The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/09/97 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 9, 1997 CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M. A. Pledge Of Allegiance B. Invocation CONSENT AGEND~ 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 26, 1997 #AB97-072 B. Bid Award To Peninsula Feed Co., For A John Deere #AB97-073 755 Compact Tractor With Hydraulic Dump Material Collection System For Parks and Recreation Department C. Bid Award To Pacific Detroit Diesel For An Emergency Generator/Water Utility CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 5. MAYOR'S REPORT 6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Contract Amendment For Tracyton Water District Water System Plan ORDINANCES A. Ordinance #4591 (Second Reading) Re-adopting The Bremerton Zoning Ordinance, Including Both Text And Maps, to Ensure GMA Compliance #AB97-075 ~.~ #AB97-071 /3~ (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 P.M. OR LATER A. Ordinance (First Reading) Amending The Planned Unit Development Section Of The Bremerton Zoning Code, B.M.C. 21.02.340 #AB97-076 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: MINUTE S -- MARCH 26~ 1997 FOR AGEND~ OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: April 9, 1997 CITY COI~CII. DAVID D. FARR~ Pres. 4-1-97 2. CL~A3LANCES: (comment on back if necessary) 3. ~×H!BITS: ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. S~Y STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION: 8. ~ECOM}4ENDATION: 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICI~: ENFORCEMENT OFFICI~L: EXPIRATION DATEr REVIEW DATE: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL D!RECTI. V~: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: ~MENDED A 11. AGENDA '~!LL NO:~- ~'~ 2. C~EARANCE COM~ENTS: 5. IMPkCT ON NON-PASSAGE: 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOk,-R. CES: 7. ~ESEA.RCH SOURCES: TAPE #1450 UNAPPROVED DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETINH MINUTES MARCH 26t 1997 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 26, 1997, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President David Farr presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, Richard Neville, Lon Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and Deputy City Clerk Paula Johnston. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Farr and Invocation given by Reverend Ray Streutker. President Fart made the following announcements: (1) City Council held an Executive Session immediately prior to the Council meeting tonight to discuss "Review of Personnel Performance"; and (2) City Council will hold an Executive Session immediately after the Council meeting tonight to discuss "Review of Personnel Performance". #0035 CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of Meeting -- March 12, 1997 #AB97-062 B. Minutes of Meeting -- March 19, 1997 #AB97-063 C. Bid Award to Smith Tractor & Equipment #AB97-064 Company, Inc. for the Purchase of a John Deere 310E Backhoe for the Parks & Recreation Department M/S/C(Neville/Montgomery) presented. to approve the Consent Agenda as Vote on motion: In favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Neville, Overson, Law, McConnell, Colvin, Farr Opposed: Bob Winters Motion carried. CLaIMS/CHECK REHISTERS 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. TAPE #1450 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 2 of 6 #0060 M/S/C/U(Colvin/Overson) on March 26, 1997, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: Regular Payroll for the period ending March 15, 1997 in the amount of $674,228.14; and 20751 through 207382, EFT-4152 in the amount of $413,663.82. COUNCIL MEMBER R~PORTS Mr. Winters reported he attended the grand tour of the Admiral Theater with the other Council members on Tuesday evening, and thanked the members of the community who contributed to this project. He reminded the public that there is still fund raising to be completed. Mr. Neville encouraged all citizens to pick up their copy of Spring 1997 events sponsored by the Bremerton Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Law announced the next District 3 meeting will be held Tuesday, April 15, and they will be hosting a representative of the Washington State Department of Highways Bridge Division to present the next update on the location of the Manette replacement bridge. Mr. MoConnell reminded citizens that the next District 2 meeting will be Thursday, April 3, 6:30 P.M. at Fire Station No. 3, and everyone is welcome. Mr. Colvln expressed his appreciation to the Admiral Theater group, and noted citizens have every reason to be proud of what has been accomplished. Mr. Fart reported he also attended the Open House at the Admiral Theater, and agreed that citizens should be proud because it is a beautiful facility. He announced a public meeting on Traffic Calming Devices for the Anderson Cove area will be held Thursday, March 27, at the Bremerton High School, in Room 206. MAYORIS REPORT Mayor Lynn Hortom congratulated the Bremerton Church of the Nazarene on the Park inauguration held recently, and feels they have a tremendous sense of pride and community to dedicate this piece of private land for use as a public park. She announced the Church's Spring Fest Celebration will be held on Saturday, March 29. She also thanked Councilman Montgomery and a local businessman for attending an all day long-range planning strategy workshop sponsored by the Fire Department. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Reverend J. Scott Shaw, Bremerton Church of the Nazarene, thanked TAPE #1450 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 3 of 6 Mayor Horton and Councilman Colvin for attending the Park dedication last Sunday morning; and also invited the public to Spring Fest this Saturday, March 29, 11:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. Events are scheduled for all members of the family, and all events are free. John Thomas, Bremerton resident, asked if more than two "public copies" of the Council Agenda Packet can be provided when there is a Public Hearing. Gord¥ Byrd announced a meeting will be held to discuss Rules of Conduct for Kitsap Transit on April 2, 12:30 P.M. in Silverdale. Bill Parsons, Bremerton resident, has lost several animals due to speeders on his street. He requested the Engineer Department place a "Speed Zone" sign half way down east 18th Street, by the hill, where drivers are more likely to see it. Roy McGin~is requested donation of emergency items such as soap, blankets, and other essential items for victims of the floods in Arkansas. Donations can be brought anytime after 12:00 noon at the Sinclair Missionary Baptist Church on 4900 King Street, or 2711 Maple Street in East Bremerton. 7A - PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 2588, APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR SINCLaTR LANDING; APPLICANT: SINCLAIR LANDING ASSOCIATION; LOCATION: BREMERTON'S CENTR~T, BUSINESS DISTRICTt DOWNTOWNt ~AB97-057 The Sinclair Landing Planned Unit Development will redevelop a significant portion of Bremerton's central business district. It includes the construction of 18 new buildings, housing offices, retail stores, cinemas, residential/hotel units, a museum, and parking garages. The plan also proposes a new ferry terminal, referred to as the Bremerton Transportation Center (BTC). In order to accomplish the plan, the City Council is being requested to approve the following: Planned Unit Development (PUD), Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use, Site Plan Review, Right-of-Way Vacation, and Zoning Map Amendment (Zone portion of PSNS for Bremerton Transportation Center). These proposals were presented and discussed at the Planning Commission Public Meeting on January 21, 1997. The Planning Commission recommends City Council APPROVAL of the Preliminary PUD and accompanying applications, subject to the conditions contained in the Synops~,Op~io~andComem~ ~eBreme~on Planning Comm~sbn(Exh~HA). President Fart asked the "Appearance of Fairness/Conflict of Interest" questions. Ms. Huff-Meness stated she will not be TAPE #1450 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 4 of 6 commenting or voting on this issue due to her role on the Board of Directors for the Sinclair Landing Association; Mr. Winters will also not comment or vote on this issue due to owning a business in the targeted area. Don Pratt, Director of Community Development, pointed out the change of "Sinclair Landing Association" as the applicant, instead of "Howard S. Wright Construction Company". He noted several other changes incorporated into the proposed Resolution. He then gave a presentation advising where this project has been, and where it will be going. Four documents were used to review this project's compliance: the City Zoning Code, the City Shoreline Code, the Waterfront Access Plan, and the Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. The application was a result of regular weekly meetings, held during 1996, between the applicant and zoning, environmental, Engineer, and Utilities staff. Neighborhood meetings were then held as part of the application process, and then presented to the Planning Commission as part of their normal review process. During this whole process, the application was amended several times. In addition, there have been numerous community meetings. This Public Hearing is being held to further review the application, and described the steps of this process that are still to come. Matt Mathis, Land Use Specialist, provided additional details to the permit process and Resolution. He discussed portions of the 17 conditions, provided in the Council packet, which apply to the Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD Resolution enables the project by approving the process, which is the action before Council tonight. Mar~ M¢Clure, Executive Director, Sinclair Landing Association, described why the "applicant" status had changed. In 1995, the Fletcher Wright firm was selected to design and implement the Sinclair Landing Project. A "team" was actually selected, as opposed to a single firm, and a non-profit corporation was established. The "planning" phase of the project is now complete, and the "buying land and building it phase" is about to begin. Ms. McClure displayed several overhead graphics to show the geographic boundaries of the project area, where retail will be located with the anticipated square footage, and the plans for a waterfront hotel, office buildings, movie theater, residential units, and parking garages with enough spaces to service the entire project once it is built. It was stressed that the exact configuration of uses and buildings will be "market-driven". The anchor to the private development will be the Bremerton TAPE #1450 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 5 of 6 Transportation Center (BTC). This facility will include new passenger-only service and boats, with the first new passenger-only ferry on the waterfront by early 1998, and will include a covered, heated waiting area. One unique aspect of the BTC will be the Commuter Retail Building, which will be a privately owned, privately constructed part of the facility, and will include a full range of services such as a coffee shop, dry cleaners, florist, newspaper vendor, etc. The final design will be brought to the Department of Community Development and the Council when finalized. One important change being recommending for the current Planned Unit Development application is the access to and from the BTC. Using the Value Engineering Process for the design, a suggestion was made to widen Pacific Avenue, and use this route for access and exit to the BTC, instead of the current plan for a tunnel under Washington Street. The Pacific Avenue route, or the "Pacific Gateway Option", will have much less impact on existing businesses and be far less expensive. A Public Meeting/Open House will be held April 14, 5:30 - 8:30 P.M., at the Washington Mutual Bank, in the Community Room, to give the public an opportunity to view the plans and documentation, and ask questions. Anticipated time-lines identify the first element will be the Bremerton Transportation Center, with construction on the passenger-only ferry facility beginning this summer, and completed in early 1998. The rest of the construction on the BTC will continue, and completed in early autumn of 1998, following about a year of construction. The private construction will be concurrent with the construction of the BTC. It is anticipated the first phase to be fully open by the Spring of 1999. It is important to note that plans have been developed to continue full access to the ferry terminal throughout the construction period. There will be disruptions, but every effort will be made to ensure