HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/97 AGENDABREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
239 4TH STREET
BREMERTON, WA 98337
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 16, 1997
CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M.
A. Pledge Of Allegiance
B. Invocation
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in
advance for study and will be enacted by one motion. If
separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed
from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the
request of a Council member.
A. Minutes of Meeting - April 2, 1997
#AB97-077 ~
#AB97-o?8 /
B. Minutes of Meeting - April 9, 1997
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
4. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
5. M~YOR,S REPORT
6. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes)
e
ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance #4592 (Setond Reading) Amending
The Planned Unit Development Section Of The
Bremerton Zoning Code, B.M.C. 21.02.340
PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 P.M. OR LATER
A. Public Hearing On Water Fluoridation
#AB97-076
#AB97-079
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1997'
April 16, 1997
FOR AGENDA OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT: . City ..Council
ORIGINATOR: David Farr, Pr~H~nt
DATE SUBMITTED: 4-4-97
2. C.LEA3LANCES: (comment on back
if necessary)
3. ~XHiBITS:
ENDORSE]4ENT INFOR24ATION
~LAYOR
__ kPPROVED BY COLTNCiL. 'SI lq OR SUBMITTAL:
4. S~Y.STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT.FOR'COUNCIL ACTION:
8. ~ECOM2~ENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPIRATION DATE:'
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
AM. ENDED
TAPE #1452
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 2, 1997
#0037
#0061
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, April 2, 1997, at 5:30 P.M., with
Council President David Farr presiding. Council members present
were Bob Winters, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, Lon
Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Councilman
Richard Neville was absent. 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 Councilman A1 Colvin.
President Fart made the following announcement:
(1) A City Council Study Session will be held on April 7, 1997,
5:30 P.M. to 7:15 P.M.. Topics of discussion: Manette Bridge
Replacement, Executive Session on Personnel Performance, and
Westsound Cable Access Television Contract.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Request for Public Hearing on Water Fluoridation #AB97-065
M/S/C/U(Huff-Menees/Montgomery) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on April 2, 1997, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 207394 through 207606 in the amount of $283,361.02; and
Retirees' Payroll for the period ending March 31, 1997, in the
amount of $100,621.58.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr.' Winters reported the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Advisory
committee held their first meeting on March 31, 1997, and he
anticipates the committee meeting their objective of having a draft
ordinance before Council by May 29, 1997. He named the committee
members and thanked them for their involvement. He was pleased to
report lots of activity was taking place at Pendergast Regional
Park now that baseball season has started. He complimented the
Parks Department on the appearance of that park. On behalf of the
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 2 of 16
PeeWee organization, he encouraged military or civilian personnel
interested in participating and helping coach PeeWee sports to call
the Central Council Office or Bremerton Parks and Recreation
Department to obtain more information about the programs available.
Mr. Mont~omer~ announced the public is invited to attend a special
ceremony in remembrance of the Bataan survivors and ex-prisoners of
war at Bataan Park on April 5, 1997, 11:00 A.M.
Mrs. H~ff-Menees reported today at the Kitsap Executive Council
meeting Phyllis Mann, Director Of Emergency Management, reported on
damages that occurred throughout Kitsap County resulting from
flooding or mud slides. And, the deadline for submitting
claims/applications for financial assistance for any damages from
FEMA had been extended.
Mr. Law announced the District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held
April 15, at the Senior Center, where the Washington State
Department Of Transportation will host an Open House starting at
6:00 P.M., with a formal presentation at 7:00 P.M., on the
preferred alternative for the Manette Bridge replacement.
Representatives from Council Districts 1 and 2 will also be
available at that meeting. Due to another commitment this evening,
he would not be remaining for the rest of the Council meeting, but
he did want to convey to his fellow Council members that he
endorsee the amendments to the Sinclair Landing Memorandum Of
Understanding (item 7A).
Mr. McConnell announced the District #2 Neighborhood Meeting will
be held April 3, 6:30 P.M., at Fire Station #3. He encouraged
members of public to bring any and all concerns to that meeting.
Mr. Colvin thanked Councilman Law for inviting District 1 to the
District #3 meeting. He also thanked the Admiral Theater
Foundation for the tremendous job they accomplished in the
refurbishment of the Admiral Theater. He believes the theater will
attract state-wide participants. He anticipated someone speaking
to the Council from the Kitsap Family and Child Services Center;
however, it appeared they were not presented.
Mr. Fart reported efforts were underway to stabilize a mud slide
area in his District and he was aware that a contractor, Honey Do
Limited, provided services to the owner of that property at a
senior discounted cost. He expressed his "thanks" to the
contractors for their civic minded deed.
MAYOR,S REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton announced this evening she would be attending the
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 3 of 16
Retirement Dinner for Jim Barber, who served as one of the highest
civilian employees at PSNS for many years and is now retiring.
Mayor Horton reported Assistant Fire Chief A1 Duke has been very
involved with issues resulting from the December storm damage and
compiling the cost recovery information for FEMA for the City's
recovery. She was pleased to report the City has already received
financial assistant from FEMA as a result of that effort. Most of
the City's costs listed will be covered by FEMA, including
approximately $65,000 in personnel cost, $8,600 in conjunction with
the closing of the Warren Avenue Bridge, and additional funds will
be coming for several City roads issues. In regard to emergency
management, a State-wide Earthquake Drill will be conducted on
April 24, 1997, 9:56 A.M.. City buildings will be evacuated as
part of that exercise. Also, a seminar "Slip Sliding Away" will be
held May 10, 1997, 8:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M., at the Naval Undersea
Museum Auditorium/Keyport. This event is a slope management
seminar for people living along a shoreline that will provide a
geological look at this area, erosion control structure
information, i.e. bulkheads, riprap, stairways, vegetation on
slopes, management-removal-replacement, critical area ordinances
and what that means to property owners and insurance and risk
relief.
The city's 1997 Spring Clean Up event will take place April 14 -
19, for yard waste only. The free yard waste collection location
has been moved to an area behind the Chevron Station at Kitsap Way
and Oyster Bay Avenue. The hours of operations are: April 14-18
10:00 AM to 6:00 PM; April 19 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM. The Olympic
Landfill hours are 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. Proof of City residency will
be required.
On April 5, 1997, free adult CPR Classes will be held at the
President's Hall Kitsap County Fairgrounds, beginning every half
hour from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM. Childlren 10 years and up are
eligible to participate. This event is sponsored by the Westsound
Chapter of the American Red Cross, American Hearth Association,
Kitsap County Department Of Emergency Management and Kitsap Fire
Districts and city Fire Departments.
Mayor Horton and Fire chief Mick McKinley made a special
presentation to Rodney Johnson, Pat Swenka and Dannielle Gann for
their life saving efforts performed on Albert Love when he suffered
a heart attack at the YMCA on March 21, 1997. Special recognition
was also given to Fire Department Paramedics Jim Hardy and Joel
Wulf, who responded to that emergency call.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 4 of 16
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the City Council
taking into consideration implementing fluoridation in the city's
water system due to the adverse affects it would have on people's
health: Paul Drn~evlo, Gloria Drnjev~c and Ramona Hopkins.
Debbie Pearler-Stewart, Department Of community Development,
invited everyone to attend an event entitled "Finding Your Way
Home" at the Kitsap Mall on April 5. The exhibit will be located
in the center of the Mall and will provide information concerning
affordable fair housing programs and Community Development
activities. This event is sponsored by the City of Bremerton,
Kitsap County, KCAP and Kitsap County Consolidated Housing
Authority.
Councilman John Law left the Council Chambers at 6:00 P.M.
Gary Blais, International Entertainment, commented on future plans
for events at the Best Western Bayview Inn Dome.
Joel Deare announced he was opening a new business - Edward Jones
in Bremerton.
