HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/99 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 14, 1999
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M.
A. General Council Business
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study
and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it
may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at
the request of a Council member.
A. Minutes of Meeting - March 24, 1999 #AB99-064
B. Minutes of Meeting - March 31, 1999 #AB99-065
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
10'
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
NEW BUSINESS
A. Appointment of Richard Neville to the Civil Service
Commission
#AB99-066
(CONTINUED ON BACK ..... )
11.
RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 2699, Approval of a Application to the
US Dept of Justice for the Acquisition of the Park
Place Building
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing and Resolution No. 2700, Approval of a
Special Use Permit for Two Group Residential
Facilities- Class [- Inland Empire Residential Resources
#AB99-067
#AB99-068
AGEI~DA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUI~C!L
!. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: APRIL ]4, 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
MINUTES OF MEETING--MARCH 24, 1999
CITY COUNCIL
MIKE SHEPHERD~ PRESIDEi
APRIL 6~ 1999
2. ~: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
if necessary)
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT F/~R_/SUBMITTAL:
MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. $~RY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOM24~NDATION:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
i0. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
11.
AGENDA BILL NO:
TAPE #1604 & 1605
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 1999
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the
City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, March 24,
1999, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President Mike Shepherd presiding. Council members
present were Jim Reed, Carlos Montgomery, Carol Arends, David Farr, Lon Overson, John
Law, Cecil McConnell, and'Wayne Olsen. Also present were City Attorney Glenna Malanca,
Deputy Clerk Paula Johnston, and Council Assistant Christine Grenier.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Shepherd and
invocation given by Council member Carol Arends.
President Shepherd made the following announcements:
(1) City Council held a Pre-Council Study Session to discuss General Council Business,
followed by an Executive Session to discuss "Litigation";
(2) City Council will hold a Study Session immediately following the Council meeting, in
the Council Conference Room, to discuss "In-Vessel Composting"; and
(3) Items 10A and 10B under "Ordinances" will be pulled off the Agenda, and postponed
until further notice.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting - March 10, 1999
#AB99-050
#0030 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and
those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been
recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council.
#0060 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Arends) On March 24, 1999, the Council does approve for
payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: checks 229042 to
229285 in the amount of $578,829.17; and for Regular Payroll for the period ending March
15, 1999, in the amount of $782,039.38.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Olsen announced that Districts l& 2 would be holding a meeting on Thursday, April 15,
1999, 7:00 P.M. at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center. It will be a "Town Meeting" format,
with special guest Mayor Horton. He also mentioned the planting of new shrubs to replace
the scotch broom removed last year. A total of 9,000 plants and trees will be planted by April
3, 1999. Also on that date, at 1:00 P.M., the City will be receiving at the Warren Avenue
TAPE #1604 & 1605
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 24, 1999
Page 2 of 9
Right of Way, "The Tree City USA Award". This is the third consecutive year the City has
received the award.
Mr. McConnell discussed road rage as defined by Olympia legislators and noted
deficiencies in the definitions may be of interest to public.
Mr. Law explained that he had been out of town for a few days and would eventually reply to
messages.
Mr. Overson mentioned the outstanding results for the Seaworthiness inspection for the
USS Turner Joy.
Mr, Fart wished for the public to support USS Turner Joy and to see the ship because parts
that had been closed are now reopened.
Mrs. Arends mentioned her attendance of the Legislative Conference for the American
Public Transit Association.
Mr. Montgomery announced that a Street Vacation meeting for Districts 6, 7, and 8 will be
held at the School District Administration Building located at 134 N Marion Avenue starting at
7:00 p.m. Also, following receipt of constituent concerns, he responded there is no
legislation to regulate trash buildups.
MAYOR'S REPORT
The Mayor mentioned that the Federal Government is drafting and environmental impact
statement for the Puget Sound Confined Disposal Site Study. Sites named for the sediment
disposal are Eliot Bay and Sinclair Inlet. Mindy Fohn of Public Works is preparing a
response to the Environmental Impact Statement. Levels of contamination in Sinclair Inlet
are overstated so that the sediment clean-up will occur prior to the establishment of a multi-
user disposal site. PSNS has estimated that the maximum quantity to be cleaned up under
CERCLA is 250,000 cubic yards, whereas according to the ElS charts the amount of
sediments to be cleaned up are a minimum of 645,000 cubic yards and a maximum of 2.5
million cubic yards. The Mayor did note the discrepancies between the ElS and PSNS
estimates. The Navy plans to clean the area in May 2000 through dredging. Another topic
addressed in the study was economic development which must be factored into current
operations to promote growth. Potentially, policies may develop and those policies will be
addressed.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Responses were given to Sue Brown as follows:
1) When Council Members vote on a zoning issue in legislative capacity, impacts upon their
personal property may result. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not apply. The
Conflict of Interest rule was carefully reviewed prior to advising the Council Member in this
specific instance that he could vote on the issue at hand. Law already addresses this issue.
TAPE #1604 & 1605
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 24, 1999
Page 3 of 9
2) Regarding Ms. Brown's assertion that a Council Member interfered with the Salary
Commission, the specific action of the Council Member is believed to relate to a lawful
campaign contribution. A City is not empowered to abrogate the individual rights of Council
Members.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
$~lsan Brown- asked, what can be done legally to make changes in laws and how are ethics
issues regarding elections to be handled?
Loretta Boykin- asked, as a municipal corporation, how many non-profit corporations, if any,
under 501 (c) (3) can the City of Bremerton create for the purpose of applying for grants?
John Becker- noted review of USS Carl Vinson as being excellent and requested that a
resolution be passed dealing with recognition of performance. Also asked for public to write
the Carl Vinson CO at FPO/AP 96629-2840 to pass on congratulations to crewmen.
H.M. Mosche- noted that there is a reclaimed and renovated apartment complex that has
helped to eliminate complaints, and was pleased with the District No. 5 Meeting.
Larry Dickerson- reported concerns regarding property along the 1000 Block of 4th and 5th
Street. Blockwatch has watched the area and reported that after removal of questionable
tenants, there is a building available.
Judy Anderson- announced on behalf of Collective Visions Gallery and West Sound Arts
Council, the Spring Art Walk begins on Friday, April 2. There will be live music, Victorian Age
Clothing, Costumes on Parade, interactive art for public, and studios will be open.
Klm Salin_o- announced that there is a speeding problem in the neighborhood of State Street
to Gregory Way to Naval Ave. She asked when the Burwell construction begins will both
lanes of Burwell Street be closed? Where will traffic be diverted? Also, she raised concerns
that there are no crosswalks in her neighborhood and adjacent to the park, and encouraged
Council to view the area to witness speeding in action.
Roy Runyon- also noted the Gregory Way speeding issue and noted citizens' meeting which
had a large turnout. The speed limit is 25 mph and the highest speed recorded was 45 mph.
Of interest was that there are few signs along that street. Mr. Runyon asked what will the
effect of Burwell closure be on Shipyard traffic? He also noted speeding activity in the
proximity of bus stops, and he has requested surveillance to eliminate speeding problems.
Ed Wittenmeyer- expressed concerns about excess of cars parked on Gregory Way and car
alarms.
4
TAPE #1604 & 1605
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 24, 1999
Page 4 of 9
Paul Drnjevic- asked questions regarding the fluoridation issue including 1) Was it the plan
of City Council to stop work or continue work as implied by the resolution passed by Council?
2) If it were the intent of Council to stop work and spending until after the election, who
authorized further work? 3) How much work was done after 9/14/987 4) How much money
was spent following this move to put fluoridation to vote?
9A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR SYSTEMS DESIGN TO PROVIDF
AMBULANCE BILLING SERVICES, #AB99-051
In 1992, the City of Bremerton and Systems Design entered into a Professional Services
Agreement to provide ambulance billing service. The agreement has been received each
year since that time. Attached is a new agreement between the parties that will terminate on
December 31, 2001, but may be extended for a period not to exceed 10 years.
Chief Al Duke-mentioned the history of changes made and that $4,000 would be saved if
the fiat fee is applied.
#1540 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Arends) Motion for the City Council to authorize the Mayor to
sign and enter into the Professional Services Agreement with Systems Design to provide
ambulance billing service.
9B - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE RESPONSE AGREEMENT WITH
CENTRAL KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE, #AB99-057
Attached is a proposed Cooperative Response agreement between the City of Bremer~on
and Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue. A committee consisting of both Fire Chiefs, elected
officials from both entities and the labor representative from each entity started the process
of upgrading the Mutual Aid agreement back in October of 1997. The result of the
cooperative effort is the Response agreement represented in this document. The agreement
is for a term of one (1) year for the amount of $94,000.00 dollars. At the end of one year the
agreement will be evaluated and determine whether a more permanent agreement may be
appropriate.
Chief Al Duke- reminded Council of a discussion held last summer where it was decided that
better service could be provided to the City with this agreement. Again, money would be
saved.
Mr. Montgomery- affirmed that coverage would range from Riddell to water to city limits.
Chief Al Duke- added that response time will be decreased due to staffing a permanent
paramedic unit.
TAPE #1604 & 1605
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 24, 1999
Page 5 of 9
Mr. Mc¢onnell- noted the time that Chief Duke was involved in with other fire districts to
develop the agreement.
Mr. Reed- asked if during process did Cencom have any confusion on how to route calls.
Chief Al Duke- responded that since system was automated there were no problems.
Mr, Fart- commended Chief Duke and stated that the City should provide good service.
# 1760 M/S/C/U (FardMontgomery) Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign and enter into the
Intergovernmental Cooperative Response Agreement with Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue
for a term of one (1) year.
llA - PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 2695, REGARDING REcOVERy OF
FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2234 TRENTON
AVENUE. #AB99-055
On January 21, 1999, the City secured the fire-damaged house located at 2234 Trenton
Avenue after the owners, E. and S. M. Laners, failed to do so as ordered by the Building
Official. The cost incurred for this action, including administrative fees, totaled $1,227.08.
Council must now decide if the fees are just and how they should be collected.
Janet Lunceford- reported the history of events related to this abatement.
Mr. Law- asked if there was a future for the house.
Janet Lunceford- replied that there is a contractor who will be applying for permits to repair
the house.
Mr. Reed- asked about the nature of the request and was it sent by certified mail.
Janet Lunceford- responded that there were no responses from the residents to the two
mailings sent by the City.
#1910 M/S/C (Montgomery/Overson) Motion to order that the fees incurred for securing the
fire-damaged house located at 2234 Trenton Avenue be collected as reasonable abatement
costs and become a lien against the property.
Vote on Motion: Yes: Farr, Arends, Montgomery, Olsen, McConnell, Law, Overson,
Shepherd
Abstain: Reed
TAPE #1604 & 1605
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 24, 1999
Page 6 of 9
TAPE # 1605
lIB-PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 2696, REGARDING RECOVERY OF
FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 108 N. CAMBRIAN
AVENUE, #AB99-056
On January 25, 1999, the City removed garbage and debris from a garage located on the
property at 108 N. Cambrian Avenue after the owner, William Smokoff, failed to do so as
ordered by the Building Official. The fees incurred for this action, including administrative
fees, totaled $1,276.16. Council must now decide if the fees are just and how they should be
collected.
Janet Lunceford- mentioned history of property and that there was no response from Mr.
Smokoff with regards to the notices sent to him.
Ms. Arends- commented that the property is in District 7 and she is pleased with the
changes.
#0047 M/S/C/U (Arends/Montgomery) Motion to order that the fees
abatement of garbage and debris located at 108 N. Cambrian Avenue
reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property.
incurred for the
be collected as
l 1C-PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 2697, ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR
FINAL PLAN SUBMISSION FOR PUD 96-0002. SINCLAIR LANDING TRANSPORTATION
CENTER; APPLICANT KITSAP TRANSIT. #AB99-057
Council must decide if the applicant's request for a one time one year extension for
submission of the Final Plan for PUD 96-0002, Bremerton Transportation Center. The
applicant must show that progress is being made and that is very likely that the Final Plan will
be submitted within the extended time period.
Phil Berry- made a correction to Resolution 2697 on page 58, paragraph 4, for the date of
Council approval for the Preliminary PUD to March 26, 1997, not March 27, 1999. Also, the
exhibits of Sinclair Landing Sketches are available at Department of Community
Development. The two criteria to be checked are 1) progress is being made and 2) that the
project can achieve plan completion during the time of the extension. Shoreline Permits,
Foundation Permits, and Application for Building Permits are in the process of being issued.
Council must consider time extensions through two separate public hearings. One hearing
deals with the Bremerton Transportation Center, and the second hearing deals with the
Master Development Agreement and the Commercial Group.
Roy Runyon-mentioned that faster ferry service is key to promoting Sinclair Landing. Mr.
Runyon raised the issue how mitigation of Rich Passage lawsuit may impact success of the
project. Mr. Runyon was concerned and asked what can be done at the grassroots level to
help promote projects especially with regards to money being spent.
TAPE #1604 & 1605
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 24, 1999
Page 7 of 9
Mr. Reed- acknowledged efforts made by staff in getting projects under way.
Mr. Montgomery_- asked if the PUD states that the design build has a deadline.
Phil Berry- responded that the design build has a two year life once approved by Council
and there should be no problem to meet the one year extension deadline.
Mr. McConnell- recommended that approval of PUD and Kitsap Transit portion of the PUD
be clarified.
Paula Johnston- added that the Kitsap Transit and the rest of PUD plan should be
differentiated. In addition, Ms. Johnston mentioned that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
and Conflict of Interest as related to quasi-judicial items should be applied.
Mr. Fart- asked about the status of current project and requested elaboration from Mr. Berry.
