~.l-W.. '~...'..'.[:.~,...'.r. -<.:'. :.,:/.: · '../.'~.': '-'/.. "-?.-.'~:1:!~--. I.'..'.~:.: .:.'..:.: '. :-.I.:,-,-.1:..'.:.'.1:.-,.. '..:,,'.
' ,~,~ i ]~"';'"' "; '" :'""' "'"""'"" :'m'':''''':': ~,' :'~'::: ;~:"?' "'":'"' i ..... ~,1'"'"'""':"'"";"i'"""';'- .... ....
~t~llTl-I I~'1 G'V&TIt"IIq ....
SWC Wheaton Way & Sylvan Way Bremerton, Washington
WALGREENS - "-
EXTERIOR
' ELEVATIONS
DONAHOU DESIGN GSOUP~.~.e.
I~ UASONRY
FAST RETAININO WALL / SCREEN WALL -- WEST WOOD FENCF
WHEATON WAY ~_ ~ SOLIE AVENUE
EAST
SYLVAN
SOUIH /~ UASONRY NORTH WAY
J3RD ~TREET 6' WOOD FENCE- ~ ~ RETAINING WALL / SCREEN WALL It1 ~
9rO93ra,~~e, SU~203 SYLVAN WAY AND WHEATON WAY April 2000
~ wA~.~.~mz BREMERTON. WASHINGTON
(206) $22-9510 FAX: (20~) 522.8344
SYLVAN WAY " ~L~Z~
PROPOSED
RET~ W~ / ~
: ~ ~ ~ ~ Paci~c ~nd Design
9~ 3~A~ N[ SU~ 203
, ~ WA ~115-2~7
~, :: (2~) ~2-~10 F~: ~) ~2~3~
'::
To: City Council C5/~
From: Glenna Malanca, City Att
Dat~: 04/12/00
Re: Agenda Items Re: SW Comer of Wheaton and Sylvan Ways
The City's Comprehensive Plan has designated the subject property C-P,
General and Professional Offices. Current zoning is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The requested reclassification to Professional Office
(PO) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. City Council Resolution No.
2749 is in accordance with the Planning Commission's unqualified
~ndation to administratively implement the legislative decision in the
C~ensive Plan. Passing this Resolution would likely serve to reduce
~ regarding the impact of the rezone.
Re Planning Commission has made no recommendation regarding the
project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. On this issue, at Page
65 of ~e Council packet, the question of consistency is clarified by the
~nce to BMC Title 21, Figure 090. Again PO, HC (Health Care) and
SMU are consistent Pdmery Zones as,they relate to the Comprehensive Plan
designations. The attached Figure 120 summaC, zes each zone.
Highlighted is the summary of the PO Zone. The Planning Commission
could not come to an opinion on the consistency of the proposed project with
the Comprehensive Plan, specifically, the PO Zone. The approval of the Site
Plan was recommended by the Planning Commission if the Council found
consistency of this particular project with the Comprehensive Plan.
The City Council has the option to approve, approve with conditions, reject or
remand the Planning Commission's recommendation on the rezone and the
conditional recommendation as to the Site Plan Review. BMC 21.02.850. The
Council's action (s) should take place after the public hearing. The same
options are available as to the consistency issue. As to the consistency issue,
this office recommends the option to remand the consistency determination
to the planning Commission for consideration under Figures 090 and 120 of
the Zoning Code, as well as applicable law, facts and input.
ZONES Description/Intent Min. Standards (See Table Z-4)
MF 'Ii, is zone is designed to maintain existing areas of Base Density: 8-18 DU/ac.
multiple-unit dwellings and to provide for new Min. Lot Size: 3,000 s.f.
Residential development of needed housing within the medium- Max. Coverage: 40%
Medium density density (g-lg DU/Acre) level. Such development may Min. Lot Width: 30
include small-lot single-unit clustered housing, garden Max. Bldg. Hr: 40 fl.
and larger apartment complexes, condominiums, and
other housing alternatives, along with their customary SETBACKS:
related or accessory uses. Front: 10 ft. (20 to garage)
Side: 5 ft.
Rear:. 20 ft.
CBR The "Central Bremerton Residential" zohe is designed Base Density: 8-18 DU/ac.
to maintain and improve the character found primarily Min. Lot Size: 3,000 s.f.
Residential in the older central areas of Bremerton, It allows the Max. Coverage: 50% Resid.