7A - /%MENDMENTS TO SINCLAIR LANDING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING,
~AB97-066
The City, along with Kitsap Transit, Port of Bremerton, and Kitsap
County selected the Sinclair Landing Proposal of Fletcher Wright
for the City's downtown waterfront development, and executed a
Memorandum of Understanding in February 1996. The developer's
reorganization as Howard S. Wright Construction Company was
approved by the City August 7, 1996.
The proposed amendment extends the original 180-day period for
negotiating a development agreement to April 15, 1997, defines
responsibility between members of the private development team, and
adds additional financial support from the private development team
for pre-development activities of Sinclair Landing Association, as
more fully detailed in the attached memorandum.
President Fart announced Councilman Winters, who owns a business in
the affected area, and Councilman Huff-Menees, who serves on the
SLA Board of Directors, will step down from voting on this issue.
Mary McClure, Executive Director Sinclair Landing Association (SLA)
reviewed the timing of events over the next 45 days. SLA is
currently engaged in the process of negotiating an agreement in
principle with Howard S. Wright, for the design built contract, and
with Commercial Group for the over all development agreement on the
rest of the project. She anticipates bringing both of those
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 5 of 16
#1506
agreements (in principle) to the City Council and Kitsap Transit
Board by April 15, with the final draft of those agreements back to
all of the partnering agencies before June 1, 1997. It is her
understanding the Memorandum Of Understanding is being extended to
June 1, recognizing that by April 15 the outlines of the two
agreements would be available, she believes this is a risk free
strategy for the City and the Agency partners and something of a
housekeeping item.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve the proposed amendment to
Sinclair Landing Memorandum of Understanding.
7B - CONTRACT FOR JAIL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF BREMERTON ~ND
KITS~P COUNTY,
The ten-year old contract has expired, and this five year contract
will replace it.
Police Chief Paul DuFresne reported his department has been working
on the proposed contract for quite some time and that the prior
agreement expired early 1997. The operating costs used to pro-rate
the costs for the City's misdemeanor incarcerations have been
reviewed. An agreement has been reached that although past data
has been reviewed to make a determination about the per-day cost
during this calendar year, at the end of each calendar year of this
contract a review will be made of the real cost of Jail operations
to determine if the price established is consistent with their
costs. Hopefully, if cost savings are affected by the Jail, the
City will realize some cost savings, but if there are cost over
runs, then the City would have to participate in the additional
costs.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Colvin questioned the increase of the proposed contract over
the past contract? Chief Du Fresne stated approximately $5.00 per
day increase. He noted a cost increase was not included in the
1996 contract. Mr. Colvin asked if those incarcerated pay for the
Jail cost? Chief Du Fresne stated yes, the Courts are able to
assess that cost. Currently, a Bill is in the Legislature that
would place those costs first in line in collections on convicted
misdemeanants. If that is successful, then the City would collect
those charges first before fines and other Court costs.
Mr. winters asked the annual cost to the taxpayers for these
services? Chief Du Fresne explained the 1996 budget approached $.5
million, and steps were taken throughout the year to keep that cost
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 6 of 16
#1801
as low as possible. The 1997 Budget reflects just over $400,000
for those services. Control of those costs is outside of actions
taken by the Executive or Legislative branch of City government;
and he is looking at alternatives to incarceration in hopes to save
the City some expenses. Mr. Winters asked if there has been an
increase in length of incarcerated time? Chief Du Fresne stated in
1996 there were fewer actual arrests, but the convictions after the
arrest resulted in longer terms for misdemeanor prisoners.
Mr. Winters asked who is addressing the Home Detention method?
Chief Du Fresne explained that service is offered to the City by
the County Jail. The Jail Administrator provides that service
through the Washington Association Of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs,
which has a program that has been approved by all Counties within
the State. This program is encouraged for City prisoners when
appropriate because it is a less costly program.
Mr. Overso~ questioned if using the County's Jail was a better
option for the taxpayers then to built and operated its own jail?
Chief Du Fresne stated yes, considering the cost of construction
and operation and providing per capita expense for incarceration
any less than what is proposed. Mr. Overson asked if further
negotiations were required? Chief Du Fresne stated following
Council's action it would then be reviewed by the County and County
Sheriff's office.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve the contract for jail
services between the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County for five
years, commencing January 1, 1997 and ending December 31, 2001; and
authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
7C - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING
FOR CALLOW AVENUE CEO PROJECT, ~AB97-068
Qualifications of five consultants from the list of qualified
archaeologists provided by the Washington Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation were reviewed and evaluated for this project.
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. was identified as the
best qualified to provide archaeological services required by the
Corps of Engineers permit for the Callow Avenue Basin Priority 1,
Phase 2 Storm Drainage Separation project.
The permit requires the city to comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act, and State Law. The scope of work
includes daily monitoring during construction and preparing a data
recovery plan should a discovery by made. Consultant's fees for
this work are $25,880. The action before the City Council is
approval of an agreement for Professional Services with Northwest
Archaeological Associates, Inc.
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 7 of 16
#2121
Gene Sa~le¥, Public Works and Utilities Director, explained the
contract was developed in two phases where the first phase is the
actual on-site investigation, monitoring daily logs and reports,
which would be a greater cost, and task two would only be exercised
in the event some matter of archeological significance was
discovered or suspected to be discovered ($4,500). The cost of
actual recovery is not included, put the cost of a plan to recover
is included. He is confident the amount negotiated is the extent
to which the city would be obligated and it was his hope to have
the project utilize $20,000 (maximum) in costs because it is not
anticipated there will be any discovery, but it is a requirement.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Winters asked if the City, in the past, had discovered anything
that provided data to estimate this amount? Mr. Smmple¥ explained
it was based on the amount of excavation required for this project.
The city will also have control of the time the archeologist is on
site.
Mr. Colvln asked if a discovery is made, would the cost escalate?
Mr. Sam~le¥ stated yes, if a discovery is made, the archeologist
will develop a plan, which is included in the project cost; however
the cost of recovery is not included and would require further
Council action.
President Fart asked Mr. Sampley if he had caused to explore or
explored the possibility of grants to cover this kind of expense?
Mr. Sample~ stated no, but the project is being funded through low-
interest loans through the Public Works Trust Fund and the
Centennial Clean Water Program through the Department Of Ecology.
There is approximately $6-700,000 of remaining loan capabilities
based on the contract amount of this project.
Mr. Overson asked if Mr. Sampley had researched the proposed firm's
background experience that would demonstrate that they are
reasonable? Mr. Sample¥ noted the firm is certified by the Corps
of Engineers to perform the work He assumed they would be fairly
aggressive in pursuit of archeological finds, but believes they are
professionals and would know what is significant and what is not.
Mr. Overson asked if this was a bid contract? Mr. Sample¥ stated
no, it was negotiated out of a list of five firms provided by the
Corps of Engineers and the selection was made based on
qualifications. An hourly rate was negotiated and the City will
only pay the expenses incurred.
M/S/C/U(Winters/Montgomery) to approve the Professional Services
Agreement for archaeological services with Northwest Archaeological
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 8 of 16
Associates, Inc. in the amount of $25,880, and authorize the Mayor
to execute the same.
7D - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT OF BREMERTON FOR RESERVOIR
#2250
REHABILITATION, ~AB97-069
The Port of Bremerton contacted the City and requested that the
Port's reservoir at Olympic View Industrial Park be included in the
City's "1997 Reservoir Rehabilitation" project. The City's
Reservoir 10, located adjacent to the Port's reservoir, will be
included in the project. The Port will be responsible for the
actual construction costs for the Port's reservoir and a portion of
the design, inspection and administrative costs for the project.
The Port Commission approved the Interlocal Agreement on March 11,
1997. The action before the City Council is approval of an
Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Bremerton for reservoir
rehabilitation.
Gene Sample~, Public Works and Utilities Director, stated the City
jointly shares a site with the Port of Bremerton with two
reservoirs: (1) Port of Bremerton has a 800,000 gallon capacity
reservoir; (2) the City has a 400,000 gallons capacity reservoir.