Phil Berry- commented that the permits have been approved but not issued for building
construction. Committees meet weekly regarding issues for Kitsap Transit, the Contractor,
and the Ferries.
Mr. Farr- asked Mr. Hayes of Kitsap Transit to come forward.
Mr. Hayes- stated issues to be addressed include pedestrian improvements such as for foot
and bike traffic. Upwards of $2 million dollars for projects are being incorporated. The
estimate of the project is approximately $22 million dollars after all improvements.
Mr. Montgomery- wanted clarification that the project permits deal only with the terminal and
not the retail space.
Phil Berry- discussed that the Master Development Project is the problem in that there
needs to be determination for what parts of the project are related to Kitsap Transit and
Commercial Group. That division is necessary to speed up the project. Shoreline permits and
the 2003 timeframe will not affect the project.
Mr. Reed- noted that this extension deals only with plans not construction.
Mr. Shepherd- stated the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, and asked Council and Public if
any one needs to be excused due to Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. All Council members
remained seated.
#0764 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Arends) Motion to pass Resolution 2697 thereby approving a
one time one year extension for final plan submission for PUD 96-0002 Sinclair Landing -
TAPE #1604 & 1605
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 24, 1999
Page 8 of 9
Bremerton Transportation Center including the change of date to March 26, 1997 of the
Resolution as noted.
'lID-PUBLIC HEARING, ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR FINAL PLAN SUBMISSION FOR
PUD 96-0002, SINCLAIR LANDING BREMERTON TRANSPORTATION CENTER;
APPLICANT: THE COMMERCIAL GROUP, #AB99-058
Council must decide if the applicant's request for a one-time one year extension for
submission of the Final Plan for PUD 96-0002, Commercial/Residential Portion of
Development be granted. The applicant must show that progress is being made and that it is
very likely that the Final Plan will be submitted within the extended time period.
Mayor Horton- noted that numerous meetings are being held by several groups to make
deliberations and to move the project forward. Information will become available soon.
Numerous issues need to be addressed and that is the reason for a request of a continuation
of this hearing for the Commercial Group's one-year extension.
Phil Berry- mentioned any items of concern are addressed in the staff report.
Mayor Horton- emphasized that this project is needed by the City and long term
consideration of issues is needed.
Ward Yohe- provided support for Sinclair Landing and asked Council to support continuation
for Commercial Group.
Roy McKinnis- asked at April 21, 1999 meeting, will everything be in place.
Larry Dickerson- showed support for the City Council and commended the thoroughness of
Council in checking plans of developers.
John Becker- asked if there is enough time to address questions and review the project.
Paula Johnston- reminded the City Council of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine.
Mr. Shepherd- stated Appearance of Fairness Doctrine to Council and the public with all
Council members remaining seated.
Mayor Horton- stated that zoning is in place for the majority of Sinclair Landing. The PUD
allows for flexibility and would allow for more time to make the best decisions.
Mr. Montgomery- asked if property owners must have standing with regards to the PUD.
Phil Berry-answered that Condition 17 of Resolution 2588 states that the property owners
do not become signatories until the final PUD is submitted to the City for approval.
TAPE #1604 & 1605
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 24, 1999
Page 9 of 9
Mr. Reed- questioned if the deadline is 2 days from today, how can there be a continuance.
Mrs. Malanca-answered that if the headng is opened prior to the deadline of a timely
application then expiration is not defeated.
MS. Arends-stated that due to project complexity, time is needed to consult professional
staff.
#2005 M/S/C (Arends/Montgomery) Motion that the City Council continue this public hearing
until April 21, 1999 when it will conduct a hearing on the extension with the expiration for the
Preliminary Plan being tolled until Council has heard and decided on the extension.
Vote on Motion:
Yes: Reed, Law, Overson, Farr, Arends, Montgomery, Shepherd
No: Olsen, McConnell
With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M.
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
MIKE SHEPHERD, Council President
City of Bremerton
P J/MS/Is
C: Normal Distribution
File
l0
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: APRIL ]4, ]999
ORIGINATING DEPT:
MINUTES OF MEETING -- MARCH 31, 1999 ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMITTED:
CITY COUNCIL
HIKE SHEPHERD, PRESIDE~',
APRIL ], 1999
2. ~.~k~[g~: (comment on back 3. EXHIBITS:
if necessary)
ENDORSEMENT INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR z%~BMiTTAL:
MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SLry24ARy STATEMENT AND REOU!REMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
8. RECOMMENDATION:
9 o
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
t0. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
3E
D D
11.
AGENDA BILL NO:
TAPE #1606 UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 31, 1999
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in
the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, March
31, 1999, at 5:30 P.M., with Council Vice-President Carol Arends presiding. Council
members present were Carlos Montgomery, David Farr, John Law, Cecil McConnell,
and Wayne Olsen. Council members Lon Overson and Jim Reed, and Council
President Mike Shepherd were absent. Also present were City Attorney Glenna
Malanca, Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston, and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith.
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Vice-President
Arends, who also provided the invocation.
Vice-President Arends made the following announcements:
(1) City Council held a Study Session in the Council Conference Room, 5:05 - 5:25
P.M., to discuss "Bremerton Transportation Center Traffic-Phasing";
(2) The Study Session to discuss "Small Business Development" scheduled
immediately following the City Council meeting in the Council Conference Room
has been postponed until further notice; and
(3) On Monday, April 5, 1999, City Council will hold their monthly Study Session,
4:00 to 5:30 P.M. in the Council Conference room to discuss 1) Construction
Project Updates; 2) Stormwater Separation; and 3) Streets. The topic "Probation
Services for Bremerton Municipal Court" on the original schedule, has been
postponed until a later date.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Special Meeting - March 12, 1999
#AB99-059
B. Single Source Purchase of Survey Equipment
#AB99-060
#0050 M/S/C/U (McConnell/Montgomery) Motion to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
CLAIMS & CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080,
and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have
been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council.
#0080 MISICIU (Montgomery/Farr) On March 31, 1999, the Council does approve for
payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: EFT 5324; 229299;
229315 through 229492 in the amount of $367,799.76; and Retiree Payroll for the
period ending March 31, 1999 in the amount of $119,129.75.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Montgomery reported on two recent trips to Olympia to meet with our Legislatures.
TAPE #1606
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 31, 1999
Page 2 of 3
He also discussed the details of a report received from the Wastewater Treatment
Plant on the amount of leachate brought in from the landfill and treated for discharge.
Mr. Fart discussed in further detail, the Study Session on "Bremerton Transportation
Center Traffic Phasing" held prior to Council, and how the planned changes will impact
the citizens with the rerouting of ferry traffic that will be taking place during
construction.
Mr. McConnell announced the Armed Forces Pageant would be held next Wednesday,
April 7, 1999 at the Bremerton High School from 7:00 to 9:00 P.M. Several Council
members have complimentary "family" tickets available for anyone interested.
Mr. Olsen announced the combined Districts 1 & 2 meeting to be held Thursday, April
15, 1999 at the Sheridan Park Recreation Center from 7:00 to 9:00 P.M. It will be a
"Town Meeting" format, with special guest Mayor Lynn Horton. He also thanked Al &
Hazel Colvin for spearheading the campaign to replace the scotch broom at the end of
the Warren Avenue Bridge, and Jim Trainer for all the hard work and effort he is
providing to replant trees and shrubs to beautify the area
Vice-President Arends announced that yard waste would be accepted from Bremerton
residents (proof is required), at the Public Works Complex at 100 Oyster Bay Avenue,
from April 12 through 16, 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., and April 17, 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.
Additionally, Olympic View Sanitary Landfill will be accepting larger items at half the
usual rate. For further details on what is and isn't allowed, please call 478-5920.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Horton welcomed the USS Carl Vinson to the community, and encouraged
citizens to attend the official "Welcoming Ceremony" on the Boardwalk" at 6:30 P.M.
tonight.
Mayor Horton read the following Proclamations:
(1) April 8, 1999 as "Arbor Day', accepted by Jim Trainer of the Parks & Recreation
Department. In honor of Arbor Day, The Warren Avenue Bridge Right-of-Way
Beautification Project will take will take place on Saturday, April 3, 1999.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Roy Mclnnis referred to an abatement approved by the Council last week. He
expressed his concerns regarding the "Administrative Fees" added to the cost of the
abatements done by the City, which he feels are excessive.
John Becker referred to the traffic problems on Gregory Way discussed at last week's
meeting, and suggested reversing the one-way street from State-to-Naval to Naval-to-
State. He felt this would be inexpensive, and still satisfy the needs of the residents.
Pat Cooper AKA "An.qrv Floyd" invited citizens to come, in costume, to the "First
TAPE #1606
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
March 31, 1999
Page 3 of 3
Friday Art Walk", and also attend the Freak Show - Oddities of the Art World at the
Metropolis. He also announced several other art events taking place the month of
April.
9A- PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 2698, REGARDING RECOVERY OF
FEES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1929 9TM STREET,
#AB99-061
On February 16, 1999, the City removed garbage, debris, and appliances from the
property located at 1929 9th Street after the owners, Estate of Harold and Nita Schott
failed to do so as ordered by the Building Official. The cost of the action, including
administrative fees, totaled $1,705.60. Council must now decide if the fees are just and
reasonable, and how they should be collected.
Janet Lunceford, Building & Development Specialist n, discussed the process that
has taken place to date for this abatement, which began as a weed abatement. Upon
removing the weeds, appliances, tires, and other garbage were discovered and
removed. No heirs were identified during this process.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Montgomery asked how many "Administrative" hours are necessary to perform
abatements. Ms. Lunceford explained approximately 25 hours. Each year, the costs
increase due to normal cost of living raises. She also described why the difference in
fees between "garbage" or "weed" abatements ($584); and "dangerous building"
abatements ($819). She pointed out that if the City did not charge the owner of the
property the "Administrative" fees then the taxpayer would indirectly be charged.
#0836 M/S/C/U (Montgomery/Olsen) Motion to pass Resolution No. 2698, ordering that
the fees incurred for the abatement of garbage, debris, and appliances located at 1929
9th Street be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the
property.
With no further business meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M.
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
CAROL ARENDS, Council Vice-President
City of Bremerton
PJ/CNIs
C: Normal Distribution
File
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
Appointment to the Civil
Service Commission
FOR AGENDA OF: April 14~ 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT: E~ecutiv~
ORIGINATOR: Mayor Hor~nn
DATE SUBMITTED: April 8~ 1999
2. ~: (comment on back
if necessary)
3. EXHIBITS:
Application for Appointment
ENDORSEMENT __~ I~~TION __
APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FO~ S32BMITT~L:
c0 ci , PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
There is a vacancy on the Civil Service Commission.
the vacancy be filled by Richard Neville.
It is recommended
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to confirm the appointment of Richard Neville to the
Civil Service Commission.
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mayor Horton
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE'
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~-0&&
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGe:
6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
CITY OF BREMERTON
APPLICATION FOR CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE
NOTE:
As an applicant for a City Board, Commission o.r Commies, your name, address, and
teiephone number will be available ~.o the pre,e.s and public. You wiii be contacted before
any action is taken on your appointment.
(Please type or print clearly)
NAME: ~,_T~ A ~E
HOME ADDRESS: . t330 l~[z~ AV~
B.~m01~ u.A 98337
DATE:
PHONE: . 360-377-8415 iH)
0CCUPATION:_~c~^.~[[c ~c;~r ~ rkW~.NT~ C0trt'~0L
EDUCATION:.._~u~ ..$C800[, .G.~J~UAI'][, 2 ~ AT OL~rt~IC CO~_X.gGE
PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
PAST ]4v~ER OF B~E{4~ltTOt{ PARES ~ RECIiEAT[ON COI~[[SSIOI{, SIZ YEARS AS A MEi4BER OF BREt4ER~ON
LOCAL REFERENCES (name & phone number):
Svn~m.!.LL
AL COL~IN
BOUG BUSH h-K: 377-3986
I AM
()
l!
(}
{)
;}
(}
INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (please check one or
Disability Action Committee ( )
Civil Service Commission(18 yrs. & older} { }
Urban Forest Committee ( )
Cable Communications Advisory Committee ( )
Community Development Block Grant
Advisory Committee
Youth Council
Safe Streets Steering Committee
Citizen's Commission on Council Salaries
more):
Planning Commission (18 yrs. & cider)
Parks & Recreation Commission
Ethics Commission
Parking Advisory Board
Solid Waste Management
Bremerton Housing Authority
Board of Appeals, Housing/Building Codes
Mayor's Select Committee on Law
Enforcement
Is this an application for reappointment?
If yes, how many years have you served on this commission/committee?
PLEASE RETURN TO:
Mayor's Office
239 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Signature
Applications be reviewed periodically to determine continued availability.
information may be put on back.
Additional pertinent
LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor
239 4th Street · Bremerton, Washington 98337 · (360) 478-5266 · FAX (360) 478-5883
March 31, 1999
MEMO TO: City Council
FROM: Mayor Horton
SUBJECT: Civil Service Commission
There is a vacancy on the Civil Service Commission and I recommend R/chard A. Neville fill the
vacancy. Attached is his application for appointment.
Please contact me if you have any concerns regarding this appointment. I plan to place this item
on the April 14, 1999 Civil Service Commission agenda for vote of confirmation.
LH:ev
Equal Oppol~nity Employer
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
~: Resolution # ~'~'q9
approving Application to the US
Dept of Justice for acquisition
of the Park Place Building
FOR AGENDA OF: April 14, 1999
ORIGINATING DEPT: Executive
ORIGINATOR: Mayor Horton
DATE SUBMITTED: April l, 1999
2. ~: (comment on back 3.
if neQessary)
.--,. Resolution
Attorney ',-
ENDORSEMENT'___/~ INFORMATION APPROVEg BY~C~NCIL PRESIDENT FOg SUBMITTAL'//
SUMMARy STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
The General Services Administration has declared the Park Place Building
at 808 Burwell surplus government property and available for disucsal.