Medium density integration of small multi-unit slxuctures with an 80% Non-reaid.
assortment of Customary accessory and compatible Min. Lot Width: 30 ft.
uses. [t recognizes the historic development patterns. Max. Bldg. Ht: 30 ft.
characterized by small lots, narrow streets, minimal
setbacks, accessory dwellings, and often deficient off- SETBACKS:
street parking. It encourages residential in-fill and Front: 10 IL (20 to garage)
promotes general overall neighborhood improvement. Side: 5 tL
Rear: ! 5 ft.
MR Th,, zone provides areas that are most suitable for the Base Density: 8-44 DU/ac.
highest density multiple-unit development allowed Min. Lot Size: 5,000 s.f.
Residential anywhere in Bremerton and at the greatest allowed Max. Coverage: 50% Resid.
High density building heights. It is intended for use in high 80% Non-resid.
intensity areas, areas with exceptional views or other Min. Lot Width: 40 ft.
amenities, and along or near arterial streets. To take Max. Bldg. Hr: 120 ft.
advantage of locational advantages, this zone allows
some mix of compatible non-residential uses. Mixed SETBACKS;
use developments are encouraged. Front: 10 ft. (20 to garage)
Side: 5 ft.
~' Rear: 10 ft.
PO The PO zone provides areas for low-intensity small- Min. Lot Size: None
scale oft'me uses. Limitations on the size and height Max. Coverage: 45%
Professional of office structures will help ensure compatibility with Min. Lot Width: None
Office adjacent residential neighborhoods. This zone is Max. Bldg. Ht: 30 ft.
intended, in part, as a buffer zone that can be placed
between neighborhoods and more intense commercial
uses, industrial uses, arterial streets, or other SETB.$CKS:
incompatible land uses. It may be used along arterial Front: Same as abutting zone.
streets to take advantage of mixed or limited lot sizes, Side: None from non-res, zones.
or as a softer alternative to strip commercial 10 ft. (from R zones only)
development. This zone is particularly suitable for Rear: 20 ft.
inclusion in a mixed use PUD development.
Title 21 Appendix: Page 10
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
239 4th Street · Bremerton, Washington 98337 · (360) 478-5345 · FAX (360) 478-5161 · E-mail: legal@ci.bremerton.wa.us
MEMORANDUM
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
To: City Council
From: Knute Rife
Re: Walgreen's application
Date: 4 April 2000
The Council has before it a two-part application to develop a Walgreen's on the southwest
corner of Sylvan and Wheaton: 1) to rezone the parcel Professional Office (PO), and 2) to
approve the site plan for the development. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the parcel is
General & Professional Offices (C-P). It is zoned residential.
The present zoning on the property is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The C-P
designation allows the following zones: PO, Health Care, and Shoreline Mixed Use. Under
GMA, the City's development regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
RCW 36.70A.040 and 130. The Zoning Ordinance is a development regulation. RCW
36.70A.030. The several cases holding that zoning may be inconsistent with a comprehensive
plan concerned zoning ordinances that predated adoption of a GMA comprehensive plan. The
City does not fall within that category, having readopted its zoning after adopting the current
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the GMA. Zoning must therefore comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. The present zoning does not. The proposed zoning does.
BMC 21.02.920(d) sets out the criteria for a rezone. A copy of the ordinance is attached.
Criterion 1 is satisfied as set out above. Criteria 2 and 3 are satisfied by the need to correct illegal
zoning. Criterion 4 is satisfied according to the staff report. Criterion 5 is satisfied as the area is
in fact a transition zone between commercial and residential, which is where a PO zone is
supposed to be. The application would then appear to comply with the rezone criteria.
I would make the following notes here:
1. This Memorandum only concerns corrections of nonconforming zoning. It does
not address rezoning from one permitted zone to another, which would
presumably afford the City greater discretion.
2. This Memorandum does not concern correcting nonconforming zoning to a zone
other than the one proposed, which would not appear to apply here as set out
below.
3. When working with a GMA comprehensive plan, satisfaction of Criterion 1 almost
assures satisfaction of Criterion 5 because of the background work that went into
Page 1 of 2
Equal Opportunity Employer
the comprehensive plan. It almost assures, but not quite. For example, an
application to rezone the present parcel to Shoreline Mixed Use would be
inappropriate because the parcel is not shoreline. An application to rezone to
Health Care would similarly be suspect because the parcel is blocks away from any
other health care facility, including Henderson.