The City felt it was prudent to approach the Port and see if they
were interested in a similar refurbishment project and an agreement
was negotiated. The agreement is for a maximum of $37,000, the
actual bid amount is estimated at $26,000 with $5,000 contingency
plus approximately $6,000 for inspection and Administrative
services, which the Port would pay the full cost or their
proportionate share of the over all project.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) to approve the Interlocal Agreement
with the Port of Bremerton for reservoir rehabilitation and
authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
7E - INCREASE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE ORDER AUTHORITY FOR CALLOW
AVENUE BASIN PRIORITY 1, PHASE 2 STORM DRAINAGE SEPARATION, ~AB97-
O7O
Chapter 2.76 of the Bremerton Municipal Code sets forth purchasing
and change order procedures on City contracts. The administrative
change order authority of the Mayor is "20% of the contract price,
or $30,000, whichever is less" BMC 2.76.500(a)(4). The contract
amount of the recently approved construction contract for Callow
Avenue Basin Priority 1, Phase 2 Storm Drainage Project is
$4,814,505. The $30,000 limit of administrative change order
authority is inadequate to assure timely responses to the
Contractor's and City's needs which arise during construction.
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 9 of 16
#2441
To address situations such as this, BMC 2.76.500(b) (2) allows the
City Council to adjust the administrative change order authority of
the Mayor. Staff requests that the Mayor's change order authority
for this project be increased to $200,000, which is approximately
4% of the contract amount. The construction contingency amount for
this project included in the budget is $300,000. The City Council
will be kept informed of the project status, including change
orders, as part of the monthly project reports. The action before
the city Council is approval of increasing the Mayor's change order
authority to $200,000 for the Callow Avenue Basin Priority 1, Phase
2 Storm Drainage Separation Project.
Gene Sampley, Public Works and Utilities Director, stated it was
felt this project had less opportunity for significant
contingencies absent the archeological situation, so the amount has
been reduced to 4% or approximately $200,000. Monthly reports on
change orders will be provided to Council to address concerns for
on going information relative to expenditures.
Public comment - none.
Mr. M¢Connell asked if the $200,000 was aggregate change orders,
not authorizing $200,000 per change order? Mr. S~mDleY stated Mr.
McConnell was correct.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/McConnell) to approve increasing the
administrative change order authority of the Mayor on only the
Callow Avenue Basin Priority 1, Phase 2 Storm Drainage Separation
Project to $200,000.
8A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) TO RE-ADOPT THE BREMERTON ZONING
ORDINANCE, INCLUDING BOTH THE TEXT AND MAPS, TO ENSURE GMA
COMPLIANCEt ~AB97-071
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
periodically to keep them current.
Since we weren't adopting new regulations, we weren't required to
submit anything to the State for review and approval.
Unfortunately, our name was included on a Department of CTED check-
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 Department of CTED recommended that we re-adopt our Zoning
Ordinance, which we are now doing, ASAP.
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 10 of 16
#2685
Ron Hough, Planning Manager, talked about the GMAhaving a flaw and
the City being caught in the middle. Jurisdictions that were
required to plan under GMA were required to adopt a Growth
Management Comprehensive Plan as well as regulations that implement
that plan. The GMA did not foresee the possibility that some
jurisdictions may already have Zoning Ordinances that were adequate
to implement their Comprehensive Plan, which was the City's case.
The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1986 and followed that
with a new Zoning Ordinance in 1988, which was two years before
GMA. When GMAcame along, the City adjusted the Comprehensive Plan
to meet the requirements and carried the City's Zoning Ordinance
along because it was still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Minor amendments were made to the Comprehensive Plan, which were
sent to the State, but never really adopted a brand new set of
regulations. The State monitoring agency, Department of Community
Trade and Economic Development, put together a table that listed
all counties and cities planning under GMA, which had three
columns: (1) Comprehensive Plan Adopted (City-1995); (2) Critical
Areas Ordinance (City-1993); (3) Development Regulations (no
listing for City of Bremerton), which caused some concern on the
part of the Department of Ecology and possibly some other agencies
that may have had some loans or grants targeted for the City.
Based on the fact the City was not listed in the third column of
the table, it was suggested the City adopt an emergency ordinance
to readopt the regulations.
Public comment - None.
M/S/C(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve the emergency ordinance on
first reading, 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 Ordinance No. 4172 and No. 4555; and declaring an
emergency.
Mr. Overson asked if this action would make the City "late" in
terms of the GMA? Mr. Hough stated no. Mr. Overson questioned the
need for an "emergency ordinance" and understood that such an
ordinance required only one reading? Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
stated it circumvents the effective day after passage and a true
emergency, according to the City's Charter, is a life and property
threatened condition. The proposed ordinance would require two
readings, but would go into effect immediately upon passage.
Mr. McConnell asked if he understood correctly that the Zoning
Ordinance being re-approved is already in effect? Mr. Hough stated
yes. Mr. McConnell stated at this point he did not believe this
issue qualified as an emergency? Mr. Sievers stated it is up to
//
TAPE #1452
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 11 of 16
the City Council to declare the emergency, which is stated in
Paragraph 5 of the ordinance, or set a 10-day effective date
without any statement of emergency. Mr. Hough explained the
emergency was threat of agencies withholding funds that were coming
to the City, primarily related to Engineering projects. The
Department of Ecology questioned whether or not the City had the
ordinance and expected compliance with CETD, preferably by the end
of April.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor: Montgomery, Huff-Menees, Fart, Overson,
McConnell, Colvin
Abstain: Winters
9A - PUBLIC HEARIN~ ON SURPLUS/SALE OF PROPERTIES AROUND THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTm #AB97-040
Commencing in February 1994, the City initiated odor mitigation
efforts, including purchase of properties around the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP). Currently, the City owns several
properties west of Oyster Bay Avenue and the Treatment Plant.
These properties are determined to be surplus to the City's needs.
city Council action is requested to authorize surplusing and sale
of those properties in the general area shown in Exhibit (1) and
specifically identified in Exhibit (2). BMC Chapter 2, Section 78
dictates policy and steps to be taken to sell property owned by the
City. Each property surplused will be subject to annexation into
the city of Bremerton and closing documents will include an odor
easement which will remain with the property.
President Fart asked the "Appearance Of Fairness/Conflict Of
Interest" question with all remaining Council members seated.
Paula Johnston, Deputy City Clerk, announced the first two
properties on the list of parcels (903 Oyster Bay Avenue and 911
Oyster Bay Avenue) were deleted.
Mr. Winters stated he was not totally supportive of the proposal as
presented. He asked if the requested action is a legal position
that has to be taken by the City, i.e., having a commercial broker
market the properties once they are surplused? Ian Sievers, City
Attorney, stated no, it is an option available to the City Council,
which was recently added to the ordinance. The presumption is that
most marketable sized parcels will be sold through a public bid
process, but Council does have the option of using a broker in
those circumstances where the property may be large or difficult to
sell with simple advertisement or staff effort. Mr. Winters stated
he believed the City should retain the property for leasing out in
order to generate future revenues and to protect the City in the
TAPE #1452
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 12 of 16
event of odor that may reoccur or cause litigation in the future.
During the Fiscal and Budget committee meeting he asked the City
Attorney if there was a test case in the State of Washington
involving a surplus property sold to a private entity wherein an
odor easement was attached to the sale? At that time, Mr.
Sievers's response was no, not to his knowledge. Mr. Winters was
concerned that there was no proven case that someone could not come
back again and say the odor easement is beatable in court. He
asked Mr. Sievers if his last statement was correct. Mr. Sievers
stated yes, in discussing this issue throughout the past few months
with the City's legal counsel Steve DiJuilo, there isn't a
Washington State case that has ruled on a challenge of an odor
easement. There may be odor easements imposed on property titles
that have not been challenged. Mr. Winters questioned if it was
Council's right to not surplus the proposed properties? Mr.
Slevers stated yes.
TAPE #1453
Elizabeth Buell, Bremerton resident, supported Councilman Winters'
position to take no action as added protection against future
lawsuits related to odor issues.