The attached ResolUtion approves application to the Dept. of 3us~ice fcr
use as a Criminal Justice Center. The property will be surplussed at no
cost to the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve Resolution # ~~ supporting Applicaticn to uhe
Dept. of Justice for acquisition of the Park Place Building.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Executive
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Executive
EXPIRATION DATE: 5/1/99
REVIEW DATE: N/A
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVEDDATE: DISAPPROVED~A--
11. AGENDA BILL NO:
2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS (co~t,):
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT (cont.):
IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
We will miss the deadline of 5/1/99 for application.
o
IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES
There is no acquisition cost.
Approximate remodel costs $1 million offset by sales of the Permit
Center, West Precinct and Capital Hill Fire Station.
Balance funded by issuance of General Obligation Bonds.
7. RESEARCH SOURCES:
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION approving application to the Department of Justice and
General Services Administration for acquisition of the Park Place Building, 808
Burwell Street.
WHEREAS, on February 17, 1999 the Federal General Services Administration
declared Navy Building 844, known as the Park Place Building, surplus government
property and available for disposal; and
WHEREAS, On February 22, 1999 the City of Bremerton expressed its interest
in acquiring the property for use as a Criminal Justice Center; and
WItEREAS, the intended use of the property complies with the requirements of
40 U.S.C. 484(p)(1), law enforcement purpose, and allows for surplus to the City of
Bremerton at no cost; and
WHEREAS, the next step in the process is formal application to the U.S.
Department of Justice which must be submitted no later than May 1, 1999; now,
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton:
1. The City Council supports the development of a Criminal Justice Center.
The location in downtown Bremerton will provide for consolidation of
existing decentralized divisions and create efficiencies in service.
The City Council approves application to the Department of Justice for
acquisition of the Park place Building.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this 14th day of April,
1999.
MIKE SHEPHERD
City Council President
.FEB-16-1999 TUE 01:50 Pti
PROPERTY DISPOSAL
FAX NO, 2 931 7554
U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Northwest Arctic Region
Lynn S. Horton
Mayor
City of Bremerton
239 FourEh Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
P, 02
Dear Mayor Horton:
RE: Navy Buildinq 844, 808 Burwell Street, Bremerton,
Kitsap County, WA, 0.35 acre, GSA Control No. 9-D-WA-ii64.
The referenced property has been deEermined to be surplus
Goverrunent property and available for disposal.
The enclosed Notice of Surplus Determination includes a
description of the property, and procedural insaructions to
be followed if a public agency desires to submit an
application for the property. Please note particularly the
name and address given for filing written notice and
submission of an application, the time limitation within
which written notice must be filed and the required content
of such notice. Additional instructions are provided for the
submission of co~enas regarding incompatibility of the
disposal with a public agency's developmenE plans and
proqra/ns.
In order to ensure all interested parties are informed of
the availability of the property, please post the additional
copies of the Notice in appropriate conspicuous places.
A similar letter is being sent to the Kitsap Counny Board of
Commissioners, the Office of the Governor, and the State
Clearinghouse.
As the office of the governing body of the unit of general
local government having the jurisdiction over zoning and
land use regulations in the geographical area wiEhin which
this surplus property is located, you may also be interested
in Section 803 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended, 82 Statute 1105, a copy
which is enclosed.
It is requested that the information contemplated by Section
803(b) be forwarded to this office with the same twenty (20)
400 15th Street SW, Auburn, WA 98001-6599
Federal Recyciin~ Program ~ Printed on K~,cycled PaF~'r
FEB-18-1999 TUE 01:50 PM G~_ PROPERTY DISPOSAL FAX NO. 2,._§31 7554 P. 03
calendar day period prescribed in the enclosed Notice of
Surplus Determination for the advising of a desire to
acquire the property. If the property is unzoned and you
desire the opportunity to accomplish such zoning in
accordance with local comprehensive'planning pursuant to
Section 803(a), please so advise us in writing within the
same time frame and let us know the time you will require
for the promulgation of such zoning regulations.
We will not delay sale of this property pending such zoning
for more than fifty (50) days from the date of this Notice.
However, if you will not be able to accomplish the desired
zoning before the property is placed for sale, we will
advise prospective purchasers of the pending zoning in
process.
Sincerely, ---.
Michael D. May ~.~
Acting Director // _,,(_.
Real Property Disposa,l~ffice 10PR
Enclosure
FEB-lB-1999 TUE 01:50 PR L_ PROPERTY DISPOSRL
FRX NO. 2_ 931 7554 P, 04
o
FEDERAL PROPERTY AND AD~IINZSTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949,
AS AMENDED
TITLE VII - URBAN LAND UTILIZATION
DISPOSAL OF URBAN LANDS
Section 803:
(a) Whenever the Administrator contemplates the disposal for
or on behalf of any Federal agency of any real property situated
within an urban area, he shall, prior to offering such land for
sale, give reasonable notice to the head of the governinq body of
the unit of general local government having jurisdiction over
zoning and land-use regulation in the geographical area within
which the land or lands are located in order to afford the
government the opportunity of zoning for the use of such land in
accordance with local comprehensive planning.
(b) The Administrator, to the greatest practicable extent,
shall furnish to all prospective purchasers of such real
property, full and complete information concerning:
(1) current zoning regulations and prospective zoning
requirements and objectives for such property when it is unzoned;
and
(2) current availability to such property of streets,
sidewalks, sewers, water, street lights, and other service
facilities and prospective availability of such services if such
property is included in comprehensive planning.
FE8-16-1999
f
TUE 01:51 PM G PROPERTY DISPOSAL F~X NO, 2_ 93I 7554
U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Northwest Arctic Region
NOTICE OF SURPLUS DETERA4YNATION
O5
UNITED STATES GOVERNME~ PROPERTY
Navy Building 844, Bremerton
Former P~rk Place Enlisted Club
GSA Control No. 9-D-WA-1164
February 17, 1999
Notice is hereby given that the above mentioned property has been determined 'to be surplus
Government property and is available for disposal. The property involves approximately 0.35 acre
of level land. It is located across the street from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in downtown
Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington. The address is 808 Bur,veil Street. The property includes
an approximate 23,670 square foot two-story masonry building constructed in 196(;. The first
floor measures 1.32 x 103 feet. It has a large ballroom with approximately 18 foot high ceiling,
kitchen, offices, and a bar. The second floor (mezzanine) has a small bar and restrooms. The small
basement has a one stall parking space, a walk-in freezer, and urffiMshed space for the healing
boiler and other utility equipment. The structure covers the vast majority of the site, leaving space
for only 7 onsite parking stalls. There are adjacent city owned "pay box" parking lots abutting to
the north. The building is vacant and secured. Domestic water, sewer service, steam for heating,
and electricity are presently supplied by connections to systems within the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard. These systems will be disconnected. The future owner will need to make arrangements
to acquire new utility supply sources. If'you desire to inspect the property you may contact GSA
Russ Holm at (253) 931-7556 or 7547.
On October 23, 1998, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
deterrrfined the property to be unsuitable for homeless assistance uses. It was published in the
Federal Register on that date and assigned HUD Case No. 549840002.
The property is surplus and available for disposal pursuant to certain provisions of the Federal
Property and Adrrdnistrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.) and
applicable regulations. The applicable regulations provide that public agencies (non-Federal) shall
be allowed a reasonable period of time to submit a formal application for surplus real property in
wkich they may be interested. Disposal ofthis property re.ay be made to public agencies for the
public uses stated below whenever the Government determines that the property is available for
such uses and that disposal thereof is authorized by the statute cited and applicable regulations.
~T_he City of Bremerton has expressed interest in ac_quiri__n~; the property for use as (1) law
enforcement office space, (2) for an evening youth ce_nter, or ~) a combination thereof.
40015th Street S'W, Auburn, WA 98001-~6599
FederaI Recycling Program ~ Printed onRc~led Paper
FEB-IG-Igg9 TUE 01:51 PH (. ,.
TATU'I~
.~.. ,' 40 U.S.C. 484 (e)(3)(H)
PROPERTY DISPOSAL FA× NO. 2 03t 7554
TYPE OF DISPOSAL
Negotiated sale to public bodies for public purposes
generally. Must pay full fair market value, estimated
to be approximately $285,000.
The property may be available at public benefit discounts for the programs noted below:
40 U.S.C. 484 (k)(1)(A) School, classroom, or other educational purpose
40 U.S.C. 484 (k)(1)(B)
Protection of Public Health including research ('Dm~g rehabilitation
purposes only).
40 U.S.C. 484 (k) (2)
Public parks and recreation.
40 U.S.C. 484 (p)(t)
(1) Correctional facility use, (2) Law enforcement purposes, and (3)
Emergency management response purposes (including fire and
rescue services).
40 U.S.C. 484 (q)
Port facility use.
The property is zoned BC (Business/Commercial). Local zoning may not allow the above
listed uses. Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact the City of Bremerton,
Planning and Zoning at (360) 478-5275.
[£any public agency desires to acq~re the property_ under the above cited statutes, notice thereof
in writing must be filed not later than 20 days a~er the date of this notice with the:
Michael D. May
Acting Director
Real Property Disposal (10PR)
General Services Administration
400 1 f' Street SW
Aubum, WA 98001-6599
Telephone: (253)931-7547
Such notice shall:
1. Disclose the contemplated use of the property.
2. Contain a citation of the applicable statute or statutes under which the public agency desires
to procure the property.
FEB-16-199@
TUE 01:51 PR t.~ PROPERTY DISPOSRL FRX NO. 2~ g31 7554
State the length of time required to develop and submit a formal application'for the property
(where a payment to the Government is required under the statute, include a statement as to
whether funds are available and, if not the period tequlred to obtain ~nds).
Give reason for the time required to develop submit a formal proposal,
Any platmlng for public uses under the ;above statutes must be coordinated with the appropriate
agency listed below. Applications to acquire the property and instructions for the preparation and
submission thereof may also be acquired from these offices.
TYPE OF DISPOSAL
ADDRESS OF APPROPRIATE AGENCY
Negotiated Sale
Michael D. May,
Acting Director
Real Property Disposal (10PR)
General Services Adminlstration
400 15a' Street SW
Auburn, WA 98001-6599
Phone: (253) 931-7547
Upon receipt of such written notice, the public agency shall be promptly iraCormed concerning the
period of time that will be allowed for submission.
In the absence of such written notice, or in the event a public use proposal is not approved, the
regulations issued pursuant to authority contained in the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 provide for offering the property for public sale for its highest and best use.
Any planning for a public health use of property sought to be acquired through a public benefit
allowance must be coordinated with the Department of Health and Human Services (HI-IS):
Department of Health and Human Services
Division of Health Facilities Planning
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 5B-41
KockwStle, MD 20857
Attn: M_r. Brian J. Rooney Phone: (301) 443-2265
Any planning for a public educational use of property sought to be acquired through a public
benefit allowance must be coordinated with the U.S. Department of Education:
David B. Hakola, Director,-
Real Property Group, Office of Management
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Pun. 2C107
Waskington, D.C. 20202-4553 Telephone: (202) 401-0506
07
FEB- 16-1999 TUE
01:52 PM L_~. PROPERTY DISPOSRL FRX NO, L_ 931 7554
Any planning for surplus property sought to be acquired for
correctional use or law enforcement must be coordinated with the Department of Sustice at the
following address:
Richard A. Sutton, Ph.D.
Corrections Program Manager
DOJ, Bur. Of Justice Assistance
810 7a' StreetNW
Washington, D. C. 20531
Attn: Thomas F. Albercht
Phone: (202) 616-3214
Any planning to acquire the property for emergency management response use sought through a
public benefit allowance must be coordinated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(Y"EMA) at the following address:
Mr. Reggie Trujitlo
Program Services division
Operations Support Directorate
Federal "Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street SW, Room 319
Washington, D.C. 20472
Phone: (202) 646-3464
Any planning to acquire the property for public Port use sought through a public benefit
allowance must be coordinated with the U.S, Maritime Administration:
John M. Pisani, Director
Office of Ports and Domestic Shipping
U. S. Maritime Administration
400 Seventh Street, SW, Rm 720 i
Washington, D.C. 20590
Phone: (202) 3664357
Any planning to acquire the property for public park or recreation use sought through a public
benefit allowance must be coordinated with the National Park Service:
Ray Murray "
National Park Service
Pacific West Field Area
600 Harrison Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94107-1372
Phone: (415-427-1439)
P, 08
FEB-16-19@9 ?UE 01:52 PM ( PROPERTY FA× NO, ~ 931 7554
DISPOSAL
P, 09
If any public agency considers that the proposed disposal of this property is incompatible with its
development plan and programs, notice of such incompatibility must be forwarded to the
a£oremcnt~oned address within thc same time frame prescribed a~ove.
For more information on the property or the notice, please call Russ Holm, Realty Specialist, Real
Property Disposal or, ce, General Services Administration, at telephone (253) 931-7556 or 7547.