that this phase flows smoothly. The impact on existing businesses has also been considered. Information will be provided to local businesses so they know what is happening. Attention will also be given to issues like access and egress to businesses for customers, deliveries, etc. This is one advantage to the Pacific Gateway Option, and that is full accesses to the businesses on First Street during the construction. Ms. McClure introduced a number of "team" members, who will be available to answer questions, Patrick Downs, Environmental Attorney; Randy McGreal; Eric Anderson and Rob Henry, who worked on the PUD application; Dick Hayes, Executive Director of Kitsap TAPE #1450 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 6 of 6 Transit; Gary Gartin, President of Sinclair Landing Association; Rich Rucker, Development Manager for the Commercial Group; and John Purlick, from Parametrix, who did most of the transportation analysis for the PUD application. Mr. Pratt closed the presentation by explaining that Council is being asked to approve the PreHm~a~ Planned Unit Development Permit, and being provided more details on how the phasing works. He emphasized construction permits cannot be issued until after a F;na;Planned Unit Development Permit is issued. If Council approves the Preliminary, the applicant has two years to submit the final PUD Plan. A Final PUD will still not be issued until each property owner within either the whole project area or "phase" area, has signed an agreement authorizing the Final PUD application to be received. Mr. Overson asked for an explanation of the contradiction between the phasing schedule shown on the overhead graphic, versus what was provided in Council's packet. President Fart asked for clarification whether Council was voting on the Pacific Gateway Option modification? Mr. Pratt stated the recommendation is to include the Pacific Gateway Option Amendment. President Fart asked for "opponents" to the Sinclair Landing Project. Public comment - none. Charlie Brown, neither a "opponent" or "proponent", asked several questions: 1) How much private dollars have been committed, and who committed the dollars? 2) How much public dollars have been committed, and who committed those dollars? 3) How many new jobs will be produced by this project? 4) What will be the average wage of those new jobs? 5) What is the estimated amount of tax dollars to the City? President Farr then asked for "proponents" to the Sinclair Landing Project. Those who spoke in support of the project were: Gary Gartin; Ward Yolly; Brad Rucker; Peter Bevls, Kalakala Foundation; Ruth Reese; Eric &nderso~, representing the nearly 500 individual and business members of the Bremerton Chamber of Commerce; Earl Smith, Jr., President of the Economic Development Council; Doug Skrobut, McCormick Land Company; Beverly Klncaid, President of the Bremerton Historic Ships Association; Joan Dingfield, Bremerton resident and Bremerton School District employee; Sharon Shrader, Kitsap County Treasurer, Sinclair Landing Association Board Member and Bremerton resident; Michael Connolly, Dean of Business Services for Olympic College, Sinclair Landing Association Board member and the Bremer Trustee; Richard Hayes, General Manager of Kitsap Transit; Bonnie McDade, Bremerton resident, Sinclair Landing TAPE #1450 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 7 of 6 Association Board member and Director of Business Development for the Economic Development Council of Kitsap County; Roqer Paplne&u, Bremerton Waterfront Partners and Sinclair Landing Association Board member; Jeffrey Hecker, Sinclair Landing Association Board member, business owner and Bremerton resident. TAPE #1451 Comments of support include: (1) improved image and recognition; (2) increased economics, pride in the whole community; (3) new businesses in and around the project area; (4) improved housing and increased owner-occupied housing; (5) new family attractions and amenities, benefits for the whole County; (6) increased tourism trade for other tourist attractions, such as the Turner Joy; (7) new employment opportunities; (8) success of the community is dependent upon the success of the School District, but the success of the School District is also dependent upon the success of the community and that is the reason the Bremerton School District supports the Sinclair Landing project; (9)revitalization/ redevelopment of downtown Bremerton will change the culture of the community and that in turn will reflect positively on the Bremerton schools; (10) elements for success are present in the PUD as not seen in prior attempts for development of the downtown area; (11) this effort is not to return to some past luster, but to create a City center that never was, a place for today and tomorrow that marries the best of natural beauty and human interaction; (12) without the surrounding development of property within the Sinclair Landing project, the downtown's largest building will remain as is; (13) Kitsap Transit and the City have worked side-by-side since 1995 to find a developer for a downtown revitalization project, not just another Study; (14) all local governments involved with this project will take more financial risk; however, there are not many projects that can have a 100 million dollar private investment payoff for the community; (15) economic stability and viability for entire Kitsap county; (16) first impressions of the City is critical to prospective businesses looking for places to locate; (17) this project is an opportunity of a life time; (17) project will positively impact surrounding business areas. Richard Hayes, General Manager of Kitsap Transit, outlined the following financial data associated with this project: Over $800,000 of local funds in City property and over $300,000 in Port of Bremerton property that become part of this project. There is a private contribution estimated at a minimum of $4 million in the commuter retail services building. The State of Washington has committed over $4.5 million between Central Puget Sound Transportation Account Funds and other kinds of funds that are smaller, but substantial. The State Ferry System has committed $3 TAPE #1451 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 8 of 12 million and $360,000 in in-kind and Kitsap Transit is using for them another $150,000 in shore side activities related to their new super column and 20th century accessible walkway to the car ferries. The State has also put $3 million in their budget request. Federal funds committed to this project include: ISTEA (flexible Highway Administration funding) $4.7 million, which has been secured, and the Federal Transit Administration is being asked for a total of $8 million and Transit has received just slightly less than $2 million. Well over $17 million is in hand with excellent prospects for $3 million more from the State and $4 million more from the Federal Government and the $4 million private contribution has to be added. Because of the timing of funding, the Transit System may have to be responsible, presuming a combined borrowing through Sinclair Landing, for $8-10 million of which Transit has an excellent chance to secure $4-5 million in buy down funding from outside sources. That would leave the Transit System with $4-5 million, a reasonable ultimate total expenditure, which is in the $500,550 range if annualized over a 20-year period. Sales Tax revenue to the Transit System from the full development, presuming a solid retail base as part of the whole package, is well in excess of that amount. Half the development level proposed projects to bring in $350,000 per year in additional sales tax. John Thomas, Bremerton resident, asked the following questions: (1) why was Council being asked to make amendments to the PUD that corrects someone else's errors and what is the cut off date so that it can be corrected properly prior to Council voting on the issue or do we lose money? (2) Why does one drawing include City Hall and another does not and is City Hall part of the project, if so where will it be located and how much will it cost him as a taxpayer? (3) Has the public had the opportunity to comment on the proposal for a new ferry terminal and has their been time to conduct on necessary environmental impact statements? (4) Who will pay for the City's Project Manager's time while he works on this project? Mr. Pratt stated he was advised by the City Attorney to limit any further discussion about tax revenues on this project, since economic issues have traditionally been frowned upon by Courts as reasons to change zoning. He preferred to speak with Mr. Brown separately regarding what economic projections are anticipated from tax revenues. There are several items that must come before the city Council, such as the sale of City property in which economic discussion is not only welcome, but part of the decision that Council will make, as well as if and when any lending of City credit occurs. Mr. Thomas asked questions relative to why the last minute amendments and why not delay Council's decision. Mr. Pratt felt they were rhetoric questions and for Council consideration during their debate. He would defer Mr. Thomas' question if City TAPE #1451 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 9 of 12 Hall was in or out of the project to Ms. McClure. In regard to Mr. Thomas' questions about environmental Impact Studies, this project has gone through environmental review and there is a little more work to do on a project-by-project basis. Each of the studies identified earlier had with them some environmental impact analyses and an impact analyses was completed in 1996, which was found to have mitigated non-significance. He did not have an answer, at this time, for the cost of the Construction Manager, since there is no formal contract. If there is a contract between the Transit Authority and the City for Transit's use of City staff, he assumed it would be handled under the budget authority shared by the Mayor and City Council. Ms. McClure stated the question whether or not the City Hall site is included in the PUD has come up in the past year and it was her understanding that it is included in the PUD application. There have been no firm conversations with Mayor Horton or the City Council concerning the City Hall site, it has been brought up as possibility for further discussion at a future time. Mr. Pratt outlined list of possible amendments to the resolution based on testimony given during this hearing: (1) Name change of the applicant from Howard S. Wright Construction Company to "Sinclair Landing Association,,; (2) Change date of Public Hearing from March 12, 1997, to "March 26, 1997"; (3) Inserting the words "as set forth in the PUD Project Manual and Plan Sheets" in the first sentence under BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL; (4) Under Condition #8, deleting reference to the Washington Avenue below grade to reduce traffic noise in Washington Avenue Pedestrian Plaza; (5) Under Condition 15 delete the following: "Convert Burwell St./Pacific Avenue intersection eastbound and westbound combined through/left turn lanes to left turn turn-only lanes and convert eastbound and westbound right turn only lanes to combined through/right turn lanes to provide additional capacity and improve operations to an acceptable level of service". (6) Add Condition #18 - "The site plan is amended to include the Pacific Gateway concept as presented this evening at Public Hearing March 26, 1997". (7) Add Condition #19 - Adopt PUD Phasing as follows: Final PUD TAPE #1451 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 10 of 12 submittals for phases to be submitted as follows: PUD Phasinq: The Sinclair Landing PUD is intended to be a phased PUD approval with the following uses constructed according to a phased two year schedule keyed off of the City.s Preliminary PUD approval Date: Phase 1: 1997 through 1999 -- Buildings 1,2,3,4,5,12,15,16; Phase 2: 1999 through 2001 -- Buildlnqs 8,9,10,11,20,23; Phase 3: 2001 through 2003 -- Remainder of the PUD elements Required Code amendments will be prepared within the two year Preliminar~ PUD period." Ms. McClure stated she was sensitive to the comment that Council was being asked to suffer through someone else's errors in dealing with the Pacific Gateway Option. She view it as asking the Council to react to some good ideas that emerged after the PUD Application was submitted. This option has less impacts than the "tunnel" proposal for property owners and it is a better transportation solution and a better urban design solution. M/S/C(Montgomery/Colvin) to adopt the S3nop$~Op~£on, and Co~¢m~ Breme~on P~nn~gComm~s~n ~ Finding ofFa~ and Concl~io~ofLaw, and approve Resolution No. 2588, approving the Preliminary Planned Unit Development of "Sinclair