John Ross asked if the property was surplused, why wasn't it
disposed of through an auction?
Admiral Ross asked who will determine whether or not the property
is commercial or residential? Paul Lucas, Administrative Analyst,
explained the property will remain residentially zoned. Mr. Ross
asked what about the property that is already zoned Commercial?
Mr. Lucas pointed out none of the properties within the subject
area had a Commercial zoning designation. Mr. Ross stated he has
operated a restaurant in that area for 17-18 years. Mr. Lucas
noted Mr. Ross's restaurant and property were not included the
areas to be surplused.
John Ross stated there are residential and commercial properties
intermixed in that area. Presi4ent Fart asked Mr. Ross if he had
reviewed the documentation showing the addresses of the subject
properties? Mr. Ross stated no, but he is familiar with the area.
Mr. M¢Connell stated he also was concerned about the odor easements
and doubted odor limits could be described sufficient to satisfy a
Court. He recalled when the properties were acquired some of the
people agreed to sign an odor easement, but didn't. He agreed with
Mr. Winters that instead of raising taxes periodically the
properties should be retained, developed and leased out as a
perpetual source of income for here on after.
TAPE #1453
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 13 of 16
Mr. Colvin expressed concern that there is no guarantee that the
City would be protected from future lawsuits having to do with odor
problems in the subject area. He emphasized just because something
is zoned one designation does not mean it will retain that
designation forever.
Mr. Winters asked the City Attorney if the City could write in an
odor easement in a lease agreement? Mr. Sievers stated in regard
to Mr. Winter's and Mr. McConnell's comment on his observation that
there are no appellant cases, he didn't mean to say that he thought
odor easements were a risky business simply because there were no
cases. In fact, the lack of cases may mean, if introduced, that
they were a perfectly acceptable way to restrain use of property.
He assumed they would be allowable and the only public policy
argument he could see about striking the enforceability of such a
covenant would be, while they are certainly not discriminatory or
unconstitutional, is a public policy against restraint and
alienation of property. There have also been cases upheld where
covenants virtually reduced the usefulness of lots, such as in a
plat, to a recreational use. He assumed there would be appropriate
residential uses on the subject property and that covenant would be
upheld, if challenged. If the City imposes an odor easement on a
tenant and they are stricken because of the level of odor that was
included within that easement was actually threatening to public
health and safety, it wouldn't save the City from a suit anymore
than if a property owner was a resident full time on those
properties. Mr. Winters made the comment the City should retain
the properties as an investment and develop it as a future source
of revenue. The subject area is under the County Comprehensive
Plan and zoning for residential and are designed in the City's
Comprehensive Plan to continue as residential use. There is no
future utility use or perhaps controlled tenant or other user that
could be controlled by purchasing the property other than
residential because that is the use. We can't convert it or
develop it as commercial because, at this point, it will be zoned
for residential use in the future. It is felt the City is getting
the maximum risk reduction with the odor easement. Trying to
recoup the investment of the Utility through retention of these
properties is not a worthwhile return for residential rent,
especially given the large investment in plant improvements, which
was the first self-help measure taken to reduce risk in this area
associated with the wastewater treatment plant.
Mr. Montgomez7 supported surplusing the properties and pointed out
the area is hilly and less conducive to commercial development than
residential use. He emphasized the property is no longer needed by
the City and it is the Council's responsibility to get the most
money out of the area. He doubted a public auction of the
properties would bring about the greater financial return.
/¥
#0307
TAPE #1453
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 14 of 16
M/S/C(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to authorize surplus and sale of
those properties identified in Exhibit (1) and (2), and include an
odor easement which will remain with each parcel through
perpetuity; and that the sales be made through a real estate broker
pursuant to BMC 2.78.030; and that each parcel be subject to
annexation into the City.
Mr. McConnell asked what would the city do with the properties that
do not sell? Mr. Lucas stated efforts to sell would continue and
the city would continue to lease them out.
Mr. Overson asked if the properties would be sold subject to
annexation? Mr. Sievers stated the properties are outside of city
limits, but were purchased with City funds for a Utility purpose,
which was an appropriate use of city funds. Mr. Overson asked why
not annex the area and then sell the properties? Mr. Sievers
stated Council could choose that direction. He anticipates
bringing an annexation proposal to Council within the next two
weeks.
Presi4ent Farr stated he believed Mr. Sievers' opinion was this
proposal would leave the City with the least exposure and that the
city is not leaving itself open for lawsuits. He is not an
attorney and would rely on the city Attorney's guidance; however,
he has been a landlord and looking at the assessed values of the
subject properties he would guess holding them as rentals has the
good possibility of not being very profitable even without any
repairs or bad tenants. He does not support the idea of the City
being a landlord and will support the motion.
Mrs. Huff-Menees stated there have been public discussion at Study
Sessions and public hearings on this issue and she will support
staff's recommendation. She was not eager to see the City become
a landlord of rental properties than is necessary, and the
recommendation has always been to surplus these properties and that
it will help reduce risk for the City.
Mr. Winters asked if the City is currently renting the subject
properties? Mr. Lucas stated not all of them. Mr. Winters asked if
those tenants have an odor easement included in their lease
agreements? Mr. Lucas states yes, in the Property Management
agreement. Mr. Winters stated what he was hearing during this
discussion was there was no way this area could be rezoned to
commercial. He disagreed with that assumption since it could be
done through annexation and that it was highly likely it would be
done in that manner; therefore he would not support the motion.
Mr. Overson stated he agreed that surplusing and selling the
properties was the wisest decision even though he was previously
TAPE #1453
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 15 of 16
opposed to the idea. One of the functions of the City is
definitely not running a rental institution; however, he was
concerned at testing the law, but hoped the odor controls installed
at significant cost will work.
Mr. Colvln stated he could not see the hurry to proceed with this
action until a later date when more data is available on the odor
control project. Mr. Sievmrs stated he doubted more information
would be forthcoming; however, Mr. Mcconnell did raise a valid
consideration on the enforceability of the easements and that is
the degree, which can remove ambiguity from the scope of the
easement and define that easement, and if two people can't agree it
can be stricken. He was confident in having gone through the
discussions with the outside legal counsel on different standards
for measuring odors and defining specifically parts per million or
billion and period of duration. Mr. Colvin pointed out there is no
guaranty? Mr. Slmvers stated he did not think there was
significant risk of someone wanting to sue the City, if it was
within that easement. It would not be defined as something that is
health threatening, it will be defined as something that is with
PSAPCA's definitions of nuisance, such as those used at SeaTac to
acquire or incumber property or certain elements of property
rights.
Mr. winters stated years ago the City was not in the business of
managing sewer treatment sites, yet we are today. And years ago
the city was not in the business of owning, operating and managing
golf courses, yet we are doing a good job of it. For the City to
be landlord over rental property, in his opinion, is very simple
compared to those two projects. Mr. Lucas stated he works closely
with the City's Property Manager and the majority of the properties
in that area are fairly old, some are in need of lots of repair and
a couple are in very good condition. The cost of maintenance could
significantly reduce the amount of rental income. The amount of
time and effort it would take to manage the properties on a
permanent basis would not be cost effective. He is basing his
opinion on the 2 1/2 years experience dealing with these
properties.
Vote on motion:
Motion carried.
In Favor: Huff-Menees, Overson, Montgomery, Farr
Opposed: McConnell, Colvin, Winters
President Fart thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Rob
Rupe, Jamie Campbell and Patricia Mathis.