The remaining issue before the Council is the adequacy of the site plan, which reduces to
one issue: compliance with zoning. Applicants allege that the development is a drug
store/pharmacy, which is permitted outright in the PO zone. The issue to be resolved is whether
the development is in fact the sort of drug store/pharmacy that is in the code.
The proposal is a 15,000 sf, stand-alone retail building. The intended occupant is
Walgreen's, which will offer a range of retail services focusing on pharmaceuticals. It would
replace eight, single family residences and be bordered on the west and south by remaining single
family residences. Properties across the streets to the north and east are commercial.
The Council must resolve whether this use fits in the PO zone. To do so, the Council
must look to the language of the Zoning Ordinance. Attached are pertinent parts of Figures 080,
090, 130, and 140 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council must review the following:
1. Figure 080: The zones in each category are generally listed from least intensive to
most intensive. PO is the least intensive zone in the "Commercial" category.
2. Figure 090, Page 10: The purpose of the PO zone is to provide areas for low-
intensity small-scale office uses. It is to provide a buffer between residential and
higher-intensity commercial areas.
3. Figure 130, Page 19: Building height and lot coverage limits are no more than half
those allowed in the more intensive commercial zones.
4. Figure 140, pages 24-25: The PO zone generally forbids high traffic retail uses
found in the more intensive zones. The commercial uses allowed are generally of
the "store front services" type: small cafes, food stands, florists, tobacconists,
optometrists, bicycle rentals (as opposed to sporting goods stores, which are not
allowed).
The PO zone appears to be designed along a Main Street USA model. The Council must
decide whether the proposed development fits. The Council should also determine if the proposal
adequately addresses other issues raised, notably vehicle and pedestrian traffic. If the proposal
meets the site plan criteria set out in BMC 21.02.930 (attached), the Council should approve it. If
not, the Council should deny it.
Page 2 of 2
ordinance, following a public h~ring, provided process to gradually bring zoning into consistency
the new zone is consistent with the City's with the 20-year Comprehensive Plan when
Comprehensive Plan and adopted approval appropriate.
criteria. Approval of a Rezone results in a It will place or remove an
change to the Official Zoning Map. overlay zoning designation without affecting the
Co) Applicant: The following may underlying zoning.
initiate a Rezone: (3) Is there a public ri,ed for the
(I) Private party: The owners, proposed Rezone that will clearly benefit the local
or their designated agents, representing at least neighborhood and/or the community of
.seventy-five percent (75%) of the asses,~ Bremerton?
valuation oftheareaproposedforrezoning. (4) Are all essential public
(2) City: The Bremerton facilities and services available and adequate, or
Planning Commission or City Council may can be made available, to serve the types and
initiate a Rezone upon passage of a resolution of levels of development permitted in the requested
intent, zone?
(c) Procedure: (5) Will the area being proposed
(1) A single-parcel or small for rezoning become part of a larger zoning
area rezone is a quasi-judicial action that is district or form a new district which will not be
processed in accordance with the procedures considered an isolated "spot zone"?
outlined in section 21.02.880 and the notice (Ord. 4567, Amended, 9/19/96)
requirements of section 21.02.905.
(2) The Staff Report shall 21.02.925 DEVELOPMENT
include a recommendation for action. REGLrLATION
(3) The Planning Commission AMENDMENT.
shall review the proposal and initial staff (a) Authorit3,: The City Council may
recommendation at a public meeting and forward approve by passage of an ordinance, a change to
its own recommendation for City Council action, the text of any City of Bremerton development
(4) The City Council shall make regulation, including the Zoning Ordinance, large
the decision following an open record public area amendments to the Zoning Map, Shoreline
hearing, and after considering the Master Program, Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, all others. These are Type IV legislative decisions
oral and written testimony, and comments from and exempt from the processing, timing, and
the public, other agencies and City departments, other requirements for quasi-judicial permits.