FEB-16-t999 TUE 0~:53 P~ C
PROPERTY DISPOSAL
FhX NO. ~
931 7554
Burwell Street
Front of building on
P, 11
Park Place Building
Former enlisted club
Bremerton, Washingto
Northeast corner of si~e
where only onsite parkin
is available
5[
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HE ING/RESOLUT:ON # J O0
ACTION: Special Use Permit for two
Group Residential Facilities-Class I
FOR AGENDA OF: April 14, 1999
DEPT. OF ORIGIN: DECD - Planning
ORIGINATOR: Jon Holan~~
DATE SUBMITTED: FebruJry 26, 1999
APPLICANT: ~In_land Empire Residential Resources
LOCATION: 1006 & 1008 9th Street
2. CLEARANCES: (Co ~mment on back_if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS:
DE CD Director : ./~_~~
ENDORSEMENT '- ~IWN~ORP~ATION/ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL:
MkYOR - ~ ~ ....
CC Resolution No.
Notice of Public Hearinc.
Memos to City Council.
PC Minutes (3/16/99).
PC Findings of Fact &
Conclusion.
Special Use Permit
Application.
Letters of Complaint.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
Council must decide if the applicant's Special Use Permit Application
(SUP99-0001) meets the necessary tests and criteria required for approval
of the Group Residential Facility - Class I use.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to approve the Special Use Permit for two group Residential Facilities- Class t.
o
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jon Holan
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
7 . NOTICE OF ACTION 4lA
PULLED TABLE D APPROVE D D I SAPPROVE D
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE:
8. AGENDA BILL NO.:
9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
10.
IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE:
The applicant would be unable to use the properties for the Group
Residential Facilities for six developmentally disabled adults.
11.
IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES:
Additional staff resources might be required to review final revised
plans and permits.
12. RESEARCH SOURCES:
Zoning Ordinance
File
Site Visits
Relevant State Laws
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2700
A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING
INLAND EMPIRE RESIDENTIAL RESOURCES
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
(SUP99-0001)
WItEREAS, Inland Empire Residential Resources requested a Special Use Permit for
two Group Residential Facilities at 1006 & 1008 9th Street; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on March
16, 1999 during which it received oral and written comments pertaining to the subject
application; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission recommended approval of application
SUP99-0001 with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted a public heating on April 14, 1999
during which it received oral and written comments pertaining to subject application; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Bremerton City Council concurs with
the Bremerton Planning Commission's findings in support of the use request with
conditions and affirms that:
1. The proposed use is needed in the community to provide group residential facilities in
this area, and is in the public interest.
2. The proposed use does meet the necessary tests and criteria required for approval of a
Special Use Permit.
BE IT FURTltER RESOLVED, that the Bremerton City Council hereby approves
application SUP99-0001 subject to the following conditions:
1. The project shall comply with all applicable codes;
2. Barrier-free van space parking shall be provided per code, and shall be located in the
middle of the parking area to provide adequate room for vehicular access.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
., 1999.
day of
MIKE SItEPltERD, President
Bremerton City Council
APPROVED this
day of
,1999.
LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor
City of Bremerton
ATTEST:
PAULA JOHNSTON, Deputy City Clerk
35
CITY OF BREMERTON · 239 4th Street · Bremerton, WA 98337
NOTICE OF PUBLIC It-EARING
Bremerton City Council
The Bremerton City Council will conduct a public hearing on the following item during its
regular meeting on Wednesday, April 14, 1999 which will begin at 6:00 PM in the City
Council Chambers of the Bremerton City Haft, 239 4'~ Street, Bremerton, WA.
SUP99-0001 - Special Use Permit for two Group Residential Facilities - Class I on
adjacent lots at 1006 and 1008 9th Street.
Applicant: Inland Empire Residential Resources
All interested persons may appear and provide testimony on the matter. The Department
of Economic and Community Development, located at 286 4t~ St., Bremerton, WA 98337,
will received written comments and other exhibits on the above item up to 5:00 PM on the
day of hearing. Written comments and other exhibits may also be submitted to the
Council prior to the close of the public hearing. Staff reports and copies of pertinent
materials can be obtained from the Department of Economic and Community
Development. Staff reports w/il be available by 5:00 PM on April 7, 1999. Call James
Coombes at (360) 478-5845 for additional information.
Equal Opportunity Employer
Memo
From:
Jon Holan, Department of Community and Economic Development
To~
City Council
Date:
April 14, 1999
Subject:
Additional Considerations regarding the Special Use Permit for Inland
Empire Residential Resources (SUP99-0001) that were discussed at the
Planning Commission Meeting on March 16, 1999.
On March 16, 1999 the Bremerton Planning Commission passed a motion recommending
that City Council approve this application for Special Use Permit. However, there were
two issues raised by the Commission to be considered at the public hearing with Council.
Res Judicata -
Mr. Ronald Templeton, attorney for the adjacent property owner, the Calnan family,
raised the issue that the doctrine res judicata applies to this project application. He noted
that res judicata would apply in this situation because once an applicant's project has been
denied, that project should not be allowed to be reintroduced again for approval.
At their January 12, 1999 Public Hearing, the Planning Commission rescinded the two
issued building permits being appealed by the Calnan family (APL98-0015). Each permit
had been issued for a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit attached at
the same address as this application. In rescinding the building permits, the Planning
Commission agreed with the appellant that these two residences were not single-family
homes, but group homes that fell under the requirements of the Bremerton Municipal
Code (BMC) use category of"Group Residential Facility - Class F' and required a Special
Use Permit. Staff has reviewed this matter with the Assistant City Attorney.
Therefore, this subsequent Special Use Permit application for two Group Residential
Facilities - Class I is not revisiting the same building permits and not subject to the
doctrine of res judicata.
Density -
The Planning Commission's decision on the building permit appeal in January found that
the project is a group residential facility rather than a series of single-family residences.
Staff views a group residential facility as a different type of use than a single-family
dwelling unit. Density is determined by the number of dwelling units per acre. A dwelling
unit consists of one family or household. The definition of household in the Zoning
1
Ordinance excludes group homes from that definition. Since the definition of household
does not typically include group care facilities, staff believes that the density standard does
not apply to a group residential facility.
This is further substantiated by the Zoning Ordinance definitions. [BMC 21.02.070
Definitions]
Density_ is defined in part as "a measure of residential concentration, usually expressed as
the number of dwellings per acre of land."
Dwelling Unit is defined as "a living space or combination of rooms designed to provide
independent year-round living facilities for one family or household, constructed to the
minimum standards of the UBC or HUD Code, and with provisions for sleeping, eating
and sanitation."
Household is defined as "All persons, regardless of age, sex, or family relationships, that
reside as a single unit in a dwelling intended for single household occupancy. Such group
quarters facilities as dormitories, boarding houses, nursing homes or similar
accommodations typically do not provide facilities for households."
2
.~ OF B~ ~
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
239 4th Street · Bremerton, Washington 98337 · (360) 478-5345 · FAX (360) 478-5161 ° E-mail: legal@ci.bremenon.wa.us
To: /lames Coombes
From: Knute Rife
Re: IERR
Date: 5 April 1999
At the meeting before the Planning Commission, the opponents to the IERR group home
raised two issues: density and res judicata. Neither applies to this proposal.
Applicants are requesting a SUP for a Group Residential Facility-Class I, as defined by
BMC 21.02.070. Opponents allege the proposal violates the density requirements of BMC Title
21 App., Figure 090. Figure 090 restricts the number of dwelling units (DUs) per acre. §070
defines "dwelling unit" as space designed to provide independent living for one family or
household. The individual rooms are not independent living spaces, and the combination of
rooms and people that would constitute an independent living space would not constitute a family,
but rather a random and shii~ing collection of residents. It would not constitute a household
either, as group quarters are typically excluded from the definition of "household" in §070.
"Dwelling unit" is a planning concept that typically does not apply to group facilities, and so
density provisions would not apply either.
Res judicata (Latin for "matters adjudicated") is a judicial doctrine to prevent relitigation
of cases. If a new case is identical to a previous case (which was decided on the merits) in the
following four areas, it will typically be barred by resjudicata: 1) subject matter, 2) cause of
action, 3) persons and parties, and 4) the nature of the persons for or against whom the claim is
made. Civil Service Commission vs. City_ of Kelso, 137 Wn.2d 166, __ P.2d __ (1999). The
last two elements are not at issue because the identical parties are involved.
The previous case involved here is the earlier decision by the Planning Commission, acting
on an appeal of the issuing of two building permits. First, there is a question whether the earlier
decision was a final decision on the merits. If it was not, then res judicata would not apply. At
the earlier hearing, the Planning Commission ruled that, contrary to the permits, the proposal was
not two single family residences but rather a group facility. The Commission effectively vacated
the permits and remanded the matter to DCD for further processing pursuant to the Commission's
ruling. This, then, would appear not to have been a final decision on the merits.
Second, the subject matter would not appear to be identical. Granted, the proposed
buildings are the same, but they are now presented not as two houses but as a single group
facility. This is a significant factor in analyzing the final point, identity of cause of action. A
building permit and a SUP are not the same. An appeal of the former and an initial review of the
Equal Opport~ty Employer
IERR Memo
Page 2 of 2
latter are even more disparate. The issues are different and the burdens are different, and so the
evidence presented and argumems made are different. There would not appear to be an identity
of cause of action. Res judicata should not apply.
GLENNA MALANCA, CITY ATTORNEY
Knute Rife, Asst. City Attorney
Draft Minutes.for Approval
Planning Commission Meeting
March 16, 1999
I. Roll Call
Those present were: Chairman Dingfield, Commissioner Griggs, Commissioner Stone and
Commissioner Wolfe. Commissionem Adams, Boyd and Robinson were absent. Quorum
certified.
II. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dingfield at 5:39 p.m.
III. Approval of the Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Stone to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by
Chairman Dingfield. Agenda approved.
l[~: Pubfic iVIeeting
A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda): None.
B. Hearing: None
C. Meeting:
Special Use Permit for the construction of two group residential
facilities Class I, in separate attached dwelling units (Inland Empire
Residential - File #SUP99-0001) located at 1006 and 1008 9th Street.
Chairman Dingfield informed those in attendance that this was a public meeting and that the
City Council would be holding the public hearing for this permit. The Planning Commission is
gathering information by reviewing what the Planning Department has prepared, obtaining
information from the applicant, hearing information from the public, then discussing among the
Commissioners and making a recommendation as a part of the planning agency to the City
Council for their use during the public hearing process. She then asked Mr. Holan to present the
staff'report.
Mr. Holan introduced the newly hired Assistant City Attorney, Knute Rife and noted that he
would be attending Commission meetings to provide any legal guidance.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 1 of 13
StaffReport: Mr. Holan stated that the Special Use Permit application by Inland Empire
Resources is to construct on two existing adjacent lots on 9th Street between Warren Avenue and
Broadway Avenue, two residential care facilities which are adjacent to each other. The
surrounding area is predominantly single family residential, with a park located northwest of the
property. This was presented first as a building permit for two single family residences with
accessory dwelling units, which the Commission determined to be inappropriate through the
appeal process and that the application should have been processed as a residential care facility.
The use most closely fits that of a Group Residential Care Facility. It would provide living
accommodations on the first floor of each unit for three individuals that have developmental
disabilities, and one additional individual on the upper floor of each facility. The upper floor
living area will give the facility the ability to serve two individuals not currently in the
Communitas service program. This type of facility is allowed in the CBR zone with a Special Use
Permit. In order to comply with building requirements for a Group Residential Care Facility, the
facilities are designed to provide barrier free access on the main floor, and barrier free access to
bathrooms on both the main floor and second floor. In addition, there is a barrier free van parking
space parking also provided.
The zoning ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces per single family residence and one
additional space for accessory units. This proposal would provide two barrier free van spaces and
three standard parking spaces. With a Special Use Permit, parking can be considered for the
particular use. The residents of this facility do not drive vehicles. Parking would mainly be for
staff members that will not be residing at this location and also for vans providing services to
residents.
Adjacent property owners to the north and east have used this property for assisting their access
into their property. There are also three properties north of the site that obtain access fi.om a
driveway extending perpendicular from the alley. Any development of the site itself would
preclude access to the property that property, owners to the east have use of. Planning staff
believes there was not a basis for denying the proposal, since a denial on this basis would preclude
any reasonable use of the property itself.
Mr. Holan addressed some specific issues that have been raised during previous discussions with
the Planning Commission and City Council (addendum to staff report - copies provided at the
meeting). A Tenant Support Service Provider will be providing services to the residents and
would be onsite in each facility in the morning to assist the residents getting ready for work, and
again at night to assist with dinner and bedtime. The Planning staff does not anticipate that there
would be a great deal of traffic as a result of the Tenant Support Provider. He noted that a single
family residential unit, based on traffic studies, generates approximately 10 trips per day. This
application is the equivalent to two single family residences with a single family use, with the
possibility of up to 20 daily trips in the alley.
With regards to security, the applicant has indicated that there will be staff available on a 24-hour
basis (by phone or pager). The Communitas facility is approximately two blocks from the
proposed project. Communitas has indicated they will increase their involvement with the Block
Watch Program, and the police department stated that this area is no more dangerous than other
areas.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 2 of 13
Staff'has recommended that a condition be added that a covenant or some other type of
instrument be recorded prior to occupancy that if there is any change in use from the Group
Residential Care Facility, it would require review and approval by the City of Bremerton to ensure
compliance with applicable development standards.
Mr. Holan commented that the City may be receiving more than their fair share of affordable
housing units, and that there should be a fair share distribution of affordable housing throughout
the county. Staff determined that since there has been no policy direction adopted by either the
City or the Regional Council, they did not base any recommendation on this fair share affordable
housing issue for this particular application. However, the Planning Commission may wish to
consider this in its deliberation of the Communitas proposal.
Based on the contents of the staff' report, the five criteria for approval of a Special Use Permit
would be met by this particular proposal and as a result the staff, subject to conditions, does
recommend that this project be adopted.