TAPE #1453
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 2, 1997
Page 16 of 16
With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:18 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
DAVID D. FARR, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/DDF/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: MINUTES - APRIL 9, i997
4-16-97
FOR AGEND~ OF:
ORIGINATING DEPT: C.ity Cn,,n~]
ORIGINATOR: David W~rr. President
DATE SUBMITTED: 4-10-97
2. ~LEA_R3d~CES.: (comment on back
if necessary)
3. ~XH!BITS:
ENDORSEMENT__ INFORMATION
MAYOR
__ A-oPROVED BY CouNcIL P 'SIDE~ E R SUBMITTAL:
4. S%TM24A3~Y STATEMENT AND REQUIRn-~MENT FOR'COUNCIL ACTION:
8. REgO~2~ENDATION:
9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL:
EXPII{ATION DATE:'
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED TABLED
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED DISAPPROVED
DATE:
~U. ENDED
TAPE #1454
UNAPPROVED DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 9t 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, April 9, 1997, at 5:30 P.M., with
Council President David Farr presiding. Council members present
were Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, Richard Neville, Lon
Overson, John Law, Cecil McConnell, and A1 Colvin. Councilman Bob
Winters was absent. 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 Jay Jones of the
Family Christian Center.
#0046
#0074
Presi4ent Fart made the following announcements:
(1) City Council Executive Session immediately following the
Council meeting to discuss "personnel".
(2) city Council Study Session - April 21, 1997, 5:30 P.M. to 7:00
P.M., in Council Conference Room. Topics of discussion: ADA Curb
Cut Program; Projects Update; Seismic Evaluation Report.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of Meeting -- March 26, 1997
#AB97-072
B. Bid Award to Peninsula Feed Company For a John Deere #AB97-073
755 Compact Tractor with Hydraulic Dump Material
Collection System for Parks & Recreation Department
Ce
Bid Award to Pacific Detroit Diesel for an Emergency #AB97-074
Generator/Water Utility
M/S/C/U(McConnell/Montgomery) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
CLaIMS/CHECK REGISTERS
Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required
by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified
as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that
had been made available to the Council.
M/S/C/U(Col¥in/Montgomery) on April 9, 1997, the Council does
approve for payment those vouchers included and further described
as follows: 207624 through 207810 in the amount of 4379,075.76; and
Regular Payroll for the period ending March 31, 1997, in the amount
/?
TAPE #1454
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 9, 1997
Page 2 of 8
of $844,926.93.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Mr. Montgomer~ reported he attended the commemorative ceremony at
Bataan Park on April 5. He encouraged members of the public to
support such events in the future by bringing their children so
they can learn the true meaning of "Veterans" and the sacrifices
made by those individuals so that there would no longer be a need
for veterans throughout the world.
Mrs. Huff-Menees expressed her appreciation to Lon and Ellie
Overson for their part in planting and funding the flower barrels
placed on street corners in downtown Bremerton.
Mr. Neville stated he also noticed the flower barrels and extended
a special "thank you" to the Oversons for their hard work and
dedication to the city. He announced a Neighborhood Meeting to
discuss solutions to problems caused by the street trees located
along 5th Street between Park Avenue and Naval Avenue is scheduled
for April 10, 1997, 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. He
encouraged residents of Bremerton to look into the City's Home
Assistance Program, i.e. iow-interest loans for home rehabilitation
or first time home buyers. Information on these programs is
available through the City's Department Of Community Development.
Mr. Overson thanked everyone for their kind words about the flower
barrels; however the lion's share of the recognition goes to his
wife Ellie and the other members of the Swing City Committee. He
noted Councilman Huff-Menees also contributed to this
beautification effort.
Mr. Law congratulated the Oversons and those who worked on the
flower barrel project. He reminded everyone that the next District
93 Neighborhood Meeting will be held April 15, 1997, starting with
an Open House hosted by the Department Of Transportation at 6:00
P.M., with a formal presentation at 7:00 P.M.. The main topic of
discussion will be the preferred alternatives for the replacement
of the Manette Bridge.
Mr. McConnell urged citizens of District 92 to attend the District
#3 Neighborhood Meeting so that they can give their input on the
future replacement of the Manette Bridge.
Mr. Colvin congratulated the Oversons for their part in beautifying
downtown Bremerton. He also congratulated all those involved in
the renovation of the Admiral Theater. He found the Theater to be
comparable to those he toured in Moscow, Russia. He is also pleased
with the progress being made on the Sinclair Landing project. He
received comments from constituents that they would rather see the
TAPE #1454
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 9, 1997
Page 3 of 8
pothole fixed on Lebo Boulevard rather than having traffic calming
devices installed along that route.
Mr. Fart pointed out the exterior of the Admiral Theater was being
painted and following the ground breaking ceremony earlier this
week extensive demolition work is underway for the Kitsap Community
Clinic at the old Foodking Grocery Store site on 6th Street. He
related a recent incident where City crews completed a concrete
addition to the Skateboard Park, leaving the area taped off;
however the temptation was too much for several youth watching the
process, who wanted their "initials" imprinted in the fresh
concrete. He doubted his efforts to persuade those individuals to
not leave their mark on the freshly trowelled concrete were
successful.
MAYOR'B REPORT
Mayor Lynn Horton reported today she attended a very heartwarming
event at Bremerton High School - 2nd Annual Fashion Show "Flight Of
Fancy", that involved students in the Merchandising Class and
special population and disable students. She encouraged members of
the public to attend a 7:00 P.M. program this evening, at the
Performing Arts Center highlighting this event.
Mayor Horton made the following announcements:
(1) The City's Spring Clean Up event for collection of yard waste
April 14 through April 19.
(2) ARMED FORCES GOSPEL CONCERT - May 18, 1997, 4:00 P.M., at the
Bremerton High School Performing Arts Center.
Mayor Horton read the following Proclamations:
(1) MONTH OF APRIL as "COUNT DOWN TO EARTH DAY". The proclamation
was accepted by Don Larson, who announced information about "EARTH
DAY" is available from the Department Of Ecology 1-800-RECYCLE.
(2) APRIL 9, 1997, ARBOR DAY. Jim Trainer, City of Bremerton
Arborist, accepted the Proclamation and thanked the Parks
Department staff and Department Of Natural Resources for giving the
City the opportunity to plant trees throughout the City. He also
thanked the volunteers involved in these projects: Ken Stevens and
Forestry students at the Skill Center, Americorp Youth Volunteers,
and the Tree Committee. Mr. Trainer introduced Department Of
Natural Resources representative Marte Monty. Mr. Monty,
representing Public Lands Commissioner Jennifer Belcher as honorary
Chair of the Washington Arbor Day Council, presented the City of
Bremerton a plaque in recognition of the City's 1996 TREE CITY USA
award. This award symbolizes a critical level of commitment and
concern that the City and its citizens have for the health of
community trees and the quality of life in Bremerton. Mayor Horton
TAPE #1454
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 9, 1997
Page 4 of 8
displayed a sample of a sign the City will post noting that
Bremerton is a TREE USA community. She thanked Mr. Trainer and
members of the Parks Department for a "job well done".
Mayor Horton introduced Sandra Howes, Executive Director, who in
turn presented the Armed Forces Queen candidates: Sta¢¥ Rich,
Senior - Central Kitsap High School and sponsored by KPS Health
Plans; Heather Hays, Senior - Olympic High School and sponsored by
Lewis Chapel; Anna H&ll, Senior - Bremerton High School and
sponsored by Pacific Coast Energy; Lanna Diamond, Senior - Olympic
High School and sponsored by Kitsap Bank; Na%alie Brown, Freshman -
Olympic College and sponsored by Tony's Italian Restaurant; Jana
Jones, Senior - South Kitsap High School, and sponsored by Medequip
Services Inc.. Ms. Howes gave a brief run down of Armed Forces
Festival activities and invited everyone to the Armed Forces
Queen's Pageant - May 5, 1997, 7:00 P.M., at the Admiral Theater.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Reverend Cleveland Williams, Ebenezer A.M.E. Church, announced the
first ever Armed Forces Gospel Concert will be held May 18, 1997,
4:00 P.M., at the Bremerton High School Performing Arts Center.
Admission for this event is $7.00/adults and $5.00/Children 12 and
under. Additional information about this event can be obtained by
calling 479-7500 (Chico Towing 24-hour hotline).
~. Emily Mosha¥ noted Ellie Overson and Ruth Reese are the key
people responsible for the flower barrel beautification project.