.ARezone Co) Applleant: The City Council,
may be approved if all of the following can be Planning Commission, Mayor, City department,
answered "YES": agency, or other interested party may initiate an
(i) Is the proposed Rezone amendment to a development regulation:
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? (See (¢) Procedure: The Planning
Section 21.02.245 "PlanJZoning Consistency" of Commission will conduct an open record public
this code.) hearing for all amendments that are proposed to
(2) Is the Rezone justified for land use, environmental, or other related
one or more of the following reasons? regulations and shall make a recommendation to
It is in the public interest to the City Council. The City Council, following
approve the Rezone to accommodate needed its own open record public hearing, my approve,
changes witlfin the immediate vicinity or approve with modifications, deny, or remand the
neighborhood, proposal for additional study.
It will correct a zone (d) Criteria for Approval: The City
classification or boundary that was inappropriate Council my approve an amendment if the
when established, following questions can be answered "YES":
It is a planned step in a phasing (1) Is the proposed change
21-68
Figure 080
ZONES
The following table lists the zones that are iancluded in this Zoning Code, by major
category of Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Special Purpose:
RESIDENTIAL: SF-1 Res. Low-density (1-3 DU/Acre - Single-uni0
SF-2 Res. Low-density (!-8 DU/Acre - Single-uni0
SF-3 Res. Low-density (34 DU/Acre - Sin~le-uni0
DR Res. Low-density (3-8 DU/Acre - 1- & 2-unit)
M'F Res. Medium-density (8-18 DU/Acm - Multi-unit)
CBR Res. Medium-density (a-I 8 DU/Acre -- Multi-unit/mixed)
MR Res. High, density "(8-44 DU/Acm -- Multi-unit/mixed)
COMMERCIAL: PO Professional Office
NB Neighborhood. Business
GB General Business
SC Shopping Center
BC Business Core
CD Charleston District
INDUSTRIAL: BP Business Park
IP Industrial Park
IG Industrial General
SPECIAL MX Mixed Use
PURPOSE: SMU Shoreline Mixed Use
HC Health Care
PS Parks & Schools
FM Forest Management
WS Water Supply
URD Urban Renewal District
DRO Design Review Overlay
LPO Limited Parking Overlay
Title 21 Appendix: Page 6
Figure 090
PRIMARY ZONE CONSISTENCY
For purposes of initial zoning and consideration or' rezone requests, these primary zones
are considered to be consistent with their related Comprehensive Plan designations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRIMARY ZONES
LDR: Low-density Residential " SF-I: Res. Low-density (single-unit)
3 to 8 DU/Acre SF-2: Res. Low-density (single-unit)
SF-3: Res. Low-density (single-unit)
DR: Res. Low-density (1- & 2-unit)
LPO: Limited Parking Overlay
PS: Parks & Schools
MI)R: Medium-density Residential 1VIF: Res. Med.-density (multi-unit)
8 to 18 DU/Acre CBR: Res. Med.-density (multi-unit/mixed)
SMII: Shoreline Mixed Use
LPO: Limited Parking Overlay
PS: Parks & Schools
HDR: High-density Residential MR: Res. High-density (multi-unit/mixed)
More than 18 DU/Acre SMU: Shoreline Mixed Use
LPO: Limited Parking Overlay
PS: Parks & Schools
C-G: General & Highway GB: General Business -
Commercial SC: Shopping Center
HC: Health Care
SMU: Shoreline Mixed Use
CBD: Central Business District BC: Business Core
GB: General Business
PO: Professional Office
MF: Res. Med.-density (multi-unit/mixed)
MR: Res. High-density (multi-unit/mixed)
URD: Urban Renewal District
DRO: Design Review Overlay
CD: Charleston District CD: Charleston District
IP: Industrial Park
BP: Business Park
PO: Professional Office
Title 21 Appendix: Page 7
ZONES Description/Intent Min. Standards (See Table Z-4)
MF This zone is designed to maintain existing areas of Base Density: 8-18 DU/ac.
multiple-unit dwellings and to provide for new Min. Lot Size: 3,000 s.f.
Residential development of needed housing within the medium- Max. Coverage: 40%
Medium density density (8-18 DU/Acre) level. Such development may Min. Lot Width: 30
include small-lot single-unit clustered hOusing, garden Max. Bldg. Hr: 40 ft.
and larger apartment complexes, condominiums, and
other housing alternatives, along with their customary
related or accessory uses. Front: 10 ft. (20 to garage)
Side: 5 ft.
Rear: 20 ff.
CBR The "Central Bremenon' Residential" zohe is designed Base Density: 8-18 DU/ac.
to'maintain and improve the character found primarily Min. Lot Size: 3,000 s.f.