Joe McCarthy, Attorney for Inland Empire, stated that Inland Empire is a non-profit
organization with a mission of providing housing for low income persons and persons with
disabilities. They are working in conjunction with Communitas, however, Inland Empire owns
the land and is building the structure. Communitas will be providing services to the residents.
There are two single family homes that are attached, and they each have an accessory dwelling
unit on the second floor. The plan is to have three individuals living on the first floor of each
home, with one individual living upstairs in each home. The individuals that will be residing in
this home are currently living on their own in the community in their own apartments. The goal is
to provide them with affordable rent. All of these individuals are currently earning below 30% of
the median income and the rent they pay consumes approximately 70-90% of their monthly
income. The building itself fits within all development guidelines. They have applied for a
Special Use Permit and believe they have met all five of the criteria. He commented on the
condition proposed by the Planning staff regarding a change in use, and noted that the financing
for this project requires for it to be used for this purpose (low income housing for
developmentally disabled people) for 50 years.
Commissioner Stone asked if the occupants in the Accessory. Dwelling Units (ADU) were going
to be developmentally disabled people or low income people.
Mr. McCarthy responded that it is the mission of both organizations to serve the
developmentally disabled. The financing requires that the units be rented to developmentally
disabled, and it is their plan to do that.
Commissioner Wolfe asked ~Mr. McCarthy if he had had an opportunity to re,~Sew the letter from
Mr. Ronald Iempleton re: Calnan/Inland Empire Residential Resources that had been provided to
the Commissioners and others in attendance at this meeting today, specifically regarding res
judicata.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16. 1999 Page 3 o£ 13
Mr. McCarthy commented Inland Empire did not appeal the Planning Commission's decision
because they felt it would be easier to go through the Special Use Permit process. The Planning
Commission did not make a decision on the ADU issue. They are currently applying through a
new process with community participation. He stated that Mr. Templeton has raised the
argument that Inland Empire cannot reapply for a building permit because the Planning
Commission has denied the building permit and they are forever bared from seeking another one,
citing the doctrine of res judicata. Mr. McCarthy notes that res judicata applies to law suits and
it states that when a decision is made by an official, that decision is binding on the'person against
whom it was made and that person can't seek to re-litigate that issue in a subsequent proceeding.
Mr. McCarthy does not believe this particular application applies because they are not in a law
suit, this is only the permitting process. This is a quasi-judicial meeting today, a public meeting
for information, and no decision will be made.
Call to the Public - Public In Favor of this Application
Vera Kolegraf, mother of one of the proposed residents, commented that in the past 44 years
they have seen a change in attitude and acceptance of people with disabilities and their different
housing options. People with disabilities have rights just as any other citizen. She thanked those
in favor of this project.
Gary Wilson, Communitas, stated that four other parents were going to come to this meeting but
are currently in Washington, D.C. doing some work with the A.R.C. The message they sent
through him was that they would like to see more opportunities for affordable housing for their
children.
Lee Ishom, the A.R.C. of Kitsap County. Mr. Ishom noted that the ARC fully supports
opportunities for developmentally disabled persons. He stated that a decision was made in a
Connecticut case, that whenever 1-6 developmentally disabled come together under one roof, that
house shall be considered a home.
Call to the Public - Public In Opposition of this Application
Mr. Ronald Templeton, Attorney for the Calnan's, stated that the concerns of the Calnan family
is not the identity of the residents in this project, but the impact that it has on their historical
means of access. He believes that during the appeal of this project in January, Commissioner
Robinson outlined the history of the ADU provision, and that the majorityofthe Commissioners
had voted to support the appeal of this project. The appeal was sustained. He believes that the
doctrine of res judicata does apply. The issues were before this commission, the principal thrust
of their argument before was density problems, and the appeal was sustained. He noted that res
judicata would apply in this situation because once an applicant's project has been denied, they
should not be allowed to come back several times and subject members of the Commission to a
re-rev/ew of the same issues that had been heard previously, and should not subject the neighbors
to coming back and pointing out the defects in the project.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 4 of 13
Mr. Templeton noted that Inland Empire has not altered their proposed building whatsoever. He
believes this project should be identified as four dwelling units. The application indicates that the
structure is two single family residences with attached ADUs. Current zoning restricts this area to
18 units per acre and until that zoning ordinance is amended, that is the rule by which we are all
governed. He believes this is a multi-unit structure and is prohibited in a CBR zone.
Mr. Templeton stated that there is currently an action pending to confirm the Calnan's easement
fights. He believes that they are fully vested under the law, since they have used the north 35 feet
of that property for ingress/egress for over 41 years. With regards to parking, this project would
require six parking spots. The parking requirements also state that the Director may authorize a
reduction in the number of required parking spots due to the resident's ability to drive. Mr.
Templeton referred to a letter provided by Communitas dated June 10, 1998 indicating there
would be a total of eight individuals living in these four units, stating the individuals would be
supported by the Intensive Support Program for 8.61 hours per day. The 8.61 hours is per
individual per day. When you multiply 8.61 by eight individuals, there is 51.66 hours per day of
required staffing pursuant to their contract. He believes this would indicate that two full time
staff would be required on site, which would require two parking spots.
Commissioner Wolfe asked what is the status of the action pending regarding the issue with
historical means of access for the Calnan's easement fights.
Mr. Templeton responded that he had filed a summons complaint listing as defendants Inland
Empire and Communitas, seeking the title of prescriptive easement over the north 35 feet of the
property and confirm that record. The summons and complaint were filed on February 5, 1999,
and were subsequently served on Inland and Communitas. The next step will be a thal date.
Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Templeton if he believed the project exceeds the maximum
density standards.
Mr. Templeton responded affirmatively.
Nancy McKelvy, resident at 1018 9th Street, asked how much land there is from the front door
of this project to the sidewalk. She does not believe there is enough outdoor area for the
residents to use. She is also concerned about the properties proximity to Warren Avenue and the
amount of traffic on that road.
Ken Fick, resident of 816 Warren Avenue, stated that he is against this project because it is too
small of a lot. He indicated that parking is very difficult in this area, as after 7:00 a.m. you cannot
find parking in front of your own home. He feels the Calnan's have been wrongly portrayed as
being discriminating to disabled people. He stated that he would be interested to see other
projects that Inland Empire has constructed.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 5 of 13
Applicant' s Response:
Darryl Reber, Executive Director of Inland Empire (Spokane), stated that Inland Empire has
been certified as a Bremerton Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Their
main goal .is to create affordable housing for individuals with disabilities. They have developed 19
separate properties for this purpose, with the help of the state through the Community Trade and
Economic Development Department (CTED). There is $160,000 of CTED funds appropriated
for this project. Inland Empire is subject to housing quality standard review on an annual basis,
and the service providers are reviewed annually for provider and housing quality standards. Their
intention is to make an investment in the Bremerton community.
Joe McCarthy commented in response to the res judicata issue, he believes the Planning
Commission told Inland Empire/Communitas to reapply through the Special Use Permit process.
Inland Empire has done this now and they should be allowed to go through with their project.
Regarding density, he felt that decision was not conclusive at the last meeting and that the
Planning staffwas looking for guidance. He also felt that the ADU ordinance is not clear with the
density requirements. The Comp Plan indicates that ADUs should be encouraged and allowed in
all new and existing residential structures in all residential zones. Mr. McCarthy does not feel
that this structure should be considered a multi-unit structure because it is being built on two lots.
He stated that this structure is two separate buildings that could be sold separately and are legally
distinct. He does not believe the Calnan's have a case regarding prescriptive easement, and
indicated that Inland Empire would not build this structure until this issue has been resolved. He
said it is not relevant to the Special Use Permit, it is a private party dispute, and they need the
permit to move forward. The Director has recommended a reduction of one of the parking spaces
and Mr. McCarthy states this can be done, as the parking requirements are excessive given the
resident's ability to drive. Safety concerns are appreciated, but he does not feel they are relevant
or part of the Special Use Permit process.
Commissioner Stone asked for clarification on the funding for the residents and how they
qualify.
Joe McCarthy responded that Inland Empire is building this project with money provided by
CTED, the Bremerton CHI)O, and private financing. The residents that Mil be living in this
facility will be receiving services from Communitas, which is paid by the State Department of
Social and Health Services (DSHS) through the service provider program. Communitas currently
has a contract to serve six people (potential tenants that have been identified). With the creation
of two more affordable units, Communitas has the ability to obtain more funding for two more
people. Although these two individuals are not currently being served by Communitas, when the
housing becomes available for them through this project, then they can be added to the contract.
Commissioner Griggs asked how long this project would be financed, since this had to be used
as a group home for 50 years.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 6 of 13
4¢
Joe McCarthy answered that CTED has money in the Housing Trust Fund which provides low
interest loans to low income/affordable housing projects. People compete every year for these
dollars. This is a loan that has to be repaid unless you keep it affordable to the appropriate
residents for 50 years. If you continue to do this, you do not need to pay it back. He feels that
since most organizations that receive these type of loans are non-profit, they do not have the
ability, to pay them oft'and they continue to be used for their original purpose.
Commissioner Wolfe feels that the City did a very poor job with this project in terms of the
resources they provided (before Jon Holan was hired). He feels the information has been
inconsistent or non-existent. This issue is more controversial and emotional that he had thought
earlier. Since there is a pending legal case with this, he feels that deepens the controversy.
Joe McCarthy said he does not believe the Calnan's pending claim against Inland Empire is
relevant to the permit issue because this is a Special Use Permit. With regard to the ADU issue,
he does not feel this should be an issue in terms of how the ordinance needs to be interpreted. He
feels the density issue has to be interpreted to be consistent with the Comp Plan.
Commissioner Stone asked for clarification as to why they chose to have an ADU as opposed to
just having a two story home with two people on each floor.
Joe McCarthy responded that they needed an ,4J3U to make the project work financially. By
having that bedroom separate they can charge a little bit more rent for it. If the bedroom was
included downstairs they would not be able to charge as much rent and the project doesn't pencil
that way. He feels it is necessary to create the housing for people at this income level.
Darryl Reber, Inland Empire, stated that the 333U also gives them different housing models over
the 50 years of the loan. They are committed to housing developmentally disabled individuals, but
not everyone with developmental disabilities needs wheelchair accessibility or is involved in the
Intensive Tenant Support service system. There is another category in DSHS and their service
component that is called Regular Tenant Support. These are individuals who have disabilities,
(either ambulatory or may be working in the community) and they may need help with one activity
of daily living. This separate apartment allows that person to have the same type of independence
that most of us enjoy.
Gary, Wilson, Communitas, commented that some people don't want to live with others. They
are able to live independently. This is giving people a choice. This was not initially called a group
home because they are trying to move people out of group home facilities, where six to eight
people had been living together, and give them more choice on how they live. The particular
individuals that will be living in this particular project, have gone through a process of deciding
that they can live together or individually. These are six people who would like to live together,
more of a family-like housing opportunity for them. These individuals are living in individual
apartments in the community and Communitas is required to provide 8.61 hours of service to each
individual. In many cases they can provide this same service to the same individuals by having
reduced staffing. Their goal is to be able to reduce staffing and provide the same services, in
order to provide additional services to the disabilities community.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 7 of 13
Allen Peterson, Communitas, stated that they are currently supporting 36 individuals
residentially. They would like to downsize the group homes because they believe people can have
a higher quality of life in smaller living arrangements.
Commissioner Stone stated that Bremerton has one of the lowest per capita tax bases in the
state, and wondered if Inland Empire has done any studies on affordable housing. It appears that
Bremerton has more than its share of affordable housing.
Joe McCarthy, commented that housing is more affordable in Bremerton because the median
income is lower. He does not believe that there is any evidence that Bremerton has more people
who are getting cheaper rent than they deserve, in fact people here need affordable housing
because the median income is lower than places like Bellevue. The fair share issue arises under
the Growth Management Act (GMA) as a planning issue for the City itself and for the City in it's
intergovernmental relations with the County and the other jurisdictions with the county. The
G~MA requires the City to accept its fair share of low income housing as a statutory mandate. The
issue of how much can be very hotly contested when you are enacting your Comp Plan and
Zoning Ordinances. This project is going to serve those people at the lowest end of the spectrum.
There is not enough housing in Bremerton for people who make 30% less of the median income.
Commissioner Stone noted that this project is admirable, however, his concern is that since we
do have low property values already, we are not going to raise those values by concentrating low'
income properties here. He stated that we should think of the economic base of the City itself.
Since Inland Empire is building this as a 501 C3 and is more than likely removed from the tax rolls,
so it will not make a contribution to the City. The income that is being brought into the City from
this project is already here.
Darryl Reber stated that King County probably has the largest percentage of people with
disabilities that need affordable housing. Clark County, Pierce County and Snohomish County
also have a higher percentage than Kitsap County.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if there was a lot of competition for contractors like Inland Empire
throughout the state.
Darryl Reber responded that as far as purchasing property, he competes Mth everyone. As far
as non-profit housing developers that specialize in developmentally disabled housing issues, there
are probably three or four that specialize in this field. There are other housing developers that will
integrate one to two apartments into a 50-unit apartment building. Inland Empire is one of the
few service providers specializing in the field of special needs developmental and disabled
housing.
Joe McCarthy commented that the Kitsap County Consolidated Plan for 1996-2000 indicates
that supportive housing is available to 162 people currently in the County, although there are 750
people who need it.
Commissioner Stone stated that he would like to know what percentage of those people are in
Bremerton.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 8 of 13
Joe McCarthy, responded that he does not have the breakdown of what areas in the county these
individuals are from.
Gary Wilson, stated that Communitas has housing in Poulsbo, Port Orchard, Silverdale and in
Bremerton. He believes the housing is scattered throughout the peninsula fairly equally.