Landing", subject to the conditions contained herein as modified. Mr. McConne11 asked for clarification of the wording "restrict" noisy operations from 6:30 A.M. to 9:00 PM under Condition #8. Mr. Pratt asked that an additional amendment be made to the resolution restricting noisy operations after 9:00 P.M. and before 9:00 A.M.. Mr. Montgomery stated he would modify his motion to include that amendment. Mr. Law questioned for clarification if the Pacific Gateway Option proposed widening the street on the west side rather than the east side? Ms. McClure explained on First Street it will be widened towards the Shipyard and on Pacific it will be widened on the west side. Mr. Law asked if that meant the buildings along the west side will have to be removed and if so, will that be handled by Kitsap Transit? Ms. McClure stated yes, and Kitsap Transit will make the acquisitions for the Bremerton Transportation Center. Mr. Law asked when that action would take place? Mr. Hayes stated the discussion with those businesses will start after Kitsap Transit provides the environmental assessment to FTA. He anticipates he will be contacting those business no later than the end of next week. There is a time line on the acquisition of those properties which if they waive their right to the Transit System paying for TAPE #1451 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 11 of 12 their legal expenses in a condemnation suit, would still allow acquisition by December 1997. He believed the absolute requirement for acquisition of those properties is March 1998. Mr. Overson stated he understood the vacations will be negotiated, but the documentation says it gives legal description of properties to be vacated, which implies they lack a flexibility in negotiations. Mr. Pr&tt stated the negotiation will occur whether cash is being conveyed to the City or property of like value is being conferred to the City. There is private property that is proposed in the project to be dedicated to the City as right-of-way and there is also public right-of-way that is proposed to be vacated for private owners. There will be an appraisal of those properties and Council will see how it balances out. Mr. Overson stated this document represents 19 separate pieces of real estate that are to be vacated or dedicated. He questioned if Council's approval would leave no flexibility? Mr. Pratt stated no, he expects some of those to change by the time the final PUD comes through. In answer to Mr. McConnell's concern about noise restriction in Condition #8, the intent was to state the City will allow noisy operations from the construction to occur between 6:30 A.M. and 9:00 P.M., which is slightly different from the noise code. He retracted his earlier comment and suggested changing the word "restrict" to "&llow". Mr. Neville asked if Washington Avenue, especially between First Avenue and 4th Street, would be changed as a result of the Pacific Gateway Option? Ms. McClure stated that is subject to further design with the anticipation being that it allows more traffic circulation within the overall PUD and how that is configured, auto verses pedestrian, is up for future design. Mr. Neville asked if all the height requirements are in place to protect view corridors in this PUD process? Ms. M¢Clure stated yes, the highest building proposed within the PUD is six stories. Mr. Neville questioned the height requirement below grade? Ms. McClure stated the lowest below grade that is allowed on the waterfront is two stories. It is anticipated that the parking garage would be below grade with buildings on top. Mr. Neville asked if deleting the tunnel on Washington Avenue would affect any height differences? Ms. M¢Clure stated no. Mr. Pr&%t explained the project, as submitted in the Preliminary PUD, meets all elements of the Zoning Code and the Waterfront Renewal Plan inclusive of height limits. For purposes of buildings east of Washington, they are measured from current grade on Washington Avenue. Mr. Overson complimented everyone that has ushered along this project, which he views as exciting. Mr. Montqomez-~encouraged his fellow Council members to support the TAPE #1451 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes March 26, 1997 Page 12 of 12 resolution. Vote on motion: Unanimous. President Fart thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Rupe and Jamie Campbell. With no further business meeting adjourned at 8:07 P.M. Rob KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk DAVID D. FARR, Council President City of Bremerton KLM/DDF/ls cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION - JOHN DEERE 755 COMPACT TRACTOR WITH HYDRAULIC DUMP MATERIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT.: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: 09 Apd11997 Public Works & Utilities Jim Orton, Transportation Manager 27 March 1997 CLEARANCES: (Comment on back 3 EXHIBITS: ~ ne.~,ss~ ry) Director, Parks City Treasurer City Attom~ PurchasingSupr _ - _ . / _ ENDORSEMENT/~' INFORMATION ri MAYOR Bid Tabulation Technical Specifications APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDEN.T FOR SUBMI.'Fr~L: ' COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~.~'~~.I \ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Call for bids was prepared and four bids were received in accordance with established Call for Bids Procedures for one (1) Compact Agricultural Tractor with 80 inch Mower Deck and Hydraulic Dump Matedal Collection System for the Parks and Recreation Department. The call for bids included trade-in of existing John Deere 850 Compact Agricultural Tractor with 72 inch Mower Deck. (Continuation on Page 2) RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve the Bid Award and authorize the purchase of one (1) Compact Agricultural Tractor (John Deere 755) from Peninsula Feed Co. of Port Orchard, Washington in the amount of $12,258.54. Subject to City Administrative Policies and Procedures. o RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Transportation Manager PULLED n TABLED n COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVEDD 10. NOTICE OFACTION DISAPPROVED D AMENDED D 11. AGENDA BILL NO.' q 7-0 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation For the new equipment. The lowest qualifying bidder, Peninsula Feed Co., submitted a bid for a John Deere 755 Compact Agricultural Tractor with 60 inch Mower Deck and Hydraulic Dump Material Collection System in the net amount of $12,258.54. 6. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The existing Compact Tractor of the Parks and Recreation Department is no longer suited for many of the projects it is being used for. It has some mechanical deficiencies that would be costly, and it still would not suit the needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. 7. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCE,~: The jobs would be accomplished more efficiently with this new Compact Tractor, and would bdng a positive impact on operations. Sufficient funds are in the reserve and budgeted through the 1997 Capital Improvement Program, Equipment Rental Reserve Fund. 8. RESEARCH SOURCES: See Attachment 755, 855, AND 955 HYDROSTATIC COMPACT TRACTOR FEATURES Three diesel models -- 755 with 20 engine hp/15 PTO hp; 855 with 24 engine hp/19 PTO hp; and 955 with 33 engine hp/27 PTO hp Hydrostatic transmission provides infinite speed selections and increases ease of operation Dual pedal, speed-and-direction control leaves hands free for steering and operating other controls Large-capacity oil cooler extends transmission life 2-range transaxle allows high- and Iow operating speeds Hydrostatic power steering plus steering- assist brakes allow quick turning in tight areas with less effort Live independent mid- and rear-PTOs can be operated separately or simultaneously Hydraulic PTO clutch helps prevent shock loads from being transferred to implements Operator-presence system shuts down the PTO if the operator gets off the seat with the PTO engaged; has override switch for stationary PTO work Fully enclosed engine and muffler provide quiet operation for less operator fatigue Exclusive, shift-on-the-go mechanical front-wheel-drive option (standard on 955) brings extra pulling power to tough jobs Quick-change attachments for simple, time-saving, one-man changes Seat-activated safety switch locks pedals in neutral when seat is unoccupied, to prevent movement of the tractor Rugged, frame-built design provides extra strength for durable performance Steering-assist brakes are located on the left to allow independent wheel braking while right foot is operating hydrostatic control Cruise control allows operator to maintain desired speed without using the foot control Differential lock improves traction in tough spots Special high RolI-Gard'" ROPS available (755, 855, 955) for No, 7 Backhoe operation; provides approximately 6 additional inches of operator headroom Air-cleaner restriction indicator alerts operator when service is needed ADD ~/ERSATILITY WITH 60-inch Mid-Mount Mower (for 755, 855, and 955) 72-inch Mid-Mount Mower {for 855 and 955) 261 Rear-Mounted Grooming Mower (for 755, 855, and 955) 272 Rear-Mounted Grooming Mower (for 755, 855, and 955} 413 Rotary Cutter (for 755, 855 & 955) 513 and 613 Rotary cutter (for 855 & 95[ 70 Loader (for 755) "' 70A Loader (for 855 and 955) 380 Front Blade 47-inch Snow Blower (e~cept 955) 59-inch Snow Blower (for 855 and 955) 550 Tiller 31B Posthole Digger- Hydraulic-Dump Matedal Collection Sys'. 3-bag Material Collection System No. 7 Backhoe Other Category 1 3-point Hitch Impleme Tractors are assembled at our Augusta, GA, factory, which has passed the certil cation criteria for ISO 9000 GROOMING MOWERS FOR COMPACT UTILITY TRACTORS FEATURES (1) 72-Inch Rotary Mower Wide 6-foot cutting width Adjustable cutting height,11/= to 8% inches, depending on tractor and tire size One-piece stamped-steel deck with reinforced front lip for durability Deep discharge tunnel and deck provide good air flow and uniform discharge of clippings Quick-release belt shields can be easily removed for cleaning and servicing Blade spindles can be greased from top of deck without removing shields Front caster wheels minimize scalping, make mower installation easier Adjustable gauge wheels Standard mid-PTO-driven mower for 855/955 Tractors Optional mid-PTO-driven mower available for 870/970/1070 Hinged discharge chute for easier transport and storage (2) 60-inch Rotary Mower 5-foot cutting width Two separate mowers with common features, One for 755/855/955 and one for 670/770 Adjustable cutting height through the tractor's 3-point hitch control lever or optional hydraulic control lever when tractor is equipped with optional mid-lift cylinder on 755/855/955 1 O-gauge stamped-steel deck with reinforced front lip for durability Quick-release belt shields can be easily removed for cleaning and servicing Blade spindles can be greased from top of deck without removing shields John Deere designed gearbox with spiral bevel gears for long life Adjustable rear gauge wheels, front caster wheels and rollers guard against scalping Hinged discharge chute for easier transport and storage Three heat-treated alloy steel blades Operates off mid-PTO on 755 and 855 Tractors, optional mid-PTO on 670 and 770 Tractors 12 IYDRAULIC DUMP MATERIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR 670 THROUGH 855 TRACTORS JRES ~hel Hydraulic Dump saves time, ~wer and money..,provides profes- pickup of grass clippings, leaves ht debris es directly to 3-point hitch for easier 3g and better maneuverability :s dght from the driver's seat. Just 'he hydraulic control lever...liff cylin- ~ise the hopper to a height of about '~, allowing it to be emptied into a )r wagon lo-speed fan can be set at speeds :0 to 4,500 rpm. Slow speeds require ~rsepower, use less fuel, create less Faster speeds improve productivity wet grass =rate 6-hp Power Pak engine operates ~...conserves tractor horsepower, and Iime because there's no PTO drive kup Rugged construction -- 12-in. heavy-gauge steel fan with five heavy-duty polyethylene blades; durable, reinforced polyethylene hopper; big 7-inch diameter hoses Screened air duct helps keep dirt away from operator by allowing air to discharge out bottom of hopper Storage stands store unit in upright position for easy hookup and removal Fits 670, 770, 755, 855 and 955 Tractors equipped with Category 1 3-point hitch and selective control valves. Mid-rockshaft cylinder needed for 755, 855 and 955. A 60-inch mower with hinged discharge chute is required SPECIFICATIONS (Specificalions and design subject to change withou~ nolice) Hopper capacity ............ 13 bushels (0.46 m~) Boot and hopper material ........... Reinforced polyethylene inlet and outlet hoses .......... Steel-reinforced rubber, 7-inch (178 mm) diameter Emptying ............. Hydraulic, from tractor seat Fan ........ 