Residential in the older central areas of Bremerton. It allows the Max. Coverage: 50% Resid.
Medium density integration of small multi-unit structures with an 80% Non-resid.
. assortment of customary accessory and compatible Min. Lot Width: 30 ft.
uses. It recogniZes the historic development patterns Max. Bldg. Ht: 30 ft.
:~ characterized by small lots, narrow streets, minimal
setbacks, accessory dwellings, and often def'mient off- SETBACKS:
street parking. It encourages residential in-fill and Front: ! 0 ft. (20 to garage)
promotes general overall neighborhood improvement. Side: :5 ft.
Rear: !$ ft.
MR This zone provides areas that are most sUitable for the Base Density: 8-44 DU/ac.
highest density multiple-unit development allowed Min. Lot Size: :5,000 s.f.
Residential anywhere in Bremerton and at the greatest allowed Max. Coverage: 50% Resid.
High density building heights. It is intended for use in high 80% Non-resid.
intensity areas, areas with exceptional views or other Min. Lot Width: 40 ft.
amenities, and along or near arterial streets. To take Max. Bldg. Ht: 120 ft.
advantage of locational advantages, this zone allows
some mix of compatible non-residential uses. Mixed SETBACKS;
use developments are encouraged. Front: 10 ft. (20 to garage)
Side: 5 ff.
" Rear: 10 ft.
The PO zone provides areas for low-intensity small- Min. Lot Size: None
scale office uses. Limitations on the size and height Max. Coverage: 45%
l! of office structures will help ensure compatibility with Min. Lot Width: None
adjacent residential neighborhoods. This zone is Max. Bldg. Ht: 30 ff.
intended, in part, as a buffer zone that can be placed
between neighborhoods and more intense commercial -
uses, industrial uses, arterial streets, or other SETBACKS:
incompatible land uses. It may be used along arterial Front: Same as abutting zone.
streets to take advantage of mixed or limited lot sizes, Side: None from non-res, zones.
or as a softer alternative to strip commercial 10 ft. (from R zones only)
development. This zone is particularly suitable for Rear: 20
inclusion in a mixed use PUD development.
Title 21 Appendix: Page 10
ZONES ] DesCription/Intent [ Min. Standards (See Table Z-4)
~.. The intent ofthis zone is to protect and strengthen the Min. Lot Size: None
medical center to ensure that it remains strong nnd Max. Coverage: 60%
viable and to provide for medical center expansion. Min. Lot Width: None
This zone was based on the following objectives: Max. Bldg. Ht: 60
~- Establish a Health Care campus of related and
compatible uses. Setbacks:
~. Preferred uses will be medical, along with their Front: ! 0 ft.
related support activities. Side: 10 ft. from "R' zone
~- Provide areas for new growth and expansion. None from non-R zones
~- Improve internal access and circulation. Rear: 10 ft. from "R' zone
· ,- Minimize land use conflicts. None from non-R zones
~ The purpose of this zone is to establish a mixed use Base density: None
district that responds to the constraints and special
~ opportunities ofhigli blUffareas and to the following Min. Lot Size: None
~~i!i primary objectives: Max. Coverage: $0%
~- Maximize the potential of.bluff-top areas. Min. Lot Width: None
~- Promote a mix of water-oriented commercial, Max. Bldg. Ht: 40 ft.
office and residential uses.
~. Ensure that new development-is designed and sited
to take advantage of high bluffviews while enhancing Front: 10
the unique qualities of tho shoreline location.
Bluff-top: 25 ft.
~ Discourage development that endnngers the
stability or function of the bluff. Side: 5 ft.
~- Provide for public access as required by the City's Rear: 10 ft.
Shoreline Master Program.
· Unless a geo-technicai report
supports a lesser setback.
~* Side yards are also subject to
view corridor requirements.
Title 21 Appendix: Page 13
Figure 130
LOT RI*.QUIREMENTS
ALLOWED MIN. MIN.
ZONES RESID. I FRONT SIDE REAR LOT LOT MAX. MAX.