Dick Kolegra£, father of one of the proposed residents, commented that in 1979 or 1980 KPHA
(now known as Communitas) had received a $1,100,000 loan from HUD and built four group
homes and two half-group homes. Three are six bedroom and one is a five bedroom. The one in
Bremerton is located on Garland Lane. They do not own the land. They brought people out of
institutions to live in these homes. Some of these individuals would live there for a while and then
move on to Intensive Tenant Support. The state would then have another person to take their
place in the group home. KPHA could house people in emergency situations. The house remains
in good condition.
Ken Fick asked if he could receive a list of the properties that Inland Empire has built in the state.
Darryl Rebar noted that a property portfolio was provided to the Department of Economic and
Community Development in the original application packet and is a matter of public record.
Closed to the Public
Jori Holan stated that in regards to Accessory Dwelling Units, single family residential units, etc..
the Commissioners dealt with those issues on the appeal. At that time they had made the
determination that it was not a single family dwelling unit, but that it was a Group Residential
Facility. As a result, Inland Empire has filed a Special Use Application for a Group Residential
Facility (not a single family residence with an ADU). The issue before the Commissioners tonight
is whether or not a Residential Group Facility is appropriate for that particular location. With
respect to the density issue, the interpretation was made that the density requirement for the site
should have applied to an ADU, since those are design standards for ADUs that would be
applicable to that. Those issues go away when the project is a Group Residential Facility because
that definition does not make reference to the development standards. The reason it requires a
Special Use Permit is because you have five findings, one of which is to define whether or not this
is appropriate for that particular residential area. From staff' s perspective, they are looking at this
as whether or not the proposed use is appropriate for that residential area (parking, intensity of
the use, etc.). Furthermore, when looking at the definitions within the Zoning Ordinance
regarding residential units, Group Residential Facilities are typically not included as households.
As a result, the notion that a Group Residential Facility is in fact a residential unit does not apply
based on their definition. These are two separate and distinct activities. Mr. Holan felt that a lot
of the tonight's discussion with regards to the density issue, particularly as it relates to ADUs in
single family dwelling units, is not relevant because of the decision the Commissioners had
previously made on the appeal that it was not a single family residence.
Commissioner Griggs thanked Mr. Holan for the clarification on that and asked if the project
was still considered a single family dwelling with an ADU, would it exceed the density
requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 9 of 13
Mr. Holan responded that this project would exceed the density standards if it was a single family
dwelling with an ADU. The staff report indicates that if there is a change in use from the Group
Residential Facility, particulary as a single family unit, that the City will have concerns from a
density standpoint.
Commissioner Wolfe commented that at the last meeting there was some question as to the legal
review of the permit application. He asked if the City Attorney's office had an opportunity to
review the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Holan said that they had received a copy of the staff report, but they have not reviewed the
Special Use Permit application.
Knute Rife, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he had reviewed the staff'report but that there is
no permit yet and there won't be until such time as the application is reviewed and approved by
the City Council.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if the legal office had any comments with regards to the staff report.
Mr. Rife stated that there was none at this time.
Joe McCarthy commented that the residents that have chosen to move into this facility already
live in Bremerton. He wanted to clarify that this project is not bringing more low' income
individuals into Bremerton. This project is designed to help serve the existing population.
Commissioner Stone asked the City Attorney to comment on the res judicata issue.
Mr. Rife commented that he had reviewed Mr. Templeton's information that was presented at
this meeting, but he had not had the opportunity to review the proceeding and the decision on the
appeal that the Planning Commission made in January. He would need to review- that information
before he would be able to comment further. Res judicata is fact specific. There have been two
different representations of what happened at the January hearing.
Chairman Dingfield asked Mr. Rife to review all the documentation prior to the City Council
meeting, as these issues will be discussed at that hearing.
Mr. Templeton stated that he does not agree that the denisty issue should now disappear because
they are dealing with a Group Residential Facility. His interpretation is that this is four separate
dwelling units. If you call it a Group Residential Facility, it is not allowable to have an ADU. He
believes there remains a density issue because there are four separate dwelling units.
Chairman Dingfieid stated that the Commission has been wrestling with the ADU issue and will
continue to do so during the Zoning Ordinance review. Other cities do not even have an ADU
ordinance. She appreciates the flexibility that the arrangement this Group Care Facility will offer
individuals with developmental disabilities. She feels the Commission will need to look at this
further, because our society becomes more enlightened about how people can learn differently and
live more productively in a society, instead of institutionalizing people. This kind of flexibility can
Planning Commission Meeting March 16. 1999 Page 10 of 13
.50
offer people a lot of opportunities that they may not otherwise have. She also noted that the City
Council is wresting with the fair share housing issue because there have been other applicants that
have come through and the Council is making a very public statement that says Bremerton is
willing to do its part, but other cities in the County and the County itself are going to have to step
up to the plate also.
Commissioner Stone commented that the Planning Commission will need to address the
economic affect of their decisions. This is a unique city in which a rather large portion is not tax
supported, but they contribute to the infrastructure need. He is not opposed to the 501 C3
organizations, but the fact remains that these properties are taken offthe tax rolls.
Commissioner Griggs stated that the City can require a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). He
indicated that a lot of HUD projects do this.
Chairman Dingfield stated that she agrees with these points, but she also feels that at some point
there is a policy line that might be more appropriately taken up by City Council.
Mr. }tolan stated that it would be appropriate for someone to make a motion for this application,
rather than adopting a specific resolution.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that he does not feel that the Planning Commission could
recommend anything at this point without hearing from the City Attorney's office (res judicata
and density issues). He supports this project and he would like to see it go forward, however, he
feels the legal office needs to address these issues.
Chairman Dingfield noted that the purpose of this public meeting is to bring forward all of those
issues to the applicant, to the public and to the planning department itself so that these issues can
be brought up. When the application is heard at City Council, all of the issues can be addressed in
the actual formal public heating.
Knute Rife stated that he does not believe this a res judicata issue at this meeting, as it is not a
quasi-judicial proceeding. If there is a res judicata issue, it is something that the City Council will
have to deal with. He does not feel that it should stand in the way of a recommendation from the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Rife if he felt there was a density issue.
Knute Rife responded that he does not feel that the density issue necessarily stands in the way of
the Planning Commission sending its recommendation to the City Council, given that you note to
the City Council that you have identified in open session that there is a potential density issue that
they are going to have to address.
Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Rife if he felt there was anything that would interfere with the
Planning Commission making a recommendation
Planning Commission Mccting March 16. 1999 Page 11 of 13
Mr. Rife stated that the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission together form the Planning
Agency. The Planning Agency is acting as a fact finding staff'for the City Council. The Agency is
not putting together a formal record for the Council, rather they are giving the citizenry a chance
to voice concerns, support, etc. Based on that, the Agency would forward their findings to the
City Council together with identification of any major issues that they will need to address.
Commissioner Wolfe asked Mr. Rife if these are matters of record when they go to the City
Council.
Mr. Rife indicated that the City Council could include these issues, but they would have to be
specifically noted. Any decision Planning Commission makes tonight is not on the record.
Commissioner Stone asked if the Commission should approve the Resolution that was in the
staff packet, adding the change in use subject to findings of legal council.
Chairman Dingtield noted that it is apparent to the Planning Department, Planning Commission,
the applicant, and to proponents/opponents of the applicant that there are specific issues that the
staff and legal council will have to address so that City Council has as much information as
possible to make their decision. The Commission should give them a sense of how they feel about
this application and make a recommendation knowing that there are still issues to be resolved
before the City Council has their public hearing.
Commissioner Stone made a motion to adopt the recommendation in the staff report,
adding a third condition (recording of a covenant prior to occupancy that any change in
use from a Group Residential Care Facility require review and approval by the City of
Bremerton to ensure compliance with applicable development requirements. This was
seconded by Commissioner Griggs.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if it would appropriate to add the Planning Commission's concerns
in the resolution.
Mr. Holan stated that the Commission might state to the Council that through public review the
Planning Commission has identified two issues with regards to res judicata and the applicability of
density requirements for this particular project, and these should be considered by the Council in
their deliberations.
Chairman Dingfield asked for a vote from the Commissioners for the additional wording to the
resolution. Chairman Dingfield, yes; Commissioner Griggs, yes; Stone, yes; Wolfe, yes.
Motion passes.
V. Bltsiness Meeting
Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Commissioner Stone and
seconded by Commissioner Griggs to approve the minutes of the February
16, 1999 meeting. Motion passed.
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 12 of 13
B. Directors Report:
Mr. Holan stated that the City Council will be reviewing a proposed extension to the Sinclair
Landing Planned Unit Development (PUD) at their March 24, 1999 meeting.
C. Old Business: None.
D. New Business: None.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Adjournment
Respectfully submitted by:
Jori Holan, Secretary
Approved by:
Joan Dingfield, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1999 Page 13 of 13
~ Lender
City of Bretnerton
Special Use Permit
Application
17
Fee: $510.00
Administrative Decision
City Council Decision
***Please provide 5 copies of Application and site plan***
BFZ ) TON
Special Use Permit- BMC 21.02.905 A Special Use Permit may be approved for a land~is'6DCJG ~.R'~':~" ~-'t;~4EN~-
that is not specifically listed in the Land Use Tables of Chapter V as and "Allowed Principal
Use" or an Accessory 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 and
processing can occur.
Applicant:
Address:
Inland Empire Residential Resources
7807 E. Sprague Avenue Phone Number:
Spokane, WA 99212-2936 Facsimile
(509) 926-0462
(509) 926-0553
Contact Person (if different than applicant): Gary Wilson
Address:
Communitas
920 Park Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98337
Phone Number:
(360) 337-7231
Title Holder (if different than applicant):
Address:
Site Address (location):
Tax Assessor's Parcel #:
Phone Number:
1006 & 1008 Ninth Street
3743 0003 0003 0007
Zoning Designation: CBR
Page I of l
Parcel Size (property dimensions): Each lot is 30' x 100', 3000 total S.F.
ILegal Description (attach extra sheet if necessary): Lots 3 and 4, Block3, Dietz's addition to
the town of Bremerton, according to Plat recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, pages 57, in Kitsap
County, Washington.
Special Use Requested: Inland Empire Residential Resources is applying for a Special Use
Permit for the construction of two single family homes with attached ADUs. Although, City of
Bremerton guidelines defining Class I - l& 2 and Class II - l&2 group care residences clearly
indicate the project in questions falls into neither category, given that individuals residing there
will receive tenant support to ensure an independent living arrangement, it is apparent that a SUP
is necessary to ensure the development of this project. The closest special use designate would
be Group Residential Facility - Class I as defined by the City of Bremerton zoning ordinance.
Proposal (please describe in as much detail as possible the nature of the development):
IERR is the current owner of two (2) contiguous 30'x 100' lots located 1006 and 1008 Ninth
Street in the City of Bremerton. Through the preconstruction conference process, it has been
determined that the two (2) single family residences with accessory dwelling units on a zero lot
line will be permitted with the current zoning of these parcels. These second story units do not
exceed the allowable gross floor area of 40% of the principal dwelling unit as required under
Zoning Ordinance Interpretation ZOI-01-97 for accessory dwelling units. IERR has developed
building plans for this site and retaining bids from several local contractors. Ron Burley
Construction of Port Orchard has been selected as the General Contractor for the project. Burley
Construction is a minority owned construction company,
Upon completion of this project, three (3) individuals with developmental disabilities will reside
in each side of the main floor of the single-family homes. These individuals are currently living
in market rate rental apartments in Bremerton and each person is paying rent in excess of 50% of
their income. Communitas a Bremerton based Tenant Support Service Provider is currently
providing and will continue to provide support services to the residents through their contract
with the Department of Social and Health Services.
The second floor accessory dwelling units will provide Communitas the opportunity to serve two
(2) individuals currently not in the system and therefore unserved. The location of the project is
close to public transportation, shopping, medical services and Communitas' main office at 920
Park Avenue.
IERR is requesting that the parking requirements reflect the need to ensure accessibility for
handicap parking. This would require allotting more parking space for handicap parking and
limiting the spaces needed for individual cars. Because of the nature of the client group that will
reside there, this will not present a problem. None of the individuals who will reside there drive
or have vehicles.
Criteria for Approval:
Page 2 of 2
Your requested Special Use Permit can be approved only if all of the following criteria can be
answered "YES".
Is the proposal consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and either designated
"SUP" in the Zoning Ordinance, or is being processed as an "Unlisted Use"?
Yes - the proposal is consistence with the City's Comprehensive Plan as defined by Goal
# 4 which is to encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments
of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing
types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
Also is defined by the B.C.P. a key objective in the CBD is to build higher levels of
density and to establish a new identity and land use mix that will work effectively to bring
the area back to prosperity.
Will the proposal comply with all applicable development standards and requirements,
including the availability of all needed utilities and services?
Yes - all requirements as defined by applicable development standards including the
proper availability of utilities and services have been met.
Will the proposal, along with any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval,
avoid significant adverse environmental consequences?
Yes - this project poses no adverse environmental consequences.
4. Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood?
Yes - current neighborhood use is a mix of single-family homes and rental properties.
Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or design guidelines that are applicable to
the specific use or type of development?
Yes - IERR applications were received for review on July 9, 1998. The plans were
subject to the required development standards and provisions of the Bremerton Municipal
Code and the State Uniform Building Code.
Page 3 of 3
Please provide below (or on a separate paper) detailed explanations or other information that will
assist in the review of your request and that will help show that your proposal meets the above
criteria.