The Swing City Committee is continuing its program selling flower
barrels to businesses or individuals for $40.00, which will include
a donor plaque, planting and maintenance.
John Thomas, Bremerton resident raised the following questions:
(1) Was the Bremerton Fire Department officially notified of the
major natural gas leak problem in East Park Naval Housing? and if
not, why?
(2) Why is Station 63 (Jackson Park) not on the Second Alarm call
up for the city of Bremerton? If the answer is because there is no
Mutual Aid Agreement between the City of Bremerton and Subase, why
isn't there such an agreement?
Don Larson, President Kitsap Diving Association and Director for
Washington Scuba Alliance, talked about his continued efforts to
locate an underwater park in the Bremerton area. He was pleased to
report Senator Bob Oke, representing the 26th District, is pursuing
legislation that would establish funds for a State Underwater Park
program. He encouraged members of the public to contact their
legislators by calling 1-800-562-6000, voicing their support of
TAPE #1454
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 9, 1997
Page 5 of 8
that proposed legislation.
Shannon Bel~, Bremerton Resident, thanked the community for
supporting the blood drawing event held on april 7, 1997.
7A - CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR TRACYTON WATER DISTRICT WATER SYSTEM
#1392
#1424
#1469
PLAN, ~AB97-075
The City, through an interlocal agreement with the Tracyton Water
District 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.
Kathleen Caha11, Water Resources Manager, briefly reviewed the
summary statement data.
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve the contract amendment with
HDR Engineering, and authorize the Mayor to sign, subject to City
Administrative Policies and Procedures.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Colvin) to approve Amendment #1 to the
Interlocal Agreement between the Tracyton Water District and the
City of Bremerton concerning Water System Planning.
8A - ORDINANCE NO. 4591 (SECOND READING) TO RE-ADOPT THE BREMERTON
ZONING ORDINANCEt INCLUDING BOTH THE TEXT AND MAPS, TO ENSURE GMA
COMPLIANCE, #AB97-071
Public comment - none.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to pass Ordinance No. 4591 on
second reading, 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 Ordinance No. 4172 and No. 4555; and declaring an
emergency.
9A - PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) AMENDING THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE BREMERTON ZONING CODE,
B.M.C. 21.02.340, #AB97-076
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
TAPE #1454
city Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 9, 1997
Page 6 of 8
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.
Ron Ho~qh, Planning Manager, stated a PUD is the most flexible part
of the Zoning Code, which allows the combining of zones as well as
clustering and combining different land uses that normally could
not be done in one specific zone. The steps of a PUD include: (1)
Pre-application conference; (2) Concept Plan is developed and
submitted; (3) Preliminary PUD Plan is reviewed by the Planning
Commission and their recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for their approval; (4) Final PUD
Plan is completed and submitted, with final approval given
administratively, if consistent with the Preliminary PUD approval.
One of the reasons for updating the PUD Section of the Code was the
regulatory reform amendments passed by the Council several months
ago. Previously, under Type III decisions, the Planning Commission
held the Public Hearing and approved Preliminary PUDs, which could
be appealed to the City Council. With regulatory reform, the City
is required to hold only one public hearing and that now is before
the City Council with the Planning commission making a
recommendation; and the appeal is now to Superior Court rather than
the City Council.
Additional changes include: (1) adding Section 410, which describes
the City Council's process. (2) Under Section 450(a) appeals can be
filed by a "party of record" rather than "any affected party". (3)
Table for Maximum Units Per Gross Acre By Percentages Of Open Space
has been adjusted for consistency with recent changes to
residential density. (4) Section 490(a) allows the Director to
accept small PUD applications (parcels under one acre), if they
meet the listed criteria. (5) Secton 490(d) removes the
requirement that open space be "accessible to all owners or tenants
of a development". This recognizes that some open space lands are
not suitable for recreation type activity, if they consist of steep
slopes, wetlands, or other sensitive areas left untramped upon.
(6) Section 500(a) (b) requires that each phase of a phased PUD be
clearly delineated on the Preliminary Plan, along with a
development schedule.
Public comment - none.
Mr. Overson questioned for clarification Section 410(f)... Council
will conduct a pre-decision public hearing. It was his
understanding that the City Council conducts the open hearing and
#1981
TAPE #1454
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 9, 1997
Page 7 of 8
he did not understand the connection of a pre-decision, which might
include the Planning Commission's public meeting. Mr. Hough
explained the Planning Commission can hold a public meeting, but
not a public hearing. A pre-decision refers to the public hearing
that comes before a decision is made as opposed to a public hearing
that may accompany an appeal. Mr. Overson raised concern that
under Section 410(c) it appears to levy some controls on what
Council can do. He questioned if everything was included because
particular elements of a PUD need to be looked at by either the
city Council or before, such as things other than the layout
circulation? Mr. Hough stated Mr. Overson raised a good point.
The intent was to take the focus off the final plan, which include
the engineering drawings and architectural details, and not have
those brought to the City Council. The Preliminary Plan step would
show circulation patterns, greenbelts, buffers, etc. He suggested
changing the word "limited" to something more appropriate by second
reading of the ordinance.
Mr. Colvln asked what impact will the Planning Commission have on
the land use? Mr. Hough explained previously the Planning
Commission held pre-decision public hearings where they heard all
the testimony offered through that process and then made their
decision, which is no longer the case. The Planning Commission may
have some discussion with the public through a more informal
meeting.
Mr. Law questioned the appeal process now that the Director
accepts small PUD applications as identified under Section 490(a)?
Mr. Hough pointed out that decision is to only allow an application
to be submitted and once submitted it goes through the same process
as other PUDs.
Mr. Montgomer~ stated last year he objected to these proceedings
because of the State Legislature's actions; however, the City must
abide by the law, so he would support this proposal.
M/S/C/U(Montgomery/Huff-Menees) to approve ordinance on first
reading, amending Sections 21.02.340 through .570 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code, pertaining to procedures and standards for Planned
Unit Developments.
Presi4ent Fart thanked the TV camera crew for their services: Bob
Neal, Jamie Campbell and James Noble Jr..
TAPE #1454
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
April 9, 1997
Page 8 of 8
With no further business meeting adjourned at P.M.
6:34 P.M.
KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
DAVID D. FARR, Council President
City of Bremerton
KLM/DDF/me
cc: Normal Distribution
File/Vault
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
1. SUBJECT: ""'. r"'"----'~ ' :".'_7..~'...' _.~&-ORDINANCE FOR AGENDA OF:
To amend the "Planned Unit Development" ORIGINATING DEPT:
section of the Bremerton Zoning Code,
BMC 21.02.340
2. CL___EARANCES: ~s.~ck if necessary)
City Attorney---'~.~'"'"'~ ,/
Dir. Comm. Dev. ~- ,/
Operations Comm. ~"~..~
ORIGINATOR:
DATE SUBMI'I-FED:
~,_ /~ ._ "2
April 9, 1997
DCD/Planning
Ron W. Houqh
April 3, 1997
3. EXHIBITS:
Staff Report
Proposed Revisions to "PUD" section.
Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes (3/18/97)
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.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
~1~- a pprovaFef-t h e-att a ched-~rd.~/r~c~, n-first-readin _e~.
City Council passage of-th~ Ordiannce~on s"eeo--?id reading.
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:
AMENI
11. AGENDA BILL NO:
c/7- o7(a
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:
ORDINANCE NO. ~/,9"-~
AN ORDINANCE amending Sections 21.02.350 through .550 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
WBEREAS, 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. Amendment. Bremerton Municipal Code Sections 21.02.350 through .400
are hereby amended as follow:
21.02.350 OUTLINE OF THE PUD PROCESS.
A PUD application is reviewed by the City in a two-part process; review of a preliminary
plan, followed by review ora 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:
~,.,UlJ~,~LUa, I £~-v-i~-v~'. . ....................... -...-...-........ .................. .................. ................. ...-... ........................... . ........................ ...... .......................................
(3) ~!~~reli~na, P~ application.