I DENSITY Setback Setback Setback SIZE WIDTH HEIGHT COVERAGE
SF-I 1-3 DU/Ac. 20ft. 10fl. 15fL 13,000 s.f. 60ft. 30 ft.. 25%
SF2 1-8 DU/Ac. 20 ft. 10 ft. 15 fl. 9,000 s.f. 50 ft. 30 ft. 30 %
SF-3 3-8 DU/Ac. 15 ft. 2 5 fl. 15 ft. 5,000 s.f. 40 ft. 30 ft. 40 %
DR 3-8 DU/Ac. 15 ft. 2 5 ft. 15 ft. 4,000 s.f. 40 fL 30 ft. 40 %
MF 8-18 DU/Ac. 10fL2 5fL 20ft. 3,000 s.f. 30ft. 40ft. 50%
CDR 8-18 DU/Ac. 10 ft. 2 5 fL 15 ft. 3,000 s.f. 30 ft. 30 ft. 50 %
IVlR 8-44 DU/Ac. I0 fL 2 5 ft. 3 10 ~L 5,000 s.f. 40 fL 120 fi. 60 %
~ ---~ l0 fi- ,., .s 20 fL ' ----- 30 fL 45 %
NB 7 ....... 10 ft. ,. ~ 20 Pc ...... 30 fi. 50 %
GB 20 fl. --- s ~ -= s .......... 60 ft. 100 %
SC 6 ......... 4 ~4 · =-4 ~6 -~6 .... 6
BC .......... S ~ ........ 120 ft. 100%
CD ......... ~ -~-s ---~ ..... 60ft. 100%
BP ...... 20 fl. ----- 5 ....... S ..... 30 ft. 50 %
IP ....... 20 ft. m_. ~ .... ~ .......... 40 fL 50 %
IG 20 ft. - ...... s --~ ~ ............ 40 fL 100 %
MX 8-44 DU/Ac. 10 fi. -m-- 5 ...... 5 3,000 s.f. 30 ft. 30 ff. 50 %
~ 10 ft. 5 ti. 10 fi ........ 40 ft. 50 %
~ ...... 10ft. - ..... 5 ...... ~ ....... 60ft. 60%
PS ..... 30 ft. 30 ff. 30 fi. - .......... 40 ft. 25 %
I Base density ranges do not include additional incentive ~bonus" densities that may be offered.
2 Ail garages and carport~ shall maintain a Front setback of 20 feet
3 Zero Lot Line development shall add the normally-required side yard to the opposite side of the lot. ZLL development along
a rear property line may be approved only through the PUD process.
4 Development is subject to the same setback that is required on the residential side of the lot line for any development abutting
a residential zone. Structures higher than two stories or 30 ft. (whichever is higher) shall double the setback when abutting any
other r~idcntial zone.
5 A 10 fL setback is required from any residential zone..
6 Development within this zone shall be consistent with a master plan approved through the PUD process.
7 An individual building may not exceed 5,000 sq.fl, in this zone.
8 Maximum setback of 10 ft. from Callow frontage between Burwcll and Eleventh Streets.
Title 21 Appendix: Page 19
' I 2 ~ DR MF CBR MR NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
Boardin~.oomin$ House S S S S A A A ,
Convalescent / Rest Home S SS - ~ ~ S A A
Day C~e Facili~ (13 or mog- all aggs) S S S S S S S ~~1~ S S S S S* S S S S A A
Day ~e Facili~ (12 or fewer - all ages) A A A A A A A A A A A A* A A A A A A
Group R~idenfial Fncili~ --- Class I S S S S ' S S S S S S A S
~e=er~"l" ...(Perf'~ve-~ or motion pi(lure)il[~::a:]-':: [ S AS A A A S S
Adult Business (see definition) ~ S S
Video~aball ~cade
Bowling L~
Title 21 Appendix: Page 21
Uses allowed..byzone SF
1 2 3 o~ MF CBR MR NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
.Indoor Athletic/Recreation Facility S S S I I S A A A A S S A S S A
Weight.Consol ~d Aerobics S S ~ ] S A A A A S S A S A A
T~ing Salon, Spa, and similar uses ' S S ~ I A A A A S S A A
Stadiu~Athle~c Fiel~Spom Complex S S S S S S ~ I S S A
~fle ~d Pistol ~ge ~I S S
~blic Schools (see "PS" zone) ~ I S S S
~vnte Educ. Facilities (see "PS" zone) S S S S S S SI s s s s s s s s
'
Religious Womhip & Related Facilities S S S S S S S S A A A A S S S S
Museum -- in designated historic bldg. S S S S S A A ~IA A A A A A A A A
Ag Gaile~ (2,000 sq. fl. or smaller) A A ~ A A A A A · A A A A A