IERR, in partnership with The Communitas Group, has responded to a market need in the
community of Bremerton that reflects the Bremerton Community Plan, by developing a housing
project designed for a specific group of individuals with disabilities who are currently residents
of Bremerton. First, we would like to provide you with an overview of the two (2) organizations
that are involved in project development at 9th Street and Warren Avenue. Second, we will show
market demand for affordable special needs housing and how it relates to the requested City of
Bremerton CHDO funding and our belief in why this project is of great value both for the
individuals impacted and the community.
IERR is a Washington State non-profit 501(C)(3) corporation formed in 1990 and directed by a
board of real estate professionals, bankers, parent's, guardians and service providers to the
developmentally disabled. IERR is a certified as a CHDO by the State of Washington, City and
County of Spokane, City of Bremerton and the State of Idaho.
A CHDO is a nonprofit organization with a defined service area at least as a large as a
neighborhood, whose stated purpose includes the provision of decent affordable housing. A
CHDO must have capacity and experience to carry out activities with HOME funds, including
acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction of rental or low-income homeowner housing.
Since its creation, IERR has developed, owns and manages 19 scattered site properties in
Vancouver, Grandview, Spokane, Seattle and King County. IERR is currently involved in the
development of projects at Longbeach, Snohomish County and Issaquah, Washington, as well as
in Victoria, British Columbia Canada.
Since 1994, IERR's portfolio of properties has grown from one single-family house occupied by
three individuals to 35 rental units occupied by 87 individuals with development disabilities.
The financing package which includes Washington State Housing Trust Fund dollars by
contractual agreement requires a fifty (50) year commitment to affordability for our target
population. IERR uses only legal documents approved by Washington Department of Real
Estate, adheres to the Fair Housing Act.
I. ERR has worked closely with the City of Bremerton, Planning Department to ensure that the
plans were subject to all required development standards and provisions of the Bremerton
Municipal Code and the State Uniform Building Code.
Communitas is a not-for-profit organization, which has been in the Bremerton community for 20
years. Previously, Communitas was known as Kitsap Peninsula Housing Association. In the
past three years, the direction of Communitas has shifted from being strictly a provider of
services to an organization that plays an intermediary role in the creation & implementation of
comprehensive community development strategics for socially based busiacsscs a~d aon-profit
agencies.
Page 4 of 4
Based at 920 Park Avenue in Bremerton, The Communitas Group has an active portfolio of non-
governmental organizations and business entities. This includes Unison; a community-based
managed service provider for individuals with developmental disabilities, with approximately
100 employees in Bremerton and throughout Kitsap County. Communitas injects a yearly
payroll of over three (3) million dollars in the greater community of Bremerton and serves over
60 individuals and families.
IERR, in partnership with The Communitas Group, has responded to a market need in the
community of Bremerton by trying to develop a housing project designed for a specific group of
individuals with disabilities who are currently residents of Bremerton (albeit in inadequate but
high-priced apartments).
The clear demand for special needs housing can be best explained by the Kitsap County
Consolidated Plan, for the period of January 1996 through December 2000. As defined in the
"Housing Market Analysis" sub chapter entitled Development Disabilities:
Developmental Disabilities: The Division of Developmental Disabilities currently serves 750
clients throughout the County. There are no reliable estimates of the unserved developmentally
disabled population at large. The Division has seen caseloads increase steadily in recent years.
Three trends are responsible for much of the growth. First, the state of Washington recently
established a policy to seriously downsize the resident habilitation centres, a move termed
"Project Option". Secondly, there has been an influx of clients moving into the area from out of
state. Thirdly, caseloads are growing as many clients are moving out of family homes when they
reach 18 years of age, when the parents retire, or when the parents are no longer available to
provide the needed support as they age.
Affordability and accessibility are the two primary housing issues for the developmentally
disabled population. Approximately 95% of the Division's clients are low income and dependent
on SSI. The low benefits [which they receive] (usually $462 per month) qualifies them to
receive public housing assistance. However, there are long waiting lists for such assistance.
Even when a Section 8 voucher or certificate is awarded, the disabled are not always able to find
housing that accepts Section 8 tenants and is handicap accessible. The majority of the clients can
only afford to live independently if they share an apartment with someone.
Supportive housing is available to only approximately 162 of the County's 750 clients. The
remaining 588 are considered 'unserved' and must wait for an opening.
Page 5 of 5
A more direct community indicator is that the Unison client base in the past two years has
increased 20%. Upon completion of this project, 8 individuals who are currently living in market
rental housing, each paying rent in excess of 50% of their income will decrease their housing cost
to the accepted standard of 30% of income. For individuals whose average income is only $512
per month, this is a substantive increase in their standard of living. The proposed project-
financing package is based on the construction bids, land costs, and other related project
expenses.
This project also fulfills the City of Bremerton's first two housing goals as defined in the
Comprehensive Plan. Goal #4: Housing states:
Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population
of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage
preservation of existing housing stock.
1. Provide a range of housing opportunities in healthy living environments for all members of
our Bremerton community.
2. Establish livable neighborhoods with a mix of household types in every Bremerton
neighborhood.
3. Help make the American dream of home ownership possible for as majority of Bremerton
residents.
Applicant's Statement
I hereby certify that the statements contained herein are correct. I understand that conditions of
approval may be required to adequately protect the zone or neighborhood within which the
subject use is located, and I agree to abide by those conditions.
I understand that the decision on this application may be appealed and possibly overturned. I
also understand that an approved Special Use Permit is subject to future review and possible
revocation by the City Council for any violation of terms or limitations.
I understand that approval of this Special Use Permit may be appealed and possibly overturned
by the City Council.
I have read, unj~rstand, and agree with all of the above statements.
Applicant 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.
Page 6 of 6
PS
I,~TII 5]
'1
_' CBR ~/,
-- I0111 ST,
:-:S-MX
PS
PS
'~ FrITTI-[I'iL']
[III ,.l~rl~r'~ I
,71711~1_[t'1
!J !",)D lxl,&V?,,l._.
ZONES'
SF-I
SF-2
SF-3
MF
CBR
PO
NB
(21)
SC
nC
BP
IP
IG
bix
SMU
Residential [.ow-density (1-3 DU/acre)
Residential Low-densily (1-8 DUlacre)
Re'qdel~lial Low-density (3-8 DU/acre)
Residential l.ow-dcnsity (3-R DU/acrc)
Residential Nledium-de.sily (8-18 DU/ncrc)
Residential Medium-densily (8-1 8 l)U/ncre)
Residential High-dcnsily (8-1,1 DU/acrc)
Profcssionnl Oflqcc
Neighborh~l l]usincss
Chns'lcstot~ l)islrict
General []usiness
Shoppi:~g Ccn~er
~usiness Core
]~usiness Pnrk
IndustHnl Park
Induslrinl Genernl
Mix~ U~
Shoreline Mixed Usc
I
Effective date of
la lest a m_e_ndment_~s~.
Oct. 29, 1997
URD
/,
ZONING MAP
1
Memo
From: .Ion Holan, Department of' Community and Economic Development
To: Planning Commission
Date: March 16, 1999
Subject:
Addendum to Staff Report for Special Use Permit for Inland Empire
Residential Resources (SUP99-0001)
The purpose of this addendum is to address several issues not covered in the Staff'Report
previously distributed with the Commission packet. Several of these issues were
mentioned at earlier meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission. The
affordable housing issue has been added since there have been discussions on this matter.
Tenant Support Services -
The issue was raised as to the specific type of staff services and how that service would
impact the neighborhood.
Upon completion of the construction of this project, Communitas, a Bremerton based
Tenant Support Service Provider, will be providing support services to the residents
through a contract with the Department of Social and Health Services. Part of that tenant
support contract requires Communitas to be accessible by pager for emergency purposes
on a 24-hour a day basis. This does not mean the tenant support must be onsite 24 hours
a day, just that they are accessible. There is no plan for staffmembers to live onsite. They
are contracted to provide 8.61 hours to these individuals per day and that time is adjusted
according to individual needs. One staff person is intended to meet several tenants' hours.
Various services include assistance w/th personal hygiene or helping them balance a
checkbook. Typically, a staff member is onsite in each facility in the morning to assist
residents getting ready for work, and onsite again in the evening to assist at dinner and
bedtime. This level of tenant support is not anticipated to generate much traffic.
Thus, staff does not believe that the neighborhood will be adversely affected by staff
services or staff movement to and from the property.
Security -
There was a concern raised about the safety and potential security of the developmentally
disabled residents onsite.
Staff will be available if any security needs should arise. When there is no staff onsite,
there is staff available 24-hours a day by phone or pager. Communitas' office is located at
1
920 Park Avenue, just two blocks from the facility. Additionally, Cormnunitas has made a
long-term commitment to increase their involvement with Block Watch programs.
Further, the Police Department has stated that the area is no more dangerous than other
areas. It does not appear that security will be a problem with this facility.
Emergency Vehicles -
There was a question about the impact of and accessibility for emergency vehicle traffic at
the site.
Access for emergency vehicles is available on 9~ Street within 20 feet of the from door.
There is also barrier-free van parking space behind the facility, off the alley. Impact to
neighborhood traffic does not appear to be any greater than that of two typical single-
family units.
Discontinuation of the Group Residential Facilities -
The question was raised as to whether a condition should be placed on the property to
address possible change in use. Potentially, the facility could be sold and converted to
another permitted or conditionally permitted use allowed in the CBR zoning district. If
sold, it may be possible that a permitted use, such as single-family residences, not
requiring any structural modifications could be established without any further review by
the City. If the facility was used strictly as residences rather than a group care facility, the
City's density standards would be exceeded. Thus, staff recommends that a condition be
added that a covenant be recorded prior to occupancy that any change in use from a group
residential care facility requires review and approval by the City of Bremerton to assure
compliance with applicable development requirements.
Affordable Housing -
The City of Bremerton has historically supported a substantial number of Iow income
families. According to the 1990 Census, 49 percent of Bremerton's farrdlies and
households have incomes below 80 percent of the county median and were considered
"low-income" (Source: City of Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan, page 13). The 1990
Census also reveals that Bremerton had the lowest median household income in Kitsap
County at $22,610. As a result, Bremerton, particularly West Bremerton, has been a
primary source of affordable housing units in the County. According to the Multiple
Listings Service for Kitsap County, West Bremerton had an average residential price of
$98,200 for 1998 and has historically maintained the lowest average residential prices for
each year since 1981. By comparison, no other portion of Kitsap County in 1998 had
average residential prices of less than $128,900 (East Central Kitsap).
The same is generally true with rental rates. For studios, one and two bedroom units, the
average rental rate in Bremerton for Fall, 1998 was the lowest when compared with
Kitsap County as a whole, Port Orchard, Poulsbo and Silverdale (source: Dupre and Scott
Apartment Advisors, Inc.). It had the second lowest average rental rate at $722 for 3
bedroom/2 bath units (Port Orchard was the lowest at $647).
2
This data suggests that the City of Bremerton may tend to attract affordable units for low
income families and persons. Other factors such as availability of transit and other
services as well as proximity to jobs also tend to reinforce this desirability, particularly for
facilities serving special populations.
This situation raises the argument that Bremerton may likely receive more than its fair
share of affordable housing units. Further, it brings into question whether new facilities
such as this proposal should be located in another community in the county in order to
provide a fair share distribution of affordable housing. Affordable Housing Item Number
2 of the Kitsap County-wide Planning Policy adopted in 1992 indicates that there should
be fair share distribution of affordable housing throughout the county. It also presents a
process to determine this fair share housing obligation through the Kitsap Regional
Council. To date, this process has yet been completed.
Since there has been no policy direction on the fair share housing issue adopted either by
the City or by the Regional Council, staff did not base any recommendation on this issue
for this particular application. However, the Planning Commission may wish to consider
this issue in its deliberation of the Communitas proposal.
3
CITY OF BREMERTON
BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING:
PREPARED BY: James Coombes
SUMMARY
1. Applicant:
Inland Empire Residential Resources
7807 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane, WA 99212-2936
2. Location:
1006 & 1008 Ninth Street
3. Tax. Assessor's Lot No.: 3743-003-003-0007
4. Attachments:
O
0
O
SUP Application
Site Plan & Floor Plan
Zoning Map
Comprehensive Plan Map: Medium-Density Residential (MDR)
Zoning: Central Bremerton Residential (CBR)
FINDINGS
Property & Development:
Two existing and adjacent vacant lots 30 feet by 100 feet each on the north side
of 9th Street between Warren Avenue and Broadway Avenue. A 14 foot alley
borders the north property line of the lots.
1
Surrounding Land Uses:
Predominantly single-family residential neighborhood with a park located to the
northwest of the property.
Requested Special Use
Two Group Residential Facilities - Class I, each occupying one principle
dwelling unit and each with an accessory living unit on the second floor. Each
facility is separate on individual lots, but are physically attached. There would
be four (4) persons living at each of the two properties for a total of eight (8)
persons living in the entire proposed project. A total of six (6) of the proposed
residents would be persons with developmental disabilities. The remaining two
(2) residents would be persons who do not currently have access to provided
assistance.
All of the residents would receive less than market rent and other assistance
through Communitas, a Bremerton based Tenant Support Service Provider who
is currently under contract with the Department of Social and Health Services.
Analysis
Use -
The use described in the application most closely fits that of the Zoning
Ordinance definition of a Group Residential Facility - Class I. Both facilities
propose providing living accommodations on the main floor of each unit for three
individuals who have developmental disabilities and one additional individual on
the upper floor of each facility. The upper floor living areas will give the facility
the ability to serve two individuals not currently in the Communitas' service
program. A Group Residential Facility - Class I is allowed in this CBR zone with
a Special Use Permit.
The facilities are designed to provide barrier-free access to the main floor and
barrier free access to the bathrooms on both the main floor and the second floor.