(b) Pa~ II: The steps involved in the Final Plan review are:
(1) ~i~iii~i~Tinal P~ application.
with a ii County udito .
21.02.360 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW.
(a) Prior to the submittal of the Preliminary PUD Application, iii 6ii iiii ii!i !
~:...~ii~:.~i~i~.i.~~.:. ~¢ the applicant shall request a Conceptual Review. The Ptam'firrg
Department ~i~~!~.i~i~{..~.i. 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:
I. Circulation pattern and distribution of parking areas;
ii. Buildings and use areas, with densities; and
iii. Landscape/buffer/open space and recreation areas.
(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,v--"'-'.'"'~'~ ..~ .... ,--, ~oo).
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) ~i~Vt~-~ a neighborhood meetingqs-h~, the applicant shall submit the
following names and addresses to the '"
shall be on stamped legal size envelopes.
:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:E:i:i:i:i:i:!:!::....:!:i:i:!:!:i:!:i:~:~:!:!:~:i:i:!:!:?.:!:~..:~;~:::~:i:~:~:i:~:i:i:!:!...!:5....:i:i:!:i:i:i
(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 250 ~
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) '"'- - *" ..... :--~ "' ........... ~i~3~shall take written note of substantive
111~; £ 1~i111111~ al~51dal tlllSll~ .-.....-.......,..-......................
comments, major concerns, and questions during the neighborhood meeting. Written notes shall
be available for public review within five (5) working 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.
~,~-~u. '~ltL~ l~OOJ.
21.02.380 PRELIMINARY PUD APPLICATION.
A Preliminary PUD Application shall be filed with '~[.~- .'",.,..,,~--- :--- D~},,~, ............ [,,,.,,[ D~D. ........................ The
information necessary for submittal and processing of a Preliminary PUD Application is detailed
in administrative supplements available ~'
Il ~.JllI LI/[~; _r llJ. lllllll~ ]L~;l.,/tll LIIIGIIL ........... ~~~~~..~~.~.~~~.~..~~.~..~~~~.~.~~~.~~.~~~~..~~~~~~...~~.~..~.~~.~~..~..~.~~~;.~.v~~...~
~i~. An incomplete submittal will delay the processing of any application. '"-] , ~., ~ ~ooj.
.....................,........... [~/1 ~. 'ri
21.02.390 DEVELOPMENT COORDE'~AT~,~G ~~~ii~~ COMMITTEE.
(a) A Preliminary PUD application shall be reviewed by the appropriate City
departments, coordinated by the ~ ,,m,,,,,~ ~,~,~, .,,~,,~ ~.
3
(b) If the Director - ~' ~' .......... : ........ '
,,~ ,~,~.u.,,,,,,y ~.~,,,p.,~,,, 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) Modify the proposed PUD according to the Director's comments;
(2) Negotiate the changes with the Director or his/her representative; or
(3) Choose not to change the proposal and give written notice to the
that decision.
(c) No response within the given time frame, when a response is necessary, --will
delay scheduling of a publi¢!ihem~ ~ on the application before the Planning Commission.
21.02.400 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.
After --- ] ................ '----:'-- ~~[~!~?~i~!~:. ~
~,,,,,,,,,~,.,~ a ~,,~ ,,..,.,~ , the Pla~ing
Co~ssion shall approve,]~,,y, .... or approve~,,,,-:" ..... .~,,~,.~..~:" .... of~~~~
Prelimina~ P~ proposal. T~s hearing shall
be advertised in accordance with BMC 21.02.380. ~-~ '~ ~ ~, ....... ~ ' ~- ~-]
[~iu. ~ ~o Vn pal[], l~7~, ~u. 4172,
Section 2. Repeal, New Section. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.410 is
repealed and new Section 21.02.410 is adopted to read:
Section 3. Repeal, New Section. Bremerton Municipal Code Section 21.02.420 is
repealed and new Section 21.02.420 is adopted to read:
accordance with the appeal procedures of BMC 21.02.930. (Ord. 4293 §8 (in part), 1990; Ord.
4172, 1988).
Section 4. Amendment. BMC Sections 21.02.430 through .500 are hereby amended as
follow:
21.02.430 FINAL PLAN APPLICATION.
An application for approval of a Final PUD Plan must be filed with
Degam-aem ~iiiby the filing deadline. The information necessary for submittal and review of
the Final PUD application is detailed in administrative supplements which are available from the
~,,~,"'~,,~ ~'~v,-,"'~',, ~~i~ii~f/~~- Incomplete submittals
~" .... :--- ~" ........... . ............................................................................................................. ,~.,~g¥ delay the
processing of any a cation, v..,,~,. -,, ,.~,
21.02.440 DIRECTOR'S REVIEW OF FINAL PLAN.
(a) The Director -~'"' ........... :'- ~" .... '
,~, ,-.,~---~-,~.v ~,~,,~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
~:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!;!'"!:!~:!"" ::!:i:!:!:!' :!:? :1:5:i:
increased by more than five percent (5%) over those shown on the Preliminary Plan
(5) The amount of approved open space has not decreased by more than three
percent (3%).
(c) After the Director of Conu-,~unity Dcvelopi-nent'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.
21.02.450 APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION.
~ 1,~ app,~ant Oi' aiiy Fa, ~ may appeal the
determination of the Director of Co,-aiuaaity Dcv¢lop,ncnt that the Final PUD
~i~~i is or is not in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Plan that was
approved by the City Council. Within ten-(-i-e-) ~:.~!i~i~i~iiicalendar days from the date of the
Director's determination, a written notice of appeal to the Planning Commission may be filed
5
~ 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 Planning
Commission shall be fina,,
(~ The Director's determination of lack of substantial confo~ance, or subsequent
ratification by the Planning Commission or City Coancil of that detemination shall require the
P~ applicant to bring the Final Plan into substantial confomance with the Prelimina~ Plan, or
submit a new Prelimina~ 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 zoningii!i~iii~i~:...~i.i~:. '. ~! are applicable to the PUD, unless
the City makes specific allowances otherwise in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
·. ~::i::~,,,~,, a.uw exceptions to the lot
requirements of the underlying zoning district, including modifications to lot size, setbacks, height
and other similar requirementsli~i.i~j~.
~ The ~~iiiPUD shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the siteiii~
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
~iii~(!~- Any zoning reclassification granted shall be conditional on City approval of the Final
site plan for the subject property
(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, and open
space may be located without reference to boundaries of the underlying zoning.
(c) Any use normally subject to a Special Use Permit in a zoning dish-ici will be
permitted ---:",~,.,,~,~, ...... L,,~'-- rcquircrnen~,~,-~'~}~v,,,~-',~,,':--':--- for~,,,~,,'- a peri-nit ~~if that ............................... use is approved
by the City Council in a PUD.
(d) Any use applied for and not specifically listed in this chapter shall ~:.~iibe permitted
r~l ..... :._~ t~ ....... ~__:_ . ?:"'":¢:'i:i:i:!:!?:'""!:i:!:i:ii:i:!:!:!!:!:5":
in a PUD if approved by the. ,,.,..,~ ,~,~,,,.,,~,~,,
(e) 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
IMF
MR
/ .LL./
Max. Units per Gross Acre
by Percentages of Open Space
15% 20% 25% or more
3 4 5
~ 10 12
9~ 10 12
44 50 60
.... 60
(f) The distribution of dwelling units within the PUD is not limited to the boundary of
any underlying residential zoning district(s)
~,viu. '~.a ~o ~,~t l. Ja~j, ~:Tv, ~,~u. 'tx t/.,, ~ooj.
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:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) The traffic generated by the PUD shall be accommodated safely Mthou~
~.u,~c~uu. oi-~ ~u./5 or },xam~cd ..................... streets.
(d) All development will be adequately served by existing or planned facilities and
services.
(e) The PUD will result in an attractive, healthful, efficient and stable environment for
living, shopping, working and leisure activities.
(f) 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.
~,viu. 'tit/.., i~oo).