Title 21 Appendix: Page 23
Uses allowed-- by zone sF sF sF
1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
· .....~ ...':~: :::::::::::::::::::::::: .. . ....... :..:...~...~v~:..:..~...'~
M~et-genc~l (7,0~ sfor I~gcr) ~l A A A A
Liquor Store ~ [ A A A A A
Drag Stor~h~acy S ~ I A A A A A A
Fum. & Appli~cc Sales & Leasing ~j A A A A S S
Music systems. Instmmcn~ & related ~ [ A A A A
. ~-gcordcd Movi~usic sale,rental H~] A A A A A
Book store (flcwspapcrs, mags & related) S S
Statione~, Paper Products, Ofc. sup. A A A A A A A A
~tiqu~dSeconda~dOoods S !~ [ S A A A A A
Spo~g Goods -- sales ~d se~ices A A A A
Facto~ Outlet (acc~sso~ to on-site mfg.) A A A A A A A A
Title 21 Appendix: Page 25
Uses allo ved -- by zone
1 2 3 DR MI? CBR MR NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
Insurance and Investment Services A ' A ' A A A A A' A A A A A A
Real Estate, Title, Escrow & sim. svcs. A A ! A A A A A A A A A A A
Accounting, Tax Prep. and sim. svcs. A A ~ I A A A A A A A A A A A
Copying, Mailing, FAX, and sim. svcs. A A ~ ~ A A . A A A A A A A A A
'II
Communication.s/Broadcasting Studio A A A A A A A S
Property Mgmt./Maint. Svcs. Offices A A ~ A A A A A A A A A
Property Mnint. Svcs. w/supply storage S S ~ S S S A A A S
"1
Consultants (Arch., Plan, Design, etc.) A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Computer assistance, training & repair A A IA A A A A A A A. A A A A
General Offices (other than listed) A A '~[~ S A A A. A A A A A S A
Automotive Services (rcpair, maint, crc.) ~ A S A*
(See ** footnote at end of table)
II
Motorcycle & Bicycle Sales & Service ~ A A A A S A
Automobile, Motorcycle, Rental ~ A S A S~ A A
"
Bicycle Rental A A A A A A A A A A A
I[
Truck, Trailer, RV rental .~ S S* A A
Title 21 Appendix: Page 27
Uses allowed-- by zone s~ sr sr
1 2 3 DR MF CBR , NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
· Heating, Plumbing, A]C Equip. & Svcs A A A S* A A A
Elecl~ical Supplies and Services ~ [ A A A A A A A
Paint, Glass. Int. Decor (carpet, drapes)
Nursery & Garden Supplies ~, I A A A A* S A S
Greenhouse (primarily retail sales) ~[ A A A* S A A
II
II
Automotive Manu facturing/Assembly Il
Rec. Vehicle and Trailer Manufacturing ~ ~[ S A
Marine Craft & Related Manufacturing ~,1 S A
Mall~f. actu.red. Homes- Mfg. / Assembly S A
Manufactured Home Sales Lot ~[ S S A ,4.
II
Wood, Lumber and Paper Milling ~ [ S
Paper Products Manufacturing ?~ S A A
Wood Produc,s Mfg. ~ur~, cabinets...)
~' A A A A
Electrical & Electronics Products Mfg.
Wholesaling - Products Permitted in Zone[ A A S A A
Warehousing -- General >~, S S A A
Mini.warehousing (small-unit storage) A A $* A A A S
Title 21 Appendix: Page 29
Uses allowed -- by zone se sv sv
1 2 3 DR MF CBR MR NB GB SC BC CD BP IP IG MX SMU HC
· Research, Dev. & Testing Svcs. A A S* A A A
Professional / Scientific Instru. Mfg. A A S* A A A
Printing, Publishing & Related Svcs. A A A S A A S
Electrical Maclxinery & Equip. Mfg. ~ S S A A
Soap, Cleaning Products Mfg. ~ S S
Food Products Mfg. S S A A
Machinery & lVletal Products Mfg. ~.~i S A A
Recycling Collection Station ~ S S S* S S A
Recycling Collection Sta. (Limited)* S S
Petroleum bulk Storage & Terminals ~ S A
* Allow only when it meets all design standards.
** These uses are permitted by SUP on properties fronting on Callow Ave. between Burwell and Eleventh Streets.
Title 21 Appendix: Page '29-1