Barrier-free van space parking is also provided.
Parking -
The Zoning Code requires two off-street standard parking spaces per single-
family residence plus one additional space for an accessory unit. The proposed
use would provide two barrier-free van spaces and three standard parking
spaces. With a Special Use Permit or Special Exception Permit, parking can be
considered for the particular use.
2
The developmentally disabled individuals residing in the facilities do not drive
vehicles. There is a reduced need for parking required for a single-family
residence with an accessory unit. There are two 16 feet by 20 feet barrier-free
van spaces provided as well as three standard parking spaces measuring 8.5
feet by 17 feet 11 inches minimum.
Development Standards -
The two proposed Group Residential Facilities would meet the building setback
requirements for the CBR zone. A 5 foot side yard setback is required for
unattached units. Zero Lot Line Attached units require a 10 foot side yard
setback on the unattached side. A 10 foot front yard building setback is required
and a 15 foot rear yard setback.
Allowable height for the CBR is 30 feet. The proposed project height average is
20 feet with a height of 30 feet at the peak.
Maximum allowable lot coverage is 50 percent. The proposed building coverage
is approximately 1392 square foot for each 3000 square foot lot which is 46
percent coverage.
Circulation -
Primary pedestrian access is the entrance on 9th Street. Vehicular access to the
site and off-street parking is off the alley on the north side of the property.
Parking is also allowed in front of the property along 9th Street. The alley right-of-
way width is 14 feet. The paved surface is approximately 10 feet. The property
owner to the north has a built wall at least to the edge of the alley. [Exhibit A]
Adjacent property owners to the north and east have established a habit of
crossing the northern portion of the property to negotiate the alley. One
neighbor backs his vehicles out of his carport, onto the property, and then turns
into the alley. [Exhibit B] Another neighbor to the east crosses the property with
his vehicle to access the alley. [Exhibit C] There are also three properties north
of the site which obtain access from a driveway extending perpendicular from the
alley. Vehicular traffic emanates from these three properties by way of the
driveway and may swing wide onto a small portion of the subject site. [Exhibit D]
The historical use of the site for access brings up the potential issue of
prescriptive rights which cannot be resolved through this permit review process.
Notwithstanding this issue, any development of the site would potentially impact
circulation. If single-family homes were to be built on the site, the garage for
these homes could be built at the edge of the alley. This would create a greater
restriction on circulation for those properties to the north than the proposed use.
The care facilities would leave 22.5 feet of parking area available for
maneuvering if no cars are parked. Based on City standards of 18 feet depth for
a standard parking space and 20 feet depth for a van space, parked vehicles
would still leave a minimum of 2.5 to 4.5 feet of maneuvering area adjacent to
the alley.
Any required van parking space must be located in the middle of the site's
parking area to ensure that an adequate radius is provided for a van turning into
the property. A condition has been added to address this issue.
Regarding the property to the east, any development of the subject site would
preclude the access the property owner to the east now enjoys. Staff believe
that this should not be a basis for denying the proposed use since it would
preclude any reasonable development of the subject site.
Comment Survey:
En_qineerinci De~3t.:
Buildin.q Dept.:
Fire Marshal:
The application was routed to
Departments for review and comment.
comments were received:
various City
The following
Each lot shall have a separate water meter and sewer
lateral.
A Group residential Facility is classified by the
Building Code as a Group LC occupancy. The
structures must be designed in accordance with UBC
(WAC 51-40-313) Section 13, in addition to UBC
Chapter 11, Regulations for Barrier-Free facilities.
Final inspection required.
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:
Is the proposal substantively consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
either desiqnated "SUP" in the Zoninq Ordinance, or is beinq processed as
an "Unlisted Use"?
YES. The Group Residential Facility - Class I use is substantively
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan encourages a variety
of compatible uses within this area. The Plan designation for this general
area is Medium-Density Residential which would not be compromised by
this use.
Will the proposal be consistent with all applicable development standards
and requirements, includin.q the availability of all needed utilities and
services?
YES. Meets applicable zoning standards for group care facilities and
provides barrier-free access consistent with building code requirements.
Further, the applicant must comply with all applicable development
standards including State and City building, health, and fire safety codes.
A condition has been included to address this issue. All necessary
utilities and services are available to serve the anticipated site
requirements.
Will the proposal, alon.q with any mitiRation measures or other conditions
of approval, avoid siRnificant adverse environmental consequences?
YES. It appears no significant adverse environmental consequence will
occur as a result of this use. The proposed Group Residential Facility -
Class I use would be required to conform to all applicable codes.
Will the proposal be compatible with adjacent uses and surroundinq
nei.qhborhood?
YES. The Group Residential Facility - Class I use would be compatible
with adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood. The intensity of the
use for the five individuals living in each of the two Group Residential
Facilities would typically be less or no greater than that of two single-
family units.
Development of the property will impact the adjacent property owners' use
of the property for vehicular access to the alley. However, the proposed
use would typically have less of an impact on access than permitted
single-family residential development.
5
Se
Does the proposal comply with all other criteria or desi.qn .quidelines that
are applicable to the specific use or type of development?
YES. The proposal will comply with all other criteria or design guidelines
associated with this type of use. Barrier-free access and van space
parking is provided.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed use is needed in the community and is in the public interest.
The proposed use does meet the necessary tests and criteria required for
approval of a Special Use Permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the findings, we conclude that the request for a Special Use Permit to
allow a Group Residential Facility - Class I use of four (4) adult clients at 1006 9th
Street and four (4) adult individuals at 1008 9th Street does meet the necessary tests
and is recommended' for approval, as shown on the attached site plan and floor plan
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The projects must comply with all applicable codes.
Accessible barrier-free van space parking must be provided per code and said
spaces shall be located in the middle of the parking area to provide adequate room
for vehicular access.
6
Peter A. Malty
Ronatd C. Templeton
March 16, 1999
MATTY & TEMPLETON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3212 NW Byrcn Stree:
Silverdale. WA 98383
(360) 692-6415
Fax: (360) 692-1257
Bremerton Planning Commission
239 4th Street
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Calnan/Inland Empire Residential Rescmrces
Dear Commission Members:
I write this letter on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Calnan and their son, Timothy Calnan, in
opposition to the Special Use Permit soug. ht by Inland Empire Residential Resources for property
located at 1006 and 1008 Ninth Street in Bremerton. The Calnans live east of and immediately
next door to Inland's property.
The Project Has Already Been Rejected Bv The Planning Commission. On January 12,
1999, the Bremerton Planning Commission sustained the Calnans' appeal of the issuance
of building permits to Inland. Inland chose not to appeal the Planning Commission's
decision, and the decision has now become final. Notwithstanding the fact that it's project
has already been denied, Inland, nevertheless, has submitted an application for a Special
Use Permit.
Because Inland has not modified the building in anv respect, the t~rior decision of the
Planning Commission is res judicata and the subject application must be summarily
dismissed. Res judicata is a legal doctrine designed to prevent re-litigation of issues
already decided by a fact finder. Here, the Planning Commission did not merely remand
the matter back for an SPU application; rather, the Planning Commission determined the
subject property did not comply with the BDC.
Unless or until Inland materially alters it's plans, it may not continue to seek approval of
the same plans the Planning Commission has already rejected.
Inland Bears The Burden Of Proot5 It Must Demonstrate The Project Meets ,4dl The
City's Rezulations. Under BDC 21.02.885, Inland bears the burden of demonstrating the
project meets the City's re=o-ulations. This includes the burden of establishing the proposal
conforms to all applicable City development regulations, minimum standards and design
guidelines. BDC 21.20.905 governing the issuance of Special Use Permits specifically
Page 2
Bremerton Planning Commission
March 16, 1999
requires that the proposal comply with all applicable development ~andards.
The Proposal Violates The Density Requirements Of The Bremerton Development Code.
Inland cannot meet it's burden of establishing that the proposal conforms to all
development standards because the project does not conform to the density, requirements
of the BDC.
The starting point in the analysis of any development is to insure the proposal conforms to
the "Zone Summary" and "Lot Requirements" Tables. Pursuant to BDC 21.02.120, the
"Zone Summary Table" sets forth a brief description and intent of each zone and its
"minimum standards". Under BDC 21.02.130, the "Lot Requirement Table" provides a
summary of the basic lot development requirements for all major zones.
Pursuant to the Zone Summary and Lot Requirements Tables of the BDC, the maximum
allowable residential density in a CBR zone is 18 dwelling units ("DUs") per acre. To
meet this standard, not less than 2,420 square feet of land is required for each proposed
dwelling unit (43,560 sq. ft. + 18 units = 2,420 sq. ft./DU).
Inland proposes to build a total of four (4) dwelling units. To meet the required density
requirements, Inland needs a total area of 9,680 square feet (2,420 sq. ft. X 4). Since
Inland's two lots total only 6,000 square feet, the subject properD' simply does not comply
with Bremerton's minimum lot requirements.
Inland argues that the density requirements of the BDC shouid not apply to accessory'
dwelling units. Inland claims this result is dictated by the housing dement of the City's
Comp. Plan because Policy 7a says that accessory units should be ~lowed in connection
with single family dwellings in all residential zones.
Inland's argument begs the question. The BDC contains a ciear d2ection as to the
maximum allowable density in each zone. The BDC expresses this density in terms of
allowable dwelling units per acre. In order to avoid the clear, unequivocal and
unambiguous density requirements contained in the Zone Summar: and Lot Requirements
Tables, one would have to find that an "accessory dwelling unit" is not in fact a "dwelling
unit".
While the drafters of the BDC could have chosen to exempt ADUs from the density
requirements of the BDC, they did not do so. Nor is this omission a mere oversight.
Planning Commission member, Bill Robinson was responsible for drafting the ADU
Page 3
Bremerton Planning Commission
March 16, 1999
portions of the BDC. ~Mr. Robinson advised the Planning Commission on January 12,
1999 that the drafters of the BDC specifically intended that PdDUs be included in the tot
density calculations.
Inland claims that ifADUs are subject to the BDCs density requirements, ADUs could
never be built in Bremerton. Inland's claims are wrong. ADUs can be added to any single
family residence so long as the lot size is of a sufficient size to accommodate two dwelling
units.
If this project were allowed to proceed, Bremerton may as well simply repeal it's density
requirements. The subject proposal opens the door for developers to build four-plexes
under the guise of two zero-lot I/ne single family residences with attached ADUs.
This is contrary not only to the plato and unambiguous definitions contained in the BDC
but the intent as expressed by the drafters of the subject ordinance.
D. The Project Constitutes A "Multi-Unit Structure" Which Is Prohibited In A CBR Zone.
Inland proposes to build what is clearly a four-plex. A comparison of Communitas' letter
of October 22, 1998 and it's current Special Use Permit application bears particular
scrutiny. In it's October letter, in an effort to avoid the conclusion that Inland was
building a "Group Residential Facility", Communitas claimed the project was designed to
accommodate "eight individuals who are currently living in market rental housing". It
claimed that it had identified "6 individuals targeted for 8 units. At this point we do not
have the other two units targeted to specific tenants".
Having been forced to concede it must obtain a Special Use Permit, Inland now' tells us
that six "individuals with developmental disabilities will reside [on the main floors of the
two downstairs units]", while "the second floor accessory, dwelling units will provide
Communitas the opportunity to serve two (2) individuals currently not in the system and
therefore unserved".
What is clear, is that Inland is building a four-plex; the two downstairs units will house 6
individuals who qualify for State funding through the Intensive Tenant Support programs.
The two remaining upstairs units are available for rental to the community at large.
BDC 21.02.070 defines a "multi-unit structure" as a structure containing three or more
dwelling units. Under BDC 21.02.140 and Figure 140, a multi-unit structure is expressly
prohibited in a CBR zone.
Page 4
Bremerton Planning Commission
March 16, 1999
The Project Is Not Compatible With Adjacent Uses ,'And The Surroundino_ Neighborhood.
a. The Buildin~ Encroaches Onto And Interferes With The Calnans' Easement. For
over forty (40) years, the Calnan family has used the northerly 35 feet of the
subject property for ingress, egress and parking. This historical fight of access has
clearly risen to the level of a vested prescriptive easement. An action to confirm
those prescriptive fights of public record is now pending in Kitsap County,
Superior Court Cause No. 99-2-00357-0. The City simply cannot approve a
project that encroaches onto and interferes With the Calnans' easement fights. Nor
should these fights be lightly ignored. The Calnans simply cannot reasonably
access their property, without the continued use of their historical access rights.
The Proposed Parkin_o Is Deficient. While it is not clear, the Applicant is
apparently proposing a total of four (4) handicapped accessible parking stalls for
the four units. Under the BDC, the required minimum number of off-street
parking stalls for t~vo single family residences and two AX)Us is six.
In this particular case, the parking requirements should not only not be decreased.
they should be increased. According to the Applicant's ow-n supporting materials,
eight unrelated individuals will be residing on site. Pursuant to it's contract with
the State, Communitas must provide intensive twenty-four hour supervision and
support for six of the ITS tenants. In order to satisfy it's obligation with the State.
Communitas must pro-,4de not Iess than 51.66 hours, per day, of direct staffing for
the ITS tenants. This means that at any ~ven time, more than two staff members
must be on site. These sta~", cour)led with the two upstairs non-ITS tenants.
coupled with the number of visitors one would expect would visit 8 unrelated
individuals demonstrates that the Applicant simply has not provided sufficient
parking to accommodate the proposal.
Page 5
Bremerton Planning Commission
March 16, 1999
Conclusion
The Calnans respectfully request that the subject application be den/ed.
Res tfully submitted,
EMPLETON
RCT/da
cc: clients