HomeMy WebLinkAbout2735 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON
In re
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR )
NORTHWEST CORPORATE ) PL99-0073
CAMPUS, RON SCIEPKO, )
) Resolution Number 2735
Applicant. )
)
This matter comes before the Council on the application ofRon Sciepko for a Development
Agreement ("DA") pursuant to BMC 21.02.900 for the Northwest Corporate Campus project, PL99-
0073. The Council finds, concludes, and resolves as follows:
FINDINGS
1. The record in this matter consists of the evidence and arguments presented to the Council in
an open record heating on 12 January 2000. The record includes testimony, exhibits, and
opinions collected by the Planning Commission in a public meeting on 16 November 1999.
The record also includes the Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance CMDNS") issued
by the Community Development Director, along with supporting materials; an appeal of the
MDNS; and evidence and arguments presented in the course of that appeal.
2. Concerning the adequacy of the MDNS, the Council finds:
A. The Director issued the MDNS on 23 November 1999, along with supporting
documentation.
B. The environmental review had identified a number of potentially significant
environmental impacts. These impacts were mitigated as set out in the MDNS.
C. As set out in Helen E. Havens-Saunders's letter of 7 December 1999, the appeal
alleged that certain impacts were unidentified and that the mitigation was inadequate.
D. The points raised in the appeal are addressed in the Director's response of 12 January
2000 and its supporting documentation. No evidence has been presented to the
Council meaningfi.tlly controverting the Director' s evidence, Appellant having offered
little beyond the allegations in her appeal.
E. Nothing has been presented to the Council precluding supplemental review of impacts
that arise or substantially change during execution of the DA.
3. The DA proposes a mix of uses in part different from those currently allowed and therefore
requires a fezone. Concerning the fezone, the Council finds:
A. This Resolution is being passed concun-ently with Ordinance No. 4693 to comply with
BMC 21.02.920(a).
B. The Comprehensive Plan considers this a unique property that should be developed
Page 1 of 3
with a mix of commercial and light industrial uses expressly tailored to it.
C. The DA conforms to the pattern of development that is planned for the area and that
is in fact occurring in the area and would bring the zoning for the parcel in conformity
with both.
D. There is local demand for the uses proposed in the DA.
E. The DA provides for all essential public facilities and services.
F. The uses proposed conform with the area-wide plan and would not result in the
parcels being an isolated pocket.
G. The building height and coverage restrictions set out in the DA provide the flexibility
required to implement the mix of uses proposed and therefore to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Development agreements must meet the criteria set out in BMC 21.02.900(c) unless found
inapplicable. The Council finds:
A. The DA contains all major project components, given its phased nature.
B. The DA provides for landscaping, buffers, and open space but does not provide for
parks and recreation areas since the project is not a residential development.
C. This is not a residential development and so is not required to provide affordable
housing.
D. The MDNS, applicable development standards, the DA, and the ongoing permitting
process provide the necessary mitigation and conditions for the project.
E. The DA provides for financial and property arrangements.
F. The DA sets the necessary design and development standards.
G. The DA sets out project phasing and any procedures not already provided by Code.
H. The DA provides for its own duration period.
I. The DA provides for requirements presently needed and also provides procedures to
implement additional requirements as the need arises.
5. Given the foregoing, the Applicant has made a prima fade case that the DA complies with all
City plans, regulations, standards, and guidelines, and the Council has not been presented with
evidence that rebuts the Applicant.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Appellant has not proved that significant environmental impacts have not been identified
or, if identified, have not been adequately mitigated.
2. The DA meets the rezoning requirements of BMC 21.02.920(d).
3. The DA meets the development agreement requirements of BMC 21.02.900(c).
4. The DA meets the general requirements of BMC 21.02.885(f).
Page 2 of 3
RESOLUTION
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The MDNS is upheld.
2. The DA is approved.
Dated this 19th day of January, 2000.
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL,
CAROL ARENDS, President
ATTEST TO
KATHLEEN MCCLUSKEY, City Clerk
Page 3 of 3