12-inch diameter, heavy-gauge steel with five heavy-duty polyethylene blades Fan speed ......... Variable, 1,800 ~o 4,500 rpm Fan operation .......... 6-hp (4.5 kW) Kawasaki Power Pak engine with heavy-duty air cleaner, electronic ignition and 2.1 gal. (79 L) fuel tank Method of attachment ....... Hooks to tractor's Category 1 3-point hitch Maximum dump height .......... Approximately 5% feet (1.7 m) Tractor requirements ................. Tractor with Category1 3-point hitch and selective control valves Mid-rockshaft cylinder required for 655, 755 and 855 Five front weights recommended for ballast for 670 and 770 Tractors Nine weights for 755 and 855 Tractors Net weight (approximate) ...... 400 lb. (181 kg) 3~ CITY OF BREMERTON BID TABULATION OPENED BY OPENED:. ...~2ty) 97 TIME OPENED: 2.;0-~ f,,.,,.,.. RECORDED BY DATE BIDOER ) REco ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 NET BID TAX TOTAL ~--~o~c,~o~z ~,- ~)t,,'tt~,~ ~ ~'-.. ~,~ I/~Vo q/~.~/2, S~D L~ BIDDER ~1~ L~ ~ER 1997 BUDGET ._ CAPITAL FUNDING -- FUrIDEC DEPARTMENT AMOUN'I DESCRIPTION GOLD MOUHTAIN GOLF COURSE TOTAL GOLD MTN. GOLF COURSE WASTEWATER UTILITY STORMWATER. UTILITY EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE TOTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERV ROOSEVELT CAPITAL ASSETS TOTAL ROOSEVELT CAPITAL ASSETS GIFT AND DONATIONS FUND TOTAL GIFT & DONATIONS FUND TeLal all Fund= 18,000 28,C00 4,500 6,000 5,000 20.000 11 .r.'O0 ~1_'1.2 Z2. 109,272 5,53G,708 14,800 12,250 18,950 51,000 15,000 2,500 75,8CO 120,000 372,700 8,910 18,,~22,5~031 TRI-PLEX T MOWER 3100-D FAIRWAY MOWER - 5 PLEX LIGHTWEIGHT WALKIHG GREENS MOWER UTILITY VEHICLE - CLUB CAR BLOWER 3PT HITCl I SWEEPER - PTO 3 PT I'IITCtt WALK-IN COOLER INDOOr~OUTDOOR TABLES Al'ID CHAIRS F/~ N~Ct lille UI'-IIDEH I'IFIf'.-t) C!,PI 'FAL SEE A"(q'ACtIED WORKSI {EET SEE ATrACIIED WORKSHEET REPLACE REPLACE REPLACE REPLACE REPLACE REPLACE REPLACE MOWER DECK- PARKS- ¢~ ':,-, '-" REPLACE 3 CROWN VICTORIAS & 1 FORD AEROSTAR - FiRE REPLACE CHEVROLET AMBULAHCE - FIRE MISCELLANEOUS OPTIONS & EQUIPMENT CHEVROLET BLAZER - UTILITY CHEVROLET PICK-UP - UTILITY CHEVROLET PICK-UP - UTILITY FORD PICK-UP - PARKS FORD PICK-UP . ENGINEERING JOHN DEERE 2355 - PARKS JOHN DEERE 850 - PARKS EVERGREEN SEA WALL EVERGREEN PHASE I UNIDENTIFIED POLICE CAPITAL UNIOENTIFIED FIRE CAPITAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS For One (1) John Deere 755 Compact Tractor Bidder must fill in all spaces. If equipment being proposed is not as specified, bidder must note exception and provide a complete and concise narrative of the exception and submit with the bid. Responses to exceptions shall be listed in the order in which the specification is listed. The City shall be solely responsible for either accepting or rejecting any ex(;eptions if the best interests of the City is thereby served. Specifications are prepared and presented in accordance with City of Bremerton equipment standardization policy which, in this equipment line, is John Deere. Specification Specified Exception ENGINE: Three Cylinder Diesel 't~.~ 20 Net Horse Power (Minimum) ~ TRANSMISSION: Hydrostatic - two range ~ STEERING: Hydrostatic Power w~th steedng assist brakes ~ FINAL DRIVE: Shall be inboard planetary with foot operated, automatic release, rear differential lock, engagable under full engine RPM u.~ BRAKES: Shall be of wet disk type, sealed and fully enclosed to allow operation in water, mud, snow and other adverse weather conditions ~ without encountering brake fade .... ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: Shall be 12 volt with 40 amp alternator ~ FRONT WHEEL DRIVE: Shall be equipped with shift on-the-go ~ mechanical front wheel ddve. ~ OPERATOR'S STATION: Shall be equipped with roll over protection bar (ROPS), shall have PTO cut out switch on seat and a seat activated safety switch. ~'~ MANUALS: Successful bidder shall provide / copies of Operator's Manual and one copy of current Parts and Repair Manual. ~ ADDmONAL EQUIPMENT: This equipment shall be bid as e "Package" to be delivered premounted on a John Deere 755 Tractor specified above' a). 60" rotary belly mount mower deck b). Hydraulic dump material collection system All additional equipment to come with I copies of Operator's Manual and One copy of current Parts a'nd Repair Manuals. TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK, CITY OF BREMERTON: In accordance with your advertisement, plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Clerk the undersigned hereby agree(s) to provide: For A Total Cost of: Sales Tax: TOTAL PRICE BID: One (1) JOHN DEERE 755 COMPACT TRACTOR sz , ! TOTAL COST WRITTEN Above Price Does Not include Trade-In. Bidder offers trade-in value for one (1) 1985 Johne Deere 850 in the amount of $ Hq<:JS' ~:~ ~-~- .-r.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~s,~,L/~,~sg,,,~-~. if this bid is accepted, Bid Total Cost above will be reduced by trade-in amount. ~,,.j~'d-:.-FlVE' ~ BID BOND ENCLOSED -/ Performance Will Be ,-CoFTT~'~v£ (~) Days After Receipt of Notice To Proceed. Exhibits Required Enclosed Firm Name Address ~'~1 ~-.'~,~ Signature All Proposals Must Be In Ink or Typewritten. No Erasures Permitted Telephone Number ~:?)~-TG-<~-'7 I1 FAX Number('-~::)~ Signature of Preparer: ~~'<~'~/ Bremerton Business License # ~.°/O ~' IRS TIN/SS NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF/L;-r-?,/? ,. being first duly sworn, on his oath says that he is that the bid above submitted is genuine and not a sham or collusive bid, or made in the interest or on behalf of any person therein named: and he further says that the said bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any bidder on the above work or supplies to put in a sham bid, or any other person or corporation to refrain from bidding; and that the said bidder has not in any manner sought by collusion to secure self any advantage over any other bidder or bidders. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7__/ day of /~/~c/'J / 9 ~ v,,~ ,...- - / Notary Public in and for the Stat,e~?.f Washin(~ton residing My commission expires /// AGENDA BILL - BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Bid Award for Emergency Generator -- Water Utility FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: April 9 ,1997 Public Works & Utilities K. Cahall, Water Resources Mgr. March 31, 1997 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment~) Director PW&U City Attorney City Treasurer Purchasing Manager Operations Committee Fiscal & Budget Comm. ENDORSEMENT )( INFORMATION 3. EXHIBITS: Bid Tabulation Sheet APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~t~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: In the event of an extended power outage, this 150 KW portable generator would provide power to operate a well or pump station. This would ensure the ability to pump water during an emergency situation. Two bids were received, the lowest at $42,457 from Pacific Detroit Diesel. 8. RJECQMMENDATION: That City Council award the purchase of the 150 KW generator to Pacific Detroit Diesel and authorize the Mayor to sign, subject to City administrative policies and procedures. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Director Public Works & Utilities Water Resources Manager N/A N/A PULLED TABLED 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED AMENDED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENT[ 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The Water Utility would be without an emergency power source and could possibly be unable to supply water to higher pressure zones in the event of an extended power failure for potable water or fire flows. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EOUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Although originally budgeted for 1996 purchase, the bidding preparation process took longer than anticipated and extended into 1997. Funds for this purchase are available fi.om the Water Utility Water Resources capital budget for miscellaneous equipment. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: · Storage/Pumping Needs Worksheet · City Emergency Management Plan 3/97 sk {~9704xx_1 .ab} CITY OF BREMERTON BID TABULATION OPENED BY DATE OPENED: 7_/z_ ,~//,:) 7 TIME OPENED: RECORDED BY BIDDER I REC'D I ITEM 2 SUMMARY TOTAL BID LOW BIDDER .q, EGOffO LOW BIDDER THIRD LOW IgDDER ITEM 3 ITEM 1 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 ~x4 ,~o L~JAV'r- /, o.s':~.,,o ,~,/.~ NET BID TAX u COMMENTS TOTAL AGENDA BILL - BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Contract Amendment for Tracyton Water District Water System Plan FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: APRIL 9 ,1997 Public Works & Utilities K. Cahall, Water Resources Mgr. March 31, 1997 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on b~k if~ry) Director PW&U ~//~ City Attorney City Treasurer Operations Committee Fiscal & Budget Comm. E ORSE NT X I OR tION AVOR 4. 3. EXHIBITS: · Contract Amendment · Interlocal Agreement Amendment APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REOUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION. The City, through an inteflocal agreement with the Tracyton Water Disla-ict dated June 14, 1996, has a contract with HDR to prepare a Water System Plan for Tracyton. Complications in determining the service area between the City and the District increased costs of the Water System Plan by $7,000 over the original cost of $29,000. Tracyton Water District pays for the cost of the Plan and this amendment from a surcharge on Tracyton Water Customers. 8. RECOMMENDATION; That City Council approve the contract amendment with HDR Engineering and authorize the Mayor to sign, subject to City administrative policies and procedures. To and the City of Bremerton approve Amendment #1 to the Interlocal Agreement between concerning Water SyStem Plann±ng. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: the Tracyton Water District Director Public Works & Utilities Water Resources Manager N/A N/A PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: AMENDED 11. AGENDA BILL NO: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. ~kCT ON NONrPASSAGE: 6. ~,,~PACT, ON STAFF!NG~ BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOb~CES: 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: AMENDMENT # 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND THE TRACYTON WATER DISTRICT CONCERNING WATER SYSTEM PLANNING 1 The CITY and the DISTRICT agree to amend the cost of the Water System Plan to not exceed $36,000. 2 The CITY and the DISTRICT agree to amend the expiration date of this agreement to December 31, 1997. TRACYTON WATER DISTRICT P.O. BOX 54 TRACYTON, WA 98393 CITY OF BREMERTON 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98310 Dated this day of 199 Authorized Signature City of Bremerton Title Authorized Signature Tracyton Water District Title 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS:-. 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: There would be no mechanism to reimburse the consultant preparing the Tracyton Water System Plan for their increased costs. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACII,1TIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES, Funds for this project have been authorized in the Water Utility Water Resources 1997 budget. Tracyton Water District reimburses the City for the costs of this project through their customer surcharge. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: · Tracyton Water System Plan Progress Repons 3/97 sk {~9704)c(_2.ab} Amt., .,ment No. 1 to Professional Services. ~.~,reement for Tracyton Water System Plan The Agreement between the City of Bremerton, and HDR Engineering, Inc. dated June 14,1996 for the ' "Tracyton Water System Plan" is hereby amended to provide additional project budget and extension of schedule for additional work and delays associated with completing the scope of work defined in Exhibit A of the subject Agreement. The work was originally scheduled to be completed by the end of October 1996. However, the work has been delayed because of the length of time required to obtain information needed to do the work and because of additional time required to redo work based upon new and revised information. As a result of these delays the work is expected to be completed in early-to-mid 1997. The total revised fees for this work are revised to a not to exceed amount of Thirty Six Thousand Dollars ($36,000) with the following task budgets: Task/item Original Budget Revised Bud(Jets Increases Budgets 1. Project Management $3,500 $2,000 $5,500 2. Data Collection $2,560 $600 $3,160 3. Planning Data Memo $5,100 $2,150 $7,250 4. Computer Model $4,560 $1,800 $6,360 5. Capital Improvement Plan $2,940 100 $3,040 6. Financial Plan $2,300 80 $2,380 7. Operations Plan $2,550 90 $2,640 8. SEP^ $840 30 $870 9. Draft and Final Report $4,650 150 $4,800 Totals $29,000 $7,000I $36,000 All other provisions of the original agreement remain in effect for this amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year indicated. Date: HDR Engineering, Inc. Gary -letter, S,e/n~ Vice President ?