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:
adversely affected
(2)
conservation area,
(3)
mostly developed,
and
(4)
(a) Parcel Size: An area not less than one (1) gross acre in size may be considered for
than one acre provided that there is adequate showing by the applicant that:
The site has natural or aesthetic features which may be destroyed or
by traditional development techniques otherwise allowed; or
The site is located in a City designated urban renewal area, neighborhood
or other "target area" for rehabilitation or redevelopment; and
Properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development are all or
or are otherwise not available for acquisition nor suitable for the proposed use;
The uses and style of the proposed development will be consistent with
and/or complementary to the existing development character of the area.
(b)
(1) A ~Planned Unit Development smaller than one acre in area shall
i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
conform to the normal setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is ocated~ii~.::~
~~ If the PUD includes a combination of zones, the most restrictive setbacks shall apply.iiiiiii
(2)
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 ff. 10 ft.
25 ff. 15 ft. 15 ft.
30 fl:. 20 ft. 20 f.
(c) 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.
(d) Open Space:
(1) :E'r~--'zha{~-~ ~ilminimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of a
PUD edicated as common open space, ---"-'- ko -" owners ,~ L~,~,,~ ,,~ ~,~
.... .............................. fl ~*~;~1 [Jl li~ Il. Il
development. Open space shall be provided for active as well as passive recreational activities,
and for the preservation of existing natural site amenities whenever possible. Open space shall not
include:
I. Streets, alleys, and other rights-of-way.
ii. Vehicular drives, parking, loading and storage areas.
iii. Required buffering and landscaping for parking areas,"'n°c:i
iv. Perimeter setback areas of the PUD project.
:~::!:~::?"::::::'::i:::"::::: ¢'"::"¢ :: :i:i: :i::i:i:!:i:!:i:i:i:i:i:~:!:i:i¢~:~:i:!:~:!:!~.~:!:i:i:i:i~i:i~..i:i:i:i:::::~:~:!:i:!:!:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::!~.~..~.~..~..~..: ::
(2) Open space and suppoaing hcilities intended for recreational use shall be
designed and located to not adversely impact su~ounding land uses, especially e~sting residential
uses.
(3) 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 pu~oses.
The City will base its acceptance of these areas on their dimensions, useability, location, slope,
and physical impr~vements~}~~~~~¢~.~.~.~~.~
(4) The locations of natural site amenities shall be considered when planing
for open space, siting buildings and other structures, routing underground se~ices, 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-thrd (1/3) ofprope~y
intended to satis~ the open space requirement can be unsuitable for recreational purposes if
consisting of existing natural site amenities.
(5) When a P~ is constructed in phases, co~on open space shall not be
less than fi~een 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 P~.
(6) 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
si~lar major recreational hcility that, in the opinion of the Pla~ng Commission, will better
provide for the needs of the residents without significantly detracting from the project's
appearance or environmental quality.
(e) Circulation:
(1) ~1 streets ~:...~~~¢~}.shall be
~[~[~[~[~[~.~.].[~[~[~[.~..~.~.~W~[.~.~.~ [.~.[&[.......,......,..................... ........................
~....::.:: ............................................................ , .......................................................
9
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) No parking or maneuvering areaSiii~i~ii~i~ii~~ii.ishall be
allowed within the PUD's perimeter setbacks when the development is within or abutting any
residential zoning district.
requiren~¢ats and provisions within any PUD shall be based on the provisions contained in ~
(f) Screening: All utility facilities, loading areas, trash containers, ~iiioutdoor
storage areas ~shall be screened from surrounding properties, g~}i~:.~i ~!~i
(g) Architectural Theme: The structural elements of each PUD, including accessory
structures such as signs and lighting, shall be integrated into a primary architectural them6}i~i~iii~
(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 ~i.i~i~i.i.~.~~.i~i~...~~...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:
i. 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.
ii. 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.
10
iii. 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 facfl~t~es.~,.~,,~. -,~-~.,~o I~., ,.,,~..1 ,~, ,~o
21.02.500. PROJECT PHASING.
(i~ ~ Final ~lan may also be submitted fd~i~;i:~({~ii~i~i~i~iin phasesi
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. ~'~
,,,.o,,.,. 4172, ,~oo~.
Section 5. Amendment. BMC Sections 21.02.520; .530; and .550 are hereby amended
as follow:
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 ~~ 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, he · ~-,--,,/s ,_.,,,,.,.,,,~,~, ............. Ctt.g'.
~0~iiiimay 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 Planning Con-,rnissio,~
~ii, 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 Planning Conin;issio, ~i~i!~iiiii: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.
11
21.02.530 CHANGES TO FINAL PUD PLAN.
~iii~~!i~i!Community Development may administratively approve minor changes to
· _ .... J ....... _'~t. · · 1 I ~.~i.i~:~:!:~:i...~:~!:!:5:~:~ii~i:i:i:i:i:ii!:i:!...~:~!:!:!~..~:!~!:~:!:i:~:!ii:i:i:i:i:iii:i:ii~:~:~:~:~:~::.!¢i:~:~:..?!~::.i...~:i~!:!:!
an approved Final Plan in ,,~,~,~, ~,~,,~ ,,,,, criteria of o_ _.: ___
.... . .............. . ..................................... . .................................................... :.........:.:...:.:...:.....:.......:... k~au. ~ ~o kn~ ~a~[j~ xJ~u, ~u. ~/&~ lyOO].
21.02.550 PERFORMANCE BOND.
~ Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, the developer shall submit and
enter into ~ii~i~iii~~iii~!!~!~iiii~iii~iii~i~ii!~ii!i~iii~i~ 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.
t,-,,u. 4172, ~o8).
APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
day of ,1997.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this
day of ,1997.
DAVID FARR, City Council President
APPROVED this
day of
, 1997.
ATTEST:
LYNN HORTON, Mayor
KATItLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk
12
OF
STAFF
REPORT
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
BMC' 21.02.340 --- Planned Unit Development
File: ZTA-01-97
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.
+ (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.
4- 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:
4- All references to the "Planning Dept." are changed to "DCD" or "Permit Center".
4, References to "Director of Community Development" are changed to "Director".
4, 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
9:
P. 10:
P. 11:
P. 12:
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.
P. 13:
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)('l)(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)('l): 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 SOO(a): Requires that each phase of a phased PUD be clearly delineated on the
Preliminary Plan, along with a development schedule.
Section SOO(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 $$0(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-1-97.sr
PUD: Staff Report --- Page 3
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 (b) 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 Planning 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 Boy&
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-writing
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 defined.
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 fi.om Pat and June Keller.
Meeting Adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Mal~.ylyfi ~aibe[
Approved:
AGENDA BILL
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING
ON WATER FLUORIDATION
FOR AGENDA OF: April 16, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities
ORIGINATOR: K. Cahall, Water Res Mgr~/~
DATE SUBMITTED: April 9, 1997
CLEARANCES: (Comment on back
if necessary)
3. EXHIBITS:
Director, PW & U~il~./ None
City Attorney _~
TOPIC WAS PRESENTED AT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF MARCH 17t 1997.
PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTED ON APRIL 2, 1997·
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council has been approached to consider the implemention of water
fluoridation in the City of Bremerton water distribution system. Water
fluoridation is a public policy decision. This public hearing is requested
to gather input from water customers of the City of Bremerton.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council administer a public hearing on water fluoridation on April
16, 1997. No other Council action is requested at this time.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Public Works and Utilities Director
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Water Resources Manaqer
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW DATE:
PULLED [] TABLED []
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE:
10. NOTICE OF ACTION
APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED []
AMENDED []
CLEARANCE COMMENTS:
4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation
IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE:
Lack of input from the City of Bremerton water customers.
7. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES:
RESEARCH SOURCES:
Draft Engineering Report Corrosion Control Facility, 1997 - prepared by
Montgomery Watson Engineers for the City of Bremerton.
Kitsap Council Health District, Health Status of Kitsap County, 1995.