Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2938 RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ ~ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, approving the preliminary plat and planned unit development (File No. BP04-00231). WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a Preliminary Plat and a Planned Unit Development for a 2.486 acre parcel located at the northeast comer of North WycoffAvenue and 25th Street from Tiferet LLC; and WHEREAS, On June 15, 2004, the Administrative Hearing Examiner held an open record heating on the applications pursuant to BMC 21.02.855; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Examiner has entered findings, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council dated June 28, 2004, for Council's acceptance and approval; and WHEREAS, a closed record heating was held ort~tt,~.e~s~', 2004, to consider the Administrative Heating Examiners findings, conclus'iofis and recommendations; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Administrative Hearing Examiner attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" and approves the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development for North Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street (File No. BP04-00231) subject to the proposed conditions contained in Exhibit "A." SECTION2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of t'~.,, ~,.~/'j ,2004. DAREN NYGREN, Cda&a~il President APPROVED AS TO FO ' mey A(YL~ )~t~TON, City Clerk R:\LEGALhR~esolutions\Comm~gniW'Development\Wycoff p UD.doc l North Wycoff Preliminary Plat and PUD BEFORE THE HEARINGS EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF BREMERTON BUILDING DEP,,~RTt~E~q In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. BP04-0023 I ) Wycoff Dwelling Units Tiferet LLC, ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS For Recommendation of a Preliminary Plat ) AND RECOMMENDATION and Planned Unit Dew~lopment. ) ) SUMMARY OF ~COMMENDATION The Heahngs Examine, r recommends to the Breme~on City Council that the request for approval of a Prelimina~ Plat and Pla~ed Unit Development (PUD) to subdivide 2.486 acres of land into 22 individual lots in order to construct 22 dwelling units at the no~heast comer ofNo~h Wycoff Avenue ~d 25th Street be G~NTED, with conditions. The appeal of the Mitigated Detemination of Nonsi~ificance is denied. Development of this proposed project is dependent upon approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Peri, it. The Shoreline Substantial Development Pe~it will be decided by the Director of the City of Bremenon's Depa~ment of Community Development. SUMMARY OF ~CORD Request M~k Goldberg ofTiferet LLC (Applicant) requests approval of a Prelimina~ Plat and a Plied Unit Development to plat a 2.486-acre parcel of land into 22 residential lots for the pu¢ose of constructing dwelling units. The subject prope~y is located at the no~heast comer of NoNh WycoffAvenue ~d 25?` Street, Breme~on, Washington. Hearing Date The Hearings Examiner for the City of Breme~on held an open record hearing on the matter on June 15, 2004. The City recommended approval at the hearing, the Applicant expressed a~eement with the recommended conditions, ~d several citizens spoke in favor of the proposed development. There was also testimony offered in opposition to the proposed development. Testimony ~e following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: 1. Robe~ Gmmbach, City ofBreme~on Depa~ment of Community Development 2. Brett Vincent, Assistant Attorney for the City of Breme~on 3. Dh Ralph, City ofBreme~on Depa~ment of Ecology -4. Paul Waffdhffg; City bfBreme~on Depamnem of Public Works & Utilities 5. Kei~ Maehlum, for the Applicant 6. M~k Kuhlman, Civil Engineer, Team 4 Engineers 7. Phil Olwell, Citizen 8. Sam McManus, Citizen 9. Donald Flanig, Citizen 10. Jason Skifstaff, Citizen 11. Chris Thatcher, Citizen 12. Larry Taylor, Citizen Exhibits The following exhibits were admitted into the record at the open record hearing: 1. Exhibit 1: StaffReport 2. Exhibit 2: Attachment A: Application Attachment B: Comprehensive Plan Designation Map Attachment C: Shoreline Environmental Designation Map Attaclmnent D: MDNS & Checklist Attachment E: Applicant letter requesting additional information Attachment F: Documents regarding cleanup of contaminated soils Attachment G: City ordinances regarding the zoning designation Attachment H: Court and Shoreline Hearing Board decisions relating to vieTM corridor Attachment I: Neighborhood Meeting material Attachment J: Geoteclmical Report Attachment K: Shoreline jurisdiction site plan Attaclmnent L: Site pictures Attacbanent M: Conditional Water & Sewage Availability letter Attactunent N: Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Attachment O: City Engineer traffic analysis email Attachment P: City comments Attachment Q: Local and State Agency comments Attachment R: Public comments received Attachment S: Notice Attachment T: Power Point Hard Copy Attactunent U: Correspondence from B & A, lnc., dated June 15, 2004 Attactunent V: Email from Steve Erland Attachment W: Letter from Nadine Bruns Attachment X: Comments from City Staff Attachment Y: Rezone MDNS from 1994 Attachment Z: City's Response