-- City of Bremerton Date: BY: W. Eugene Sampley, D'i~ctor of Public Works and Utilities APPROVED AS TO FORM: lan R. Sievers, City Attorney Received for Filing: Kathleen L. McCluskey, City Clerk Lynn Horton, Mayor Tracyton Water D±str'ict ColnmSss±oners Tracyton Water System Plan Agreement Amendment No. I AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ORDINANCE To re-adopt the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance, including both the text and maps, to ensure GMA compliance. City Operations FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMI'I-I'ED: April 2, 1997 DCD/Planning Ron W. Houah March 27, 1997 3. EXHIBITS: ,/ Ordinance Exhibit "A" --- Zoning Ordinance Exhibit "B" --- Zoning Maps ENDORSEMENT.___~ ~)RMATION__ MAYOR~ ~. APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDEN~T, FQF~6UBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: In 1995, Bremerton adopted its GMA Comprehensive Plan and determined that the existing zoning regulations remained consistent with the new Plan and, therefore, a new Zoning Ordinance was not necessary. Instead, our existing Zoning regulations were revised periodic_ally to keep them c~Jrrent. _ since we weren t adopting new regulations, we weren't required to submit anything):o the State for review and approval. Unfortunately, our name was included on a Dept. of CTED'~eck-off list for new regulations but couldn't be checked off. This caused major confusion within agencies who needed to confirm our GMA compliance status for funding purposes. To clarify our status, the Dept. of CTED recommended that we re-adopt our Zoning Ordinance, which we are now doing --- ASAP. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Council passage of the Emergency Ordinance on second readinq 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Donald L. Pratt Judy Johnson 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: AMENDED 8A 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: We feel that our Zoning Ordinance is consistent with our Plan and meets all State requirements. However, the GMA was written with the assumption that new regulations would be needed to implement the new plans, but didn't provide for the continuation of older existing ordinances that would remain effective and in compliance. Since there is no State review process for zoning ordinances that were developed and adopted prior to GMA (1990), the State can't determine whether or not we are in compliance with GMA and consistent with our own Comprehensive Plan. CTED has suggested that we re-adopt our zoning ordinance as a way of clarifying our compliance status. Although we're not required to do that, this "self-certification" will help everyone acknowledge that we really do have our development regulations in place and we do comply with GM,&. Non-passage will not result in penalties but will continue the confusion and could result in financial hardships for the City if funding agencies are unable to determine our compliance status. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: No anticipated adverse impacts. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: EMERGENCY ORDINANCE no. ,,/../~ [ AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON RE-ADOPTING BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 21.02, ZONING CODE, TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND RCW 36.70A AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REPEALING ORDINANCES NO. 4172 AND NO. 4555; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, Bremerton is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to adopt a comprehensive plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement that Plan, in accordance with RCW 36.70A, et seq.; and WHEREAS, Bremerton adopted its revised Comprehensive Plan in April, 1995, and re-adopted the Plan by Ordinance No. 4545 in February, 1996, to comply with an Order of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board following an appeal; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance, adopted in November, 1988, by Ordinance No. 4172, was determined to be substantially consistent with the revised Comprehensive Plan, was not re-adopted in its entirety, but has been amended to correct minor inconsistencies, to adjust to Plan Amendments, and to incorporate the requirements of ESHB 1724; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has reviewed its Zoning Ordinance and determined that it complies with the requirements of GMA and RCW 36.70A, and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN Section 1. The Bremerton Zoning Ordinance, consisting of Chapter 21.02 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, as attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70A. Section 2. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton, consisting of an eleven-page zoning atlas attached hereto as Exhibit "B", is hereby adopted pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70A. Section 3. Ordinance No. 4172 (adopting the Zoning Ordinance in 1988) and all amendments thereto, except Ordinances No. 3136, 3421, 3429, 3451, 3543, 3546, 3552, 3636, 4067, 4168, 4308 and 4354, is hereby repealed. Section 4. Ordinance No. 4555 (adopting an amended citywide Zoning Map in 1996), and all amendments thereto, is hereby repealed. Section 5. This Emergency Ordinance is necessary to preserve the public peace, health, and safety; to achieve interjurisdictional acknowledgement that the City's development regulations are in compliance with State law and consistent with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan; and to ensure that the City can continue to plan, zone, permit, and secure the funds it needs to implement its plans without doubt or uncertainty regarding its GMA compliance status. Section $. This Emergency Ordinance shall become effective upon passage by the Bremerton City Council. APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this day of ,1997. PASSED by the Bremerton City Council this ,1997. day of DAVID FARR, President Bremerton City Council APPROVED this day of ,1997. ATTEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk Published: Effective: 13-C: re--adopt.zo Exhibit "A" Title 21 Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 21.02 ZONING CODE [Text of the Zoning Code, with Appendix] Exhibit "B" City of Bremerton OFFICIAL ZONING MAP --- Zoning Atlas --- [11-page Zoning Atlas] AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE To amend the "Planned Unit Development" section of the Bremerton Zoning Code, BMC 21.02.340 FOR AGENDA OF: ORIGINATING DEPT: ORIGINATOR: DATE SUBMITTED: CL.~EARANCES: ~s.~ck if necessary) City Attorney..~ -'"'~?"'-'-~. ir. O omm. Operations Comm. (/~'~~'''''''''''~''~ '/ April 9, 1997 DCD/Planninq Ron W. Hough April 3, 1997 3. EXHIBITS: Staff Report Proposed Revisions to "PUD" section. Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes (3/18/97) APPROVED BY COUNCIL PR~r.~IDEN~. i~1~ ~M!TTAL: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ,~.P-~? ~ ~.~_.~-.\ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: Several sections of the Zoning Code have been revised recently to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to meet "Regulatory Reform" requirements. Some of those changes have affected the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section, particularly regulations that deal with PUD approval procedures, meetings, hearings, preliminary and final approval, and others. The proposed amendments will correct existing inconsistencies. This opportunity is also being used to make minor adjustments that will make this section easier to understand and apply. The Bremerton Planning Commission, following a public hearing on March 18, 1997, recommends City Council approval of the proposed amendments as presented. RECOMMENDATION: City Council approval of the attached Ordinance on first reading. City Council passage of the Ordiannce on second reading. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Donald L. Pratt ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Judy Johnson EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: AMENDED9A 41 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Non-passage will ensure that the identified conflicts in the Zoning Code will continue, rather than be corrected. The most serious conflicts are in the procedures for reviewing and approving a PUD. Those procedures were recently changed in the "Administration" section to classify a PUD as a Type III decision which requires a Planning Commission recommendation and City Council public hearing prior to the decision. Non-passage will result in continued confusion between those two code sections and could result in misinterpretations by those who use the code. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: No anticipated impacts in these areas. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: STAFF REPORT ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS BMC: 21.02.340 --- Planned Unit Development File: ZTA-01-97 OF Prepared by: Ron W. Hough, Planning Manager --- Dept. of Community Development -- April 1, 1997 The following is a summary of the more important proposed changes and related comments: P. 1: 350(a)(1): Improved description of the"conceptual review" intent. P. 2: Most changes are for clarification of the process and to adjust the Planning Commission and City Council roles per recent "Regulatory Reform" amendments. · I, (b)(3): New item. Planning Commission used to approve the Preliminary PUD. The City Council now does that. Final approval is by the Director, with the exception of the approvals listed, which need a Council hearing and final approval. · I, 360(a): Added a requirement for at least one pre-application conference before the applicant can get a review of the concept plan and preliminary application. P. 4: · t, All references to the "Planning Dept." are changed to "DCD" or "Permit Center". · t, References to "Director of Community Development" are changed to "Director". · t, The "department" doesn't make decisions -- the "Director" does. P. 5: Section 410 is new to better describe the City Council's process. These steps were previously done by the Planning Commission. Section 420 directs the appeal to Superior Court instead of the City Council. Previous Section 420 is removed. Parts are covered in other sections. Section 430: "Incomplete submittals may (not necessarily "will") delay the processing..." P. 6: Section 440(b)(4): Added flexibility to allow a small shift in major land use categories. Section 450(a): "The applicant or any affected party" is changed to "Any party of record". The Administration section of the Zoning Ordinance --- Sect. 21.02.945(c) --- now includes a definition of"party of record" which will be used here for appeal purposes. The appeal period is also changed from 10 to 14 days to be consistent with recent amendments. P. 7: Section 460(c): Added more detail to describe what is included in an "approved PUD" and to state that those limitations are in place until the project is constructed or approval expires. Section 470(a): Additional wording to make it clear that final rezone approval will depend on City approval of the Final Plan and time limits for performance. Preliminary PUD approval does not lock in the rezone. P. 8: Table: Adjusted the density figures to be more consistent with the densities of these zones. They were recently amended in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The PUD does allow PUD: Staff Report --- Page 1 P. 9: P. 10: ,pP. 11: P. 12: ,~P. 13: densities to exceed the limits of the Comprehensive Plan, in exchange for greater open space. This type of "density bonus" is often encouraged in urban areas. Section 480(c) states that traffic will be accommodated "within the adopted Levels of Service for affected streets." The City has adopted LOS for streets and will be considering the impact of the PUD on those standards. It's a Comprehensive Plan "concurrency" requirement. Section 490(a): Changed to allow the Director, rather than the Planning Commission, to accept PUD applications on small parcels if, in his/her opinion, they meet the listed criteria. This decision can be made more quickly and much earlier in the process. Section 490(b)(1): Added "Reduced setbacks may be considered when not adjacent to the perimeter of the PUD." Generally, all setbacks within a PUD are subject to adjustment. This