to SEPA MDNS Appeal Attachment AA: Aerial View of the Site Attachment BB: Report on the Pier Attactunent CC: ElS Reversal from 1994 Attactunent DD: Comments from Sam McManus Attactunent EE: Comments from Chris Thatcher Attachment FF: SEPA MDNS Appeal Attachment GG: City's Response to Mr. Thatcher's Comments Attachment HH: Additional Documents from Proposed 1994 Rezone Attachment II: Letter from Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, dated February 10, 2004 Findings, Conchtsions & Recommendatio~ Wycoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 2 Attachment J J: Additional Notice Documents Attaclunent KK: City's Response to SEPA MDNS Appeal, continued Attachment LL: Appellant's Answer to City's Response to SEPA Appeal Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearings Examiner enters the following Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation: FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requests approval of a Preliminary Plat and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to subdivide 2.486 acres into 22 lots with residential dwelling units, t The subject property is located at the northeast comer of North WycoffAvenue and 25th Street, Bremerton, Washington.2 Exhibit 1. StaffReport, pages 1-2; Exhibit 2, Attachment B, Application, page 3. 2. The property was zoned Single Family Residential (SF2) in 1988. In 1993 a Mr. Haselwood filed a rezone application to develop the property as Single Family Residential (SF3). However, the site-specific rezone application was never acted upon because Mr. Haselwood withdrew his application. In 1996 the City of Bremerton's ~ Comprehensive Plan was updated and, as part of an area-wide rezone to accomplish consistency with the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan, the property was rezoned SF3 by the Bremerton City Council. In 1997 an Emergency Ordinance was passed by the City Council in response to a decision by the Growth Management Heating Board. At that time the property, again as part of an area-wide rezone, was rezoned by the Council as Single Family Residential Low Density (SF3), which is the current zoning designation and the zoning designation vested for this request. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1, 7-8. Area-wide rezones are legislative actions that do not require individual notification of property owners. Such legal notices are generally published in the official newspaper. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Testimony of Mr. Grumbach; Exhibit 2, Attachment HH 3. The site was formerly used as a bulk fuel storage and distribution site operated by Unocal Oil. The storage tanks were removed by 1980 and the supporting structures were removed by 1989. Hydrocarbon contamination in the soiI resulted from the fuel storage. State-required mitigation to cleanup the soils was completed and two reports, dated June 19, 1987, and March 7, 1989, concluded that the remaining levels of contamination were safely below the maximum allowed levels. The City contacted Neal Wood at the Washington State Department of Ecology who deten~nined that there were no existing concerns about the safety of the soils. However, Mr. Woods directed that if high levels of contaminates are discovered duting construction (indicated by strong odors or fumes), ~ By separate application, the Applicant also requests approval of an administrative Shoreline Substantial Development pmTnit which will be decided in a separate administrative decision. - The parcel s legal descnpt on is: a portion of government lot 7, section 10, township 24 north, range 1 east, W.M., in Kitsap County, Washington (not a complete description). The parcel number is recorded as Tax Account Number 102401-4-029-2004. Findings, Conclt~sio~s & Recommendation Wycoff Dwellitzg Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 3 the Washington State Department of Ecology should be contacted. Exhibit 1, Stqff Report, page 7. 4. The Applicant has proposed the PUD for development of the 22 dwelling units to allow reduction of the zoning side yard setbacks required by Code in the SF3 zone. The Bremerton Municipal Code has specific standards for a PUD that are set forth in Chapter 21.02 which address perimeter and interior setbacks; height restrictions; open space requirements; minimum lot size requirements; street and pedestrian circulation standards; and parking requirements. The proposed subdivision would contain 22 lots ranging in area from 1,564 square feet to 5,264 square feet. Perimeter setbacks would range from 15 feet to 25 feet. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 13, 15-16. The development, as proposed, meets the bulk and setback requirements for a PUD established in the Bremerton Municipal Code. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11-16; Exhibit 2, Attachment GG 5. The subject property is currently undeveloped and contains a fir, cedar, maple, and alder tree canopy, and a relatively thick understory of small trees. The site also contains blackberry bushes, horsetails, ferns, and salmonberry bushes. Exhibit 1,Staff Report, page 3. 6. The subject property is currently served by public water and sanitary sewer services, Access to the site will made available through two ingress/egress points on 25th Street. Two off-street parking spaces per dwelling will be provided. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Testimony of Mr. Grumbach. 7. On site is an old pier. Renovation or removal of the pier is not part of the Applicant's proposal. Any action on the pier will require further administrative review. Testimony of Mr. Grumbach. 8. The Applicant would place a fence at the perimeter of the development that would be approximately 6 feet in height and constructed of wood, possibly cedar. Testimony of Mr. Maehlum. 9. The Applicant proposes using a direct discharge system for storm water. There would be no detention or retention pond for the ston~n water, but a water-enhancing bioswale would be installed as a means to treat the water prior to its release into the Port Washington Narrows. The Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife indicated that a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit is required for discharge of storm water directly into the Port Washington Narrows. The City of Bremerton Engineer must approve final storm drainage plans and an HPA must be issued prior to finalizing the PUD/Subdivision. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 22; Exhibit 2, Attachment N; Testimony of Mr. Wandling 10. The subject property slopes steeply (greater than 40 percent) adjacent to WycoffAvanue North. It slopes east downward at approximate 22 percent slopes. The eastern portion of the parcel is relatively flat with the eastern edge of the site ten-ninating in steep slope low marine bluffs between 3 and 12 feet high. The 40 percent slopes classified the site as containing Landslide Hazard Areas, Steep Slopes and an Erosion Hazardous Area Findings, Conchts£ons & Recommendation Wycoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 4 pursuant to BMC Section 21.22.100(b)(2), (3)(v), and (4)(ii). Such areas cannot be disturbed unless a geotechnical report supports modification of the standards pursuant to BMC Section 21.22.100(c)(2). Golder Associates prepared the Geotechnical Investigation of Pro,ject Site at 25th Street and Snyder Avenue N, dated April 5, 2004. An addendum to that report was dated May 26, 2004. The investigation found no geologic hazards that would preclude development of the site as proposed. Exhibit l, StqffReport, pages 3, 16; Exhibit 2, Attachment GG. 11. Approximately one half of the subject property is covered by the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) which contains a number of site development standards, including height restrictions to preserve view corridors. The view corridor was determined to be from the nearest public street, 25th Street. The view corridor was calculated using only that portion of the property that is subject to shoreline.jurisdiction. The entire parcel's width is 433 feet, rendering a view corridor of 151 feet. Such a view corridor would disallow development in 75.8% of the property in the shoreline jurisdiction, a restriction that is inconsistent with the intent of an urban residential environmental designation. As calculated from 25th Street, using only that portion of the parcel sub,ject to shoreline,jurisdiction, a minimum view corridor of 70 feet is required. The Applicant's proposed view corridor is 89 feet 6 inches. The proposed development does not impair views of the water from upland residential properties, given that the proposed height of the dwelling units would be elevated approximately 8 feet above the existing street grade. If the Applicant were to develop the uphill townhouses to the maximum allowed zoning height of 30 feet, the dwelling units would only be elevated 17 feet above the existing street grade. Exhibitl, Staff Report, page 8-11; Exhibit 2, Attachment H; Exhibit 2, Attachment T; Testimony of Robert Grumbach. 12. Pursuant to BMC 21.02.490, a minimum 20% of the total area of the PUD shall be dedicated as common open space. The proposed open space of the development would be located in two tracts that would be connected by an open space corridor between units 4 and 5, which would also be part of the common open space. The site plan shows a 25- foot perimeter setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), though only a 15- foot perimeter setback is required. The area between the 15-foot perimeter setback and the 25-foot perimeter setback is considered common open space. The total proposed common open space accounts for 23% of the total area of the PUD (20.1% if the additional OHWM setback area is not included). At least two-thirds of the common open space in the site plan is "active" open space, as required by BMC 21.02.490(d)(3). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages ]4-15; Testimony of Mr. Grumbach; Exhibit 2, Attachment GG. 13. The allowable housing density in the SF3 zone, with 15% of the site designated as open space, is a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. The allowable housing density under a Planned Unit Development (PUD), with 20% of the site designated open space, is a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre. The proposed 22 dwelling units on a 2.486-acre lot, with more than 20% designated open space, yields a housing density of 8.9 dwelling units per acre, which is permitted with the PUD. Exhibit 1, Staff Report page 13. Findings, Conclusio~w & Recommendation Wycoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04 00231 Page 5 14. As required by Section 5-19 of the Bremerton SMP, "improved public access" to the shoreline must be provided. The Director of the City of Bremerton Department of Community Development deten,ained that the eastern segnnent of the public sidewalks located adjacent to 25th Street meets the requirement for improved public access, as it provides excellent visual access to the shoreline environment. Moreover, he determined that the improved public physical access should not be extended to the waterfront because limiting disruptions to the marine bluffs is in the public interest and monitoring irresponsible behavior on the waterfront would be difficult for the property owners. As previously noted, permits pursuant to the state shoreline Act will be reviewed separately (See Fn. 1). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 20; Testimony of Mr. Grumbach. 15. The City of Bremerton submitted the proposal to other state and local departments for review and comment. The City of Bremerton Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works & Utilities submitted two letters dated January 9, 2004, and January 27, 2004, in which it recommended approval of the PUD subject to compliance with sewer, street, lighting, and erosion control standards. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 23; Exhibit 2, Attachment M; Exhibit 2, Attachment ?. The City of Bremerton traffic comments were submitted by email on May 19, 2004. In that analysis, Paul Wandling, a city official, reported no significant traffic impact resulting from the proposed development. At most, he noted, traffic would increase in the area by one vehicle every three minutes. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 23; Exhibit 2, Attachment O. 16. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFD)submitted a letter on February 10, 2004, that recommended approval of the PUD, but listed several concerns. The project would require a Hydraulic Project Approval, to be issued by WDFD; bulkheads should not be permitted on the site; non-native plant species should be replaced with new native vegetation; and, personnel should be contacted at WDFD to determine whether a bald eagle management plan is necessary prior to the removal of any trees? Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 23-24; Exhibit 2, Attachment Q; Exhibit 2, Attachment I1. An email submitted by Sandra Lange of the Washington State Department of Ecology on February 12, 2004, stated that the view corridor was adequate, given the odd shape and depth of the lot. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 24.; Exhibit 2, Attachment Q. Finally, the Bremerton - Kitsap County Health District offered general suggestions relating to the use of non-hazardous fill materials. Those suggestions were submitted in writing on February 24, 2004. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 24; Exhibit 2, Attachment Q. 17. Several witnesses presented oral testimony at the hearing. While they supported the proposed development, all witnesses at the hearing expressed concern with aspects of the proposal. Their concerns were as follows: 93% of the land will be cleared; an Environmental Impact Statement should be completed to ensure the sustainability of the development,; all of the conditions set forth in the MDNS are required by statute and thus the Applicant is not required to expand on amenities; the storm water drainage system is questionable because the system may be nearing its capacity; the project will not be in ~ Upon review, the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife affirmed that there is no need for a bald eagle management plan prior to the removal of trees. The eagles use the site only for perching. Testimo~tv of Mr. Grambach. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation PTycoff Dwe[ling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 6 harmony with the neighborhood's character; the zoning of the area should remain SF2; traffic will worsen markedly as a result of the development; insufficient public access is proposed; a fence around the property will further isolate the parcel from the neighborhood; the proposed open space is insufficient; the shoreline setback was incorrectly calculated; the proposed view con'idor is insufficient; and the PUD process is not in the best interest of the citizens. Each of these concerns was addressed in the Staff Report or at the hearing. Testimon), oj~ Mr. Olwell; Testimony pfMr. McManus; TestimolO, of Mr. Flanig; Testimony of Mr. Sk(fktaff; Testimony of Mr. Thatcher; Testi~norLv of Mr. Ta_vlor. 18. Pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C), the City of Bremerton was designated lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposal. Upon review of an environmentaI checklist and the requirements of city ordinances, the City's responsible official determined that the proposal would not have probable significant environmental impacts. He issued a Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance (MDNS) on May 28, 2004. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 28; Exhibit 2, ,4ttachmentD. A timely appeal of the MDNS was received by the City on June I t, 2004. In his appeal, and in his rebuttal dated June 22, 2004, Mr. Olwell asserts inter alia that the public's involvement in the process was compromised; an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be required; the current zoning designation is incorrect; and that the lead agency failed to consider existing documents relevant to the parceI's environmental history. The MDNS appeal did not include a statement of standing or a signed statement that the facts of the appeal are true. Mr. Olwell's answer did include a signed statement that the facts of the appeal and of the rebuttal are true. Exhibit 2, Attachment FF; Exhibit 2, Attachment LL. 19. The City of Bremerton issued a written response to the MDNS appeal on June 15, 2004. In the response, the City answered that the zoning designation and all other factors of the proposed development are consistent with the City of Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan, the City of Bremerton's Shoreline Management Program, and all other regulations. Moreover, the City urged that the appeal failed to meet its burden of proof in that it claims violations of local and state laws and regulations without citing specific facts to support such allegations. The City requested that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the appeal. Exhibit 2, Attachment Z; Exhibit 2, Attachment KK. 20. Notice of proposed land use and SEPA actions was posted on the subject property on February 9, 2004, published in The Sun on February 2 and 9, 2004, and mailed to adjoining property owners on February 3, 2004. A second notice of proposed land use and SEPA actions was posted on the subject property on April 30, 2004, published in the The Sun on April 30, 4004, and mailed to adjoining property owners on April 28, 2004.4 A notice of revised shoreline and SEPA applications was posted on the subject property on May 7, 2004, published in The Sun on May 7, 2004, and mailed to adjoining property 4 A second notice of proposed land use and SEPA actions was required because the geotechnical report of the site resulted in a revised site plan and the reduction from 24 to 22 proposed dwelling units. Such significant changes required a second notice and a second comment period. Erhibit 1, Stc(fReport, page 6. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation ~vcoffDwelling Units, NO. BP04-0023! Page 7 owners on May 6, 2004.5 Notice of public hearing was posted on the subject property on May 28, 2004, published in The Sun on May 28, 2004, and mailed to adjoining property owners on May 26, 2004. All notices were given in accordance with the City of Bremerton's notice requirements set forth in BMC 21.02.895. Exhibit 2, Attachment S. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction Pursuant to Sections 2.13.070, 2.13.080 and 21.02.855 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), the Hearings Examiner for the City of Bremerton has jurisdiction to hold open record pre-decision hearings on Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development applications and recommend action to the City Council. The recommendation may be to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BMC 2.13.110. Criteria for Review - MDNS Appeal The Hearing Examiner is directed in BMC 21.02.935 to review land use and development decisions that are subject to appeal based on, in part, the following criteria: (g) Content of Appeal: An administrative appeal shall not be accepted unless it is written, accompanied by the required appeal fee, and contains at least the following information: (1). Appellant's name, address and phone number. (2). Appellant's statement describing his or her standing, as a party of record, to appeal. (3). Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal. (4). Statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based. (5). Statement of the relief sought, including the specific nature and intent. (6). A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant's signature. (j) The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the administrative decision was not supported by substantial evidence. s A revised notice of shoreline and SEPA applications was required when the City learned that 1,000 yards of cut and 9,000 yard of fill would be removed during development. That information was not available and needed to be included in the SEPA, resulting in revised shoreline and SEPA applications and an additional comment period. Exhibit 1, Str~f Report, pctge 6. Findings, Conch~sions & Recomme~datio~ Wycoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 8 Criteria for Review - Preliminary Plat To recommend approval of a Preliminary Plat, the Hearing Examiner must find that the application satisfies the criteria for a Preliminary Plat; is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and conforms to all applicable City development regulations, minimum standards, and design guidelines. BM6' 21.02.885. The criteria for approval of a Preliminary Plat are found in Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(2), a Preliminary Plat application may not be approved unless: (a) appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. Criteria for Review - Planned Unit Development 1. BMC Sections 21.02.480 and 21.02.490 require a PUD to conform to the following general and specific criteria: General Standards (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 CIO,. (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 depart~n'e in character fi'om the s~trrounding land uses, the scale, intensiO; and design shah adequately reduce the impact of the development in such a wa), that the project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. (c) The traffic generated by the PUD shall be accommodated sqfely and within the adopted Levels of Service for affected streets. (d) All development will be adequately setnaed b3, existing or planned facilities and (e) The PUD will result in an attractive, health~d, efficient and stable envi~wnment for living, shopping, working, and leisure activities. (f) The development plan shall make adequate and appropriate provision for the prese~vatio~* of the environment, both natural and man-made, and the conservation of energy. Findings, Co~clztsions & Recomme~datio~t Wycoff D~velling Units, NO. BP04-0023! Page 9 Specific Standards (a) Parcel Size: An area not less than one (1) gross acre in size may be considered for a PUD... (b) Perimeter and Interior Setbacks: (1) ...If the PUD includes a combination of zones, the most restrictive setbacks shall apply. Reduced setbacks ma); be considered when not adjacent to the perimeter of the PUD. (2) The perimeters of all PUDs one acre or larger in area shall maintain minimum fi~ont, side, and rear setbacks according to the height of the buildings, as follows: Height (in ft) Front Side Rear 0-25 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 25-35 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Over 35 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (3) To meet perimeter setback requirements, strz,ctures may be designed to step back as height increases. For example, the first 25fi. ora building may be constructed with a 20fi. fi~ont setback but additional height would require a greater setback. (4) Non-perimeter setbacks within the PUD shah be based on the required setbacks of the underlying zone buy may be modified through the PUD process to achieve project design objectives. (c) Height: Building heights in a PUD may be varied from the underlying zone 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) A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of a PUD shall be dedicated as common open space. Open space shall be provided for active as well as passive recreational activities, and for the preservation of existing natural site amenities whenever possible... (2) Open space and supporting facilities intended for recreational use shall be designed and located to not adversely impact surrounding land use, especially exiting residential uses. Findings, Conclusions & Recomme~dation Wycoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 10 (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 purposes. The City will base its acceptance of these areas on their dimensions, usability, location, slope, and physical improvements .... (e) Circulation (1) All streets and rights-of-way shall be dedicated, designed and constructed in accordance with the City's adopted street standards. (2) Interior roadways that do not provide access to individual lots, but that provide access to individual structures, apartment buildings, or manufactured homes on a single lot, are considered driveways, are not subject to street development standards, and their adequacy of design will be reviewed and decided through the PUD process. (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 .... Conclusions Based on Findings - MDNS Appeal. 1. The appellant did not meet his burden of proof. The burden of proving that an administrative decision was not supported by substantial evidence is placed on the Appellant. In this case, the appellant did not supply a sufficient factual basis to meet his burden of proof. No evidence or testimony was submitted that proved environmental impacts that were not identified or mitigated during the SEPA process: Findings of Fact Nos. 18, 19. Conclusions Based on Findings - Preliminary Plat 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan recommends PUDs in shoreline areas. Its goals and policies applicable to the proposal include the following: · Goal # 1 Urban Growth: "Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner." Supporting Policy (3): Accommodate new development with care so that Bremerton will continue to be a well-balanced "most livable city." ,, Goal # 2 Reduce Sprawl: "Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-densiO, development." Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation Wycoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04-0023] Page 1 1 Supporting Policy (5): Promote the concept of development clustering to conserve energy, save land, lower public costs, reduce sprawl, and provide open space. · Goal # 4 Housing: "Encourage the availabiliO~ of q£fordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variet), qf residential densities and housing ~pes, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. · Goal # 9 Open Space and Recreation: "Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks. " Supporting Policy (3): Incorporate into new development proposals the provisions of the adopted Waterfront Access Plan and other plans and regulations that call for shoreline access improvements, pathways, or other forms of access or facilities linkage. HOUSING ELEMENT: Goal D (2) New Housing Development: "Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet changing needs of Bremerton residents." Supporting Policy (3): Stimulate the production of new housing for all income, age, family type and ethnic groups. LAND USE ELEMENT: The property is located in the Central Bremerton Land Use Plan (Element E, 8 (page 33)). There are no specific applicable policies to his property. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: Part of the property is located within the 200-foot jurisdiction of Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program. The following goals and policies are relevant to development within the shoreline area: B: LANDS ADJACENT TO SHORELINES: Goal: "Encourage uses, densities and development patterns that are compatible with shoreline uses and resource values and that reinforce the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program." Policy B-l: Consider the compatibility of proposed upland uses with those allowed in each adjacent shoreline enviromnent and with the purpose and intent of the environment designation. Policy B-2: Minimize shoreline impacts from residential development on upland "view" property, i.e. storm water mn-off, Findings, Co~lchtsions & Recommenclatio~ I'Vycoff Dwe#ing U~its, NO. B£04-00231 ]>age 12 septic drain field seepage, intensification of risks from geological instability, etc. Policy B-3: "Adjacent lands" policies shall be implemented through zoning, subdivision, short-plat and other land use ordinances, and through mechanisms such as the Capital Facilities Plan and budget. C: URBAN LANDS (Shorelines): Goal: "Protect both the economic viabiliO; and resource values ef urban shorelines." Policy C-l: Protect and preserve natural and/ or critical areas through the developed urban enviromnent and recognize that Shoreline of Statewide Significance priorities also apply within our urban area. Policy C-6: Promote aesthetic and view protection through sign control regulations, appropriate siting and screening requirements, protection of view comdors, and the use of architectural standards. D: PUBLIC ACCESS: Goal: "Protect and enhance the rights of the general public to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, while allowing controlled development consistent with the public interest." Goal: "Protect and enhance shoreline visual and physical access consistent with Shoreline Management Act and Public D~tst Doctrine principles." Policy D-1: Protect areas with unique and/or fragile geological or biological characteristics from inappropriate public access and use through access and use regulations. Policy D-3: Assure that development, uses and activities on or near the shoreline do not impair or detract from the public's access to the water or shoreline. Policy D-4: Enhance and preserve public views. Policy D-6: Preserve, maintain and enhance public access and views afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights- of-way whenever feasible. Findings, Conclusions & Recommenclation F~vcoff Dwelling Units, NO BP04-00231 Page 13 Policy D-9: Implement shoreline public access policy primarily through applications of the City Comprehensive Parks Plan, the Shoreline Master Program, the Waterfront Access Plan, and urban renewaI activities. G: HOUSING: Goal: ':Permit residential development in shoreline areas and in the vicinity of other critical or sensitive lands onl3, at densities that can be properly served by needed utilities and roadwa),s and only when within the "car~3dng capaciOJ" of the site or general location." Policy G-4: Encourage the use of Planned Unit Developments and clustering of development to help protect natural features, preserve open space, minimize physical impacts, and reduce the costs of utilities and roads. Policy G-5: Require adequate setbacks, buffers, and open spaces as needed for shoreline development to protect vegetation, natural features, views, and other aesthetic characteristics. The proposal will provide additional housing for the City of Bremerton in a location where city services already exist. The proposed development appears consistent with Bremerton's desire to continue to be a "most livable city" and with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings of Facts Nos. 1-4, 11-14, 19. 2. The proposal is consistent with identified zoning standards. The proposed subdivision will create 22 dwelling units. The project, as proposed, meets the bulk and setback requirements of the city code. Findings of Facts Nos. 1, 2, 4, 13. 3. With conditions, appropriate provision will be made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for all other relevant facts. Conditions of approval will mitigate traffic impact by requiring frontage improvements. The City conducted environmental review of the proposal and determined that it would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. City of Bremerton utilities will be available to each of the 22 dwelling units. The Applicant will preserve existing vegetation where possible and will take measures prior to clearing and construction to mitigate erosion impacts. The Applicant will provide public access to a shoreline overlook (sidewalk) that will enhance visual access to the shoreline area. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure future frontage improvements are installed, the public access is constructed, and that the concerns of the public works department are addressed. Findings of Facts Nos. 4, 6, 8, lO, 11, 14, 18. Findings, Conchtsions & Recommendation gSvcoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 14 4. The public use and interest will be served by the creation of 22 dwelling units complying with City of Bremerton zoning standards. The proposed plat will provide increased housing opportunities for residents of Bremerton in a manner consistent with the criteria for approval of preliminary plats. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 13, 19. Conclusions Based on Findings - Planned Unit Development 1. With conditions of approval, the location, design, and uses of the PUD will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Shoreline Management Program~ and with other applicable plans and ordinances adopted by the City. Clustering residential dwelling units is consistent with several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program referenced previously in this report. A condition of approval is necessary to ensure adequate public access is provided. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 11-14, 19. 2. The proposed PUD will be integrated with its surroundings and designed to harmonize with existing development in the neighborhood. The preservation of open space and the design of the dwelling units integrate well with the residential development found in the surrounding area. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 11-13, 19. 3. The traffic generated by the PUD can be accommodated safely and within the adopted Levels of Service for affected streets. North WycoffAvenue and 25th Street are each adequately equipped for moderate traffic flow and each is well below capacity for traffic flow. The proposed PUD will have only a minor impact on traffic in the area. Finding of Fact No. 1.5. 4. The proposed development will be adequately served by existing facilities and services. The subject property has City of Bremerton sewer and water available to it. Any residents of the proposed PUD will have adequate services available to them. Findings of Fact No. 6. 5. The PUD will result in an attractive, healthful, efficient and stable environment for living, shopping, working, and leisure activities. One of the primary benefits of the proposed PUD is its proximity to the Port Washington Narrows. The type of development proposed is highly desired by a number of citizens due to its proposed attractive nature and proximity to urban amenities. Findings of Fact No. 1, 11-14, 18. 6. The development plan will make adequate and appropriate provision for the preservation of the environment, both natural and man-made~ and the conservation of energy. In addition to replacing non-native vegetation with native vegetation, the development will maintain the character of the shoreline and the natural slope of the parcel. The existing pier will not be altered. Findings q)CFact Nos. 7, 10, 11, 16, 18. 7. An area not less than one (1) gross acre in size may be considered for a PUD. The size o£the subject property is 2.486 acres. Findings qfFactNo. 1. Findings, Conchtsions & Recommendation WycoffD~velling Units, NO BPO4-OO23J Page 15 8. Perimeter and Interior Setbacks. All of the required perimeter and interior setbacks have been met. Findings pfFact No. 4, 19. 9. Building heights in a PUD may be varied from the underlying zone 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. The height of the dwelling units is permitted under the requirements of the SF3 zone and is consistent with the requirements of the view corridor. Findings of Fact No. 11, 14, 19. 10. Open Space. The site plan includes 23 percent open space, of which more than two-thirds is designated as "active" open space. Such percentages exceed the open space requireanents set forth in BMC 21.02.490. Findings qfFact. No. 12. 11. Circulation. The proposed PUD will include streets and rights-of-way that conform to the City of Bremerton's adopted street standards. Moreover, sidewalks will insure that pedestrian circulation is safe and convenient. The streets and sidewalks will contribute to the overall aesthetic of the development. Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 12, 14. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearings Examiner recommends approval of a Preliminary Plat and Plaimed Unit Development to subdivide 2.486 acres into 22 lots for the purpose of constructing dwelling units as described in the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planned Unit Development shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site to those uses, designs and standards that are specifically included in the Planned Unit Development. Such limitation shall remain in effect