change would make it more difficult to violate the basic perimeter setbacks for very small (under one acre) PUDs. Setbacks for larger PUDs are established in the table on this page. Section (b)(3): New section to allow structures to "step back" as their height increases. Section (b)(4): New section to require interior setbacks to be based on the requirements of the zone, but to allow deviations "to achieve project design objectives". There should be a good design reason for reduced setbacks -- other than to squeeze in more density. Section (d): Removed the requirement that open space be "accessible to all owners or tenants of the development." We already require that two-thirds of the open space be suitable for active recreation. The remainder may be inaccessible steep slopes, wetlands, or other environmental features that should not be accessible to everyone. Section (d)(1)(vi): Added the following to the list of lands that shall not be included as open space in the PUD: "Small remnants of land that are not physically, visually, or functionally related to the project's overall open space plan." Hopefully, this will discourage the applicant from counting scattered pieces of excess land in corners and between buildings that are not really useable or part of the big picture. Section (d)(3): Added some wording to better describe what we have in mind when talking about active and passive open space. This has often been vague. Section (e)(1): Simplified to require all streets and rights-of-way to meet adopted standards. Section (e)(2): Added a better definition of"driveway" for PUD purposes. Section (e)(6): Modified this parking requirement to state that parking standards "are subject to modification through the PUD process to best meet needs and project objectives." Section (f): The use of solid fences and walls for the "screening" of outdoor storage, etc., sometimes results in an unattractive structure. A sentence was added here to require "softening" of the impacts of such fences and walls through design or through the effective placement of trees and other landscaping materials. Section 500(a): Requires that each phase of a phased PUD be clearly delineated on the Preliminary Plan, along with a development schedule. Section 500(b): Changes to this section place greater importance on the design of a phased PUD at the Preliminary Plan level so that the Final Plan doesn't show up in unexpected smaller pieces. A PUD is basically a "master plan" for a complex project that consists of interrelated parts. If the PUD is designed to be built in phases, each phase should be able to stand on its own, in case the other phases don't get built. Timing is also an important ingredient in the PUD: Staff Report --- Page 2 P. 15: phasing process. If the developer can't provide a plan for phasing nor a timetable for development, the Plan may be too large or not ready for Preliminary approval. Section 550(a): Added "Development Agreement as provided in BMC 21.02.900" to the requirement for an agreement. ESHB 1724 outlined the Development Agreement process and we added a section to our Administration section to provide for it. 13-C:zta-l-97.sr PUD: Staff Report --- Page 3 Chapter 21.02.340 BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 21.02.340 PURPOSE. This Planned Unit Development (PUD) section is intended to: (a) Permit diversity and variety in allowable uses, location, and types of structures; (b) Promote the efficient use of land by facilitating a flexible arrangement of buildings, circulation systems, land uses, and utilities; (c) Preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and minimize adverse effects on sensitive environmental areas; (d) Allow the combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms, and building relationships within the planned area; (e) Lessen development impacts on adjacent areas through site design and necessary mitigating measures; (f) Preserve the value, character, and integrity of surrounding areas which have been, or are being, developed under traditional zoning district regulations; (g) Provide greater predictability for the applicant's chances of gaining approval; (h) Provide City officials with assurances that the project will retain the character proposed at the time of approval; and (i) Allow the general public greater opportunity to participate in the development process. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.350 OUTLINE OF THE PUD PROCESS. A PUD application is reviewed by the City in a txvo-part process; review of a preliminary plan, followed by review of a final plan. The purpose of this process is to minimize development costs prior to a City determination of the acceptability of the preliminary plan for a PUD. (a) Part I: The steps involved in the Preliminary Plan review are: (1) Conccptual rc'Acw. City staffand appIie~t discuss e6neeptlat prehapp!ieatiOn PUD: Page 1 (2) (3) (4) App!~, ~!~b'mi~s Preliminary PUD application. City~,-v,~" ......... ,,,.,,,,' ,,, v ,.: ...., s~ conducts tee~cal revi~w;6£~e proposed PUD (b) (5) (6) Part II: (1) (2) The steps involved in the Final Plan review are: Applicant~g~ffiit~ Final PUD application. Pl~S':thht' i~l~d~ ~ reZ0ne~ eomb~t~6n~ ~f Z6h~s~ :sub~iVi~i6n~0r O~r..:~matters Record with ~p County Auditor. (Ord. 4293 §8 (in part), 1990; Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.360 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW. (a) Prior to the submittal of the Preliminary PUD Application, ~ ~o!!~g atleast one pre. ~p~li~ati6n co~fe~hee~ the applicant shall request a Conceptual Review. The ~'~--:-~ Department of ~~ Development (D~) shall arrange a conference within seven (7) days following the request. (b) The following information shall be submitted for a Conceptual Review: (1) A sketch map of existing conditions for both the subject property and those abutting lands within two hundred feet (200') in all directions. (2) A sketch plan of the proposed development including, but not limited to: ii. iii. Circulation pattern and distribution of parking areas; Buildings and use areas, with densities; and Landscape/buffer/open space and recreation areas. PUD: Page 2 (3) The Director of Community Development, or his/her representative, shall furnish the applicant with written comments within seven (7) working days after the Conceptual Review. In addition, this letter shall state whether or not a neighborhood meeting will be required. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.370 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. (a) After the Conceptual Review, but prior to filing a preliminary application, the Director of Community Development may require a neighborhood meeting if the proposed PUD project may cause a significant impact on a neighborhood. The purpose of such a meeting will be to solicit information regarding design alternatives to minimize any adverse impact from the proposal and alleviate community concern. (b) ~nor~tt~ ....... a neighborhood meeting~-heM, the applicant shall submit the following names and addresses to thc m~__:__ ¢;~,~ ....... , ................. ca shall be on stamped legal size envelopes. At th6"appli-~t~:§;;8~tib~;~!!DGD'.~:~lFr~rovide thi,lg~;ss~(8 f6~?~ additib*nal, fee~· (1) Neighborhood organizations. (2) City Council member(s) of the district(s) in which the project is being proposed. (3) Surrounding property owners per the following schedule: Distance in feet from Size of PUD the Project's Perimeter Less than 2 acres,..~,,~^ 300 2 to 5 acres 500 Over 5 acres 700 Names and addresses shall be provided by a title company and shall be submitted for mailing to the Department no less than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the neighborhood meeting. (c) ............. ~ ~'-v ......... C~ staff shall take written note of substantive comments, major concerns, and questions during the neighborhood meeting. Written notes shall be available for public review within five (5) ~vorking days. (d) A record shall also be established to include the names and addresses of persons attending and/or providing comments as affected parties for subsequent notification. (Ord. 4172, 1988). PUD: Page 3 21.02.380 PRELIMINARY PUD APPLICATION. A Preliminary PUD Application shall be filed with "- ............ ~ ~',-v ........ DCD. The information necessary for submittal and processing of a Preliminary PUD ApPlication is detailed in administrative supplements available" .... '-- ~' ^--:-- .................. ~ ~',,v .......... at the Bremerton permit Gentes. An incomplete submittal will delay the processing of any application. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.390 r~-x~,, COMMITTEE. (a) (b) (c) A Preliminary PUD application shall be reviewed by the appropriate City departments, coordinated by ............ ~ ~'-v ........ t DCD. If the Director of ........... .~ ...... F .... m recommends, in writing to the applicant, that the PUD proposal be changed in any way the applicant shall have seven (7) calendar days during which to respond in one of the following ways: (1) (2) (3) Modify the proposed PUD according to the Director's comments; Negotiate the changes with the Director or his/her representative; or Choose not to change the proposal and give written notice to the · -',-v ......... D~eetor of that decision. No response within the given time frame, when a response is necessary, will maY delay scheduling of a public ~ meeting on the application before the Planning Commission. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.400 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION After conducting a public hcaring technical review oft~ p[oppsa!, the Planning Commission shall'wv .... , .... .~,'-'~-vv ........................ recommendC~: ~Councfl:a royal a, roval ~;~9on~}lp~ns~ 9y dq~ p~the Preliminary PUD proposal. This hearing shall be advertised in accordance with BMC 21.02.380. (Ord. 4293 §8 (in part), 1990; Ord. 4172, 1988). PUD: Page 4 4q 21 02 440~0 APPEAL TO "~"-~'/~tIT~'l't'~TT S~]~[~IOR~iCO ,,[3RT 4172,1988). 21.02,430 FINAL PLAN APPLICATION. An application for approval of a Final PUD Plan must be filed with ,t.^ TJl~--__:__ ~ 1'~ ........ ~y the filing deadline. The information necessary for submittal and review of the Final PUD application is detailed in administrative supplements which are available from thel~",,~m,,~- ~",v'-' ...... ...... nt Bre~rton:Pe'~[ center. Incomplete submittals --~ .... .:llmay delay the processing of PUD: Page 5 application. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.440 DIRECTOR'S REVIEW OF FINAL PLAN. (a) Director ,~ ............. ~ ...... v ....... shall review the Final PUD Plan and shall verify that it is in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Plan which was approved by the City Council, and that any problems and all details have been worked out. If an affirmative finding of substantial conformance is made, the Director must approve the Final PUD application without any additional stipulations. The final site plan shall be recorded with the County Auditor. (b) The Final Plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved Preliminary Plan. Minor administrative adjustments to the Final Plan may be approved by the Director and the Final Plan shall be deemed in substantial compliance if the following are not true: (1) The general use or character of the development is not changed. (2) There are no new or increased traffic circulation problems. (3) The total number of residential dwelling units has not increased by more than five percent (5%) over the number shown on the Preliminary Plan. (4) The gross square footage of commercial, office, or industrial space has not increased by more than five percent (5%) over those shown on the Preliminary Plan n~i?is~ 5~ ~ore than: fige percent fr6~ 0~e maj or ~atego~ to another (5) The amount of approved open space has not decreased by more than three percent (3%). (c) After the Director of Cc, w~-r~unity Dcvclopmcnt's decision has been made concerning the Final Plan, a letter shall be sent to the persons of record explaining the Director's decision and the appeal process. (Ord. 4293 {}8 (in part), 1990; Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.450 APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION. ..... vv ............ : ........v,l,: Any party ofrecordmay appeal the determination of the Director o ............ ~ ...... ~, ....... that the Final PUD Plan, ihclgdi~g any minOr ~~n,tgi is or is not in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Plan that was approved by the City Council. Within ten-O~ ~ourte,~ {14) calendar days from the date of the Director's determination, a written notice of appeal to the Planning Commission may be filed "':*~' PUD: Page 6 The appeal will be scheduled on the earliest possible Commission agenda. The Commission shall uphold or reverse the Director's determination. The decision of the Planni g Co i io h I1 b fi 1 "-' ....... : ........ ~ ~c,t.~, ,~:~:~_ :~ c.~.~ The Director's determination of lack of substantial conformance, or subsequent ratification by the Planning Commission or C~ty Cc, uncil of that determination shall require the PUD applicant to bring the Final Plan into substantial conformance with the Preliminary Plan, or submit a new Preliminary Plan. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.460 SCOPE OF PUD APPROVAL. The PUD Final Approval shall superimpose the PUD onto the underlying zoning, which is the official zoning district of record for the City of Bremerton. The use and density restrictions of the underlying zoning; 6~ 6ombiii~ti6h ~f~Z6fi~ are applicable to the PUD, unless the City makes specific allowances otherwise in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. ~' ......... the ~gh/:!~'~ PUD vrof~ss; :,hall ......... , ,~,,, ~v exceptions to the lot requirements of the underlying zoning district, including modifications to lot size, setbacks, height and other similar requirements may be:g~ted. (c) The approy~d:PUD shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site to 0nly li~itati6n~' §h~ :i~ifi iff effect until the P ' ' ~,~:~ ~ UD.I~ cons~d,~ or un~!: !t: s approval e~it~S.!~ff whieh:e~e: th6 previous zo~g autO~a~tical!~ ~etu~s. (Ord. 4172, i 988). 21.02.470 ALLOWABLE USES. (a) The uses allowed in a PUD shall be governed by the allowed uses in the underlying zoning district(s). If the applicant for the PUD approval seeks to have uses allowed in the proposed PUD that are not allowed in the underlying zoning district(s), a rezoning of the subject property shall be applied for through normal procedures or as a c0mponent of the EUD application. Any zoning reclassification granted shall be cOnditiOnal on CiiY approval of the Final site plan for the subject property d:the ~pphcant s ability to carry (b) There may be a composite of two or more zoning districts allowing land uses of those zoning districts to be located anywhere within the PUD in accordance with an approved site plan. Allowable uses, buildings, lots, accessory structures, off-street parking areas, PUD: Page 7 (c) (d) (e) and open space may be located without reference to boundaries of the underlying zoning. Any use normally subject to a Special Use Permit in a zoning district will be permitted ...:,~_ ..... t. ...... : .......*' ~--~:~': ~- ~ ...... ~' i t Outright if th d ............... ,l .............. vi-, ................. a pcrm at use is approve by the City Council in a PUD. Any use applied for and not specifically listed in this chapter ahall maybe permitted in a PUD if approved by the ~--:-- ........ ~ .............. City COunCil. Determination of the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a PUD shall be based on the gross acre. A gross acre shall be defined as 43,560 square feet of land involved in the PUD, regardless of the current or proposed use of the land. The maximum allowable density of a PUD in any residential zoning district shall be as follows: ZONING DISTRICTS SF-1 SF-2 SF-3 DR CBR MF MR Max. Units per Gross Acre by Percentages of Open Space 15% 20% 25% or more 3 4 5 -5-8 -79 -910 98 10 12 98 10 12 -1-51:8 4-7-20 -2022 -2-2-18 -2622 3026 44 50 60 (f) The distribution of dwelling units within the PUD is not limited to the boundary of any underlying residential zoning district(s) and mixed use devel0pmentis encoUraged (Ord. 4293 {}8 (in part), 1990; Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.480 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A PUD may be approved if it is found that the development conforms to all of the following general criteria: PUD: Page 8 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) The location, design, and uses of the PUD shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Shoreline Management Program, and with other applicable plans and ordinances adopted by the City. The PUD shall be integrated with its surroundings and designed to harmonize with existing or proposed development in the neighborhood. In the case of a departure in character from the surrounding land uses, the scale, intensity and design shall adequately reduce the impact of the development in such a way that the project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The traffic generated by the PUD shall be accommodated safely ........ ~ ,~ ~ ...... ~d,Wit~ the ado ed Levels o£Se~ice for affected streets. All development will be adequately served by existing or planned facilities and services. The PUD will result in an attractive, healthful, efficient and stable environment for living, shopping, working and leisure activities. The development plan shall make adequate and appropriate provision for the preservation of the environment, both natural and man-made, and the conservation of energy. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.490 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. All Planned Unit Development projects shall comply with the following standards, which are intended to provide guidance and predictability to all participants in the PUD process: (a) Parcel Size: An area not less than one (1) gross acre in size may be considered for a PUD. The ~"~--:-, ,,~-,-,~- ,_.,,,,,,,,,oo,,~,'-'~--:~:-- Director may accept apPlications for: PUDS on parcels smaller than one acre provided that there is adequate showing by the applicant that: (1) The site has natural or aesthetic features which may be destroyed or adversely affected by traditional development techniques otherwise allowed; or (2) The site is located in a City designated urban renewal area, neighborhood conservation area, or other "target area" for rehabilitation or redevelopment; and (3) Properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development are all or mostly developed, or are otherwise not available for acquisition nor suitable for the proposed use; and (4) The uses and style of the proposed development will be consistent with and/or complementary to the existing development character of the area. PUD: Page9 (b) P~gi~ter afidi~t~fibg ;Setbacks-m~'--l~aqmet, er: (1) A residential Planned Unit Development smaller than one acre in area shall conform to the no,wna! setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is located a~p~g i~sP~0meter. If the PUD includes a combination of zones, the most restrictive setbacks shall apply. RedUced setbacks may be considered when not adjacent to the Perimeter of the PUD. (2) ThOr p0r~t~rs of ~:~t-ot4~ PUDs one acre or larger in area shall maintain minimum front, side, and rear setbacks according to the height of the buildings, as follows: BUILDING HEIGHT 0 - 25 feet 26 - 35 feet Over 35 feet SETBACKS Front Side Rear 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (~) Nofi:pefi~ete~ setbacks within the PUD Shall be baSedOn ~e required setbacks of (c) (d) Height: Building heights in a PUD may be varied from the underlying zoning district(s). However, building heights shall be compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood to maintain privacy, retain scenic views, and ensure a reasonable balance of light and shadow on adjacent properties. Open Space: (1) .............. a A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of a PUD gh~l be :dedicated as common open space, ~ ..... :~-~ .... ' .......... ~ ...... t. Open space shall be provided for active as well as passive recreational activities, ~d for the presemation of existing natural site menities whenever possible. Open space shall not include: PUD: Page 10 (2) (3) iii. Streets, alleys, and other rights-of-way. Vehicular drives, parking, loading and storage areas. Required buffering and landscaping for parking areas; nor. Perimeter setback areas of the PUD project. Interior SetbackS that may be required tO:separate buildings Or that apply to b~Idi~g~ on individOal lots within ~e PUD: Sm~l temants of land that are not physiCallyi VisUallYi: Or functionally relatedt6 :~e project,s overall ope~.' ~pa'ee pl~. Open space and supporting facilities intended for recreational use shall be designed and located to not adversely impact surrounding land uses, especially existing residential uses. Open space and its intended uses shall be clearly designated on the site plan. At least two-thirds of the open space area shall be suitable for active recreational purposes. The City will base its acceptance of these areas on their dimensions, useability, location, slope, and physical improvements. :: Tot lOts; playgrounds, (4) (5) (6) The locations of natural site amenities shall be considered when planning for open space, siting buildings and other structures, routing underground services, and determining finished grade levels and areas to be paved. Natural amenities might include rock out-croppings, ravines, groves of trees, ponds or streams. Up to one-third (1/3) of property intended to satisfy the open space requirement can be unsuitable for recreational purposes if consisting of existing natural site amenities. When a PUD is constructed in phases, common open space shall not be less than fifteen percent (15%) of the total area developed in each phase and must be completed in accordance with approved specifications at the time of completion of each phase of the PUD. Provisions shall be made for the perpetual maintenance of all common open space areas. (7) The total requirement for active open space may be reduced by no more than twenty-five percent (25%) through the provision of a recreation building, swimming pool, or similar major recreational facility that, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, will better provide for the needs of the residents without PUD: Page 11 significantly detracting from the project's appearance or environmental quality. (e) Circulation: (1) All streets ~d rightSSOf-way shall be ded!cated; designed and COns~Cted in accordance with the~ Citf s adopted street standards,v ~,~,,,.,.~-" ~": -"' ,~,.~,,,..L,.~," ~ ": .... -' cxccpt,. (2) Interior r0adWayS that do nOt provide access t0:individUa110ts; but that provide aqcess ~ :~div~dual s~ctures~ apartment buildings, or m~ufa~mred homes On a (3) (4) A pedestrian circulation system shall be designed to assure that pedestrians can move safely and conveniently both on the site and between the site and nearby properties and activities, as appropriate. All streets and parking areas shall contribute to the overall aesthetic design of the PUD, while minimizing traffic congestion and the amount of impervious surface area. (f) (g) (5) No parking or maneuvering areas, Other th~ a~ss ~e~y~; shall be allowed within the PUD's perimeter setbacks when the development is within or abutting any residential zoning district. (6) The P~6~igi6~ 6~ adequate parking; loading; access and circulation facilities · ,.~ ................ v ..........within any PUD shall be based on the proVisions contained in the Parking PrOVisions section of BMC 21.02, and are sUbject to modifiCafign :~ough the PUD Process to best meet needs and Project Objectives. Screening: All utility facilities, loading areas, trash containers, and;outdoor storage areas and bl~ walls shall be screened from surrounding properties. Solid fences~ Walls, and !~p!~g mat~fi~fl~ !~thei:r impact:c~ot be minicad thr6~gh ~Chitec~al design or 6fiefitati~ Architectural Theme: The structural elements of each PUD, including accessory structures such as signs and lighting, shall be integrated into a primary architectural PUD: Page 12 (h) Service Improvements: Service improvements in a PUD shall be provided in accordance with the following provisions: (1) Preliminary Plan Review: Preliminary engineering information on waste disposal, water and electrical systems, street improvements, fire hydrants, drainage and other public improvements shall be reviewed by staff and the TechniCal ReView Committee to determine the availability of such utilities and services to the site, their adequacy to service the proposed project, and/or necessary measures to make the needed utilities and services available on the site. (2) Final Plan Review: ii. 111. Final detailed engineering plans for drainage, grading, trash collection, fire hydrants, waste disposal systems, water system, electrical system, street improvements and other public improvements must be submitted to be approved by the City. The developer of the PUD shall execute an agreement with the City to ensure the installation of improvements. Where practical, all service facilities shall be placed underground, with the exception of those that, by their nature, must be on or above the surface. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in each deed to be held by a property owner within the PUD shall require periodic assessments for the ongoing maintenance and repair of all private service facilities held in common. The Declaration shall also require that the governing body of the PUD be responsible for the adequate maintenance of such facilities. (Ord. 4293 {}8 (in part), 1990; Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.500. PROJECT PHASING. If the PUD is designed to be built in phases, each phase Shall be clearly delineated on the ~!~n. ary. PUD p!an; PhYsiCally described, and schedUled for deVelopment Within the o~1' ~UD sehedfiIei Final Plan may also be submitted for the entire PUD or;in phases, consistent with d~el6P~ent if pioje~t;;phasing was not. aPproved at the time of:prelimin~ PUD Plan At the time of the Preliminary Plan Review, the appropriate share of any off-site utility connections, streets, or other public improvements to be constructed shall be determined for each phase of the PUD. (Ord. 4172, 1988). PUD: Page 13 21.02.510 OPEN SPACE GUARANTEE. In addition to the Final Plan(s), the developer of the PUD shall submit a legal instrument guaranteeing (1) the retention of open space and (2) the permanent maintenance of open space and commonly owned facilities in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Guarantees may include, but are not limited to, grants to or reservations for the use of property owners within the development, dedications to the public, conveyances to property owner associations or corporations, or by a combination of the above. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.520 EFFECTIVE PUD PLAN. The development shall be constructed in a timely manner, as outlined in this section, and the development approval by the City shall be subject to revocation if the following time limitations for planning and development are not met: (a) Time Limit for Action on a Preliminary Plan: Within a maximum of two (2) years following City Council approval of a Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall file a Final Plan for all or part (!~p~a,]'sed) of the Planned Unit Development. If the Final Plan is not filed within two years, the right to proceed under the Preliminary Plan shall expire. The m~__:__ ,-___:~:^_ Ci~ Cr~cil may approve a one time one year extension of time upon a showing by the applicant that progress is being made and that it is very likely that the Final Plan will be submitted within the extended time period. (b) Time Limit for Validity of the Final Plan(s): The applicant must begin the development of an approved Planned Unit Development within two (2) years of Final Plan approval. A one time one-year extension of time may be granted by the Plar~-;ing Cc, mmis;'ionCity ep~ci~, as provided above. If the project is to be developed in phases, the applicant must begin and substantially complete the development of each phase within two (2) years of the time provided for the start of construction of each phase in the development schedule. Extensions may be granted by the Pla,~ning Commission CitY Council on the same bases as provided above. Failure to develop within the specified time limit shall cause a forfeiture of the right to proceed under the Final Plan and require resubmittal of the Planned Unit Development application. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.530 CHANGES TO FINAL PUD PLAN. T~!'~]~C~r: 9~ Community Development may administratively approve minor changes to an d Fi al P1 : ...... ~ ....... :"~ ~-:'--:~ ~*'°^~':~- B whenSUch ch~ge satiSfyth approve n an ............................ o ....... 1 I- s e PUD: Page 14 chteri~i~ ~e~ti~n-21 02!4~). (Ord. 4293 §8 (in part), 1990; Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.540 CONFORMANCE WITH FINAL PLAN. A temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy or building permit shall not be issued if it is not in conformance with the approved Final Plan. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.550 PERFORMANCE BOND. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, the developer shall submit and enter into a D~el6p~ent: ~eement as prOvided in BMC 21.02~900i or S~ilaran agreement with the City to construct the development as approved, together with a performance bond or other suitable collateral, to be approved by the City Risk Manager in an amount sufficient to ensure the completion of improvements of a public nature to the required specifications and including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, waste disposal system, water mains, storm runoff and erosion control system, street signs, street lights, and landscaped buffers. As improvements are completed and upon application by the developer, a partial release of the bond or collateral may be authorized, provided it will leave a balance equal to the cost of completing the remaining improvements, as certified by the City. The bond or collateral agreement shall provide for forfeiture to the City and the right to withdraw funds upon default by the developer for the purpose of constructing any or all of the public improvements in accordance with the approved specifications. (Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.560 REAL PROPERTY RESTRICTIONS. All the land within the Planned Unit Development shall be subject to such contractual agreements or recorded covenants as the City may deem necessary to protect the public interest. (Ord. 4293, 1990; Ord. 4172, 1988). 21.02.570 PENALTY. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to construct, enlarge, or change any land PUD: Page 15 or PUD in the City, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this Section. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Section shall be subject to the provisions of BMC 21.02.945 et. seq. (Ord. 4172, 1988). Chapter Last Amended: Ordinance No. 4293 Effective: Nov. 8, 1990 BDC:ch-6.xxx PUD: Page 16 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE amending Sections 21.02.340 through .570 of the Bremerton Municipal Code, pertaining to procedures and standards for Planned Unit Developments. WHEREAS, the "Administration" section of the Bremerton Zoning Code was recently amended to incorporate new procedures for processing and approving development permits, and to adjust procedures for meetings and public hearings, as mandated by ESHB 1724, the "Regulatory Reform Act"; and WHEREAS, the changes that were adopted to the Administration section have resulted in conflicts with procedures contained elsewhere in the Zoning Code for the processing of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs); and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission has studied and discussed proposed changes to the Planned Unit Development section that will bring the section into consistency with the remainder of the Zoning Code, and which include a number of other minor adjustments intended to make this section easier to understand and apply and, following a public hearing on March 18, 1997, recommended City Council approval of the amended PUD section; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council considered the proposed amendments, conducted a public hearing on April 9, 1997 to accept public comments, and approved the amendments for inclusion in the Zoning Code; now, therefore, THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. The Bremerton Zoning Code is hereby amended by adoption of the revised Planned Unit Development regulations as set forth in BMC 21.02.340 through .570, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". day of APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ,1997. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of ., 1997. David Fart City Council President APPROVED this day of ,1996. ATTEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY City Clerk Effective Date: Exhibit "A" ADOPTED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS to Planned Unit Development regulations ( BMC 21.02.340 - .570 ) to be attached as adopted PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES UNAPPROVED DRAFT March 18, 1997 Chairman Stone announced and called the meeting to order. The Secretary called the roll: Those present were Boyd, Robinson, Olsen, Stone, Hancock and Adams. Absent were: Dingfield arrived after roll call. Agenda: Chairman Stone announced that under the Director's Report he would like to discuss training and then under New Business will discuss the Study Session with the Council. PUBLIC HEARING-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Ron Hough, presented the staff report. Several sections of the Zoning Ordinance have been revised to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to meet 'Regulatory Reform' requirements. Some of those changes have resulted in a need to update the PUD section, especially those parts that deal with PUD approval procedures, meetings, hearings, preliminary and final approval, etc. We have also taken this opportunity to make other corrections and minor adjustments that should make this section easier to understand and apply. Presented a draft showing both the current version and the proposed changes. Showed on the overhead a Permit Processing Summary. Reviewed the PUD document that was handed out and recommended a couple of changes: PUD-Page 2 (2) "City staff conducts neighborhood meeting to discuss the concept plan if requested by the Director. (5) Planning Commission conducts reviews of the proposals, as presented in the staff report and accompanying documentation. (6) Planning Commission may make a recommendation for City Council action. Page 3 Co) Prior to a neighborhood meeting, the applicant shall submit the following names and addresses. Page 4 (c) No response within the given time frame, when a response is necessary, may delay scheduling of a Planning Commission review of the application. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the Planaing Commission and their roll in the hearing process. Motion by Commissioner Robinson and seconded by Commissioner Hancock to recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed amendments to BMC 21.01.340, Planned Unit Development with suggested modifications. Question called: Boyd, no; Robinson, yes; Adams, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, no; Olsen, no; Stone, yes. Motion passes. PAGE -1- The Commission commended Ron Hough on the excellent job he is doing to make sense of this issue. Commissioner Dingfield explained that she voted no because she considers the Planning Commission roll totally redundant and really serves no purpose. Commissioner Boyd explained that she voted no because she feels that it sets the Planning Commission up to agree with the staff and not permitting access to the public. Commissioner Olsen agreed with both Dingfield and Boyd. Review/Approval of Amended February 4, 1997 Meeting Notes: Approved Unanimously. Review/Approval of February 18, 1997 Minutes: Approved Unanimously. Call to the Public: No responses. Director's Report: Ron Hough reported that NEAT Housing Code goes into effect March 20, 1997. Vegetation Ordinance goes into effect March 20, 1997. Police, Fire, and Code Enforcement attended a two day conference in Sparks, Nevada. Sesko property on Arsenal Way is under enforcement. Sesko property on Penn~lvania is also under enforcement. Holtz dock and bulkhead issue is in the courts this week. Harrison Neighborhood brochure is out. The League of Women Voters is organizing "Choices for Sustainable Kitsap." They are having forums throughout the County. Bremerton's meeting is this Saturday at the old Administration building down on Montgomery at 9:00 AM. Charleston Community Plan will be heard at the Planning Commission on May 20th. May 6th will be a meeting in the Charleston Neighborhood with the Planning Commission. National Town Meeting on Main Street is coming up on April 27-30 in Portland. There will be a one-day session on the 26th. Attended a good conference in Seattle last week on the Governor's Downtown Revitalization. Commissioner Robinson asked what the status was of Jack Allingham's position. Ron Hough responded that we have a temporary in the position and are working on re-w~i~g the job description. Chairman Stone indicated that he had gotten some information on future training sessions. Discussion followed regarding training realizing that the roll of the Commission is not de,med. Commissioner Dingfield announced that next Monday on the 24th, there will be a joint study session between the City Council and County Commissioners regarding Sinclair Landing. PAGE -2- :~ New Business: Study Session with the City Council. Chairman Stone indicated they will be meeting to discuss the problems with 1724. A lengthy discussion followed regarding this issue. Chairman Stone handed the Secretary a letter that he had received regarding a possible future Planning Commission issue from Pat and June Keller. Meeting Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, M lyfi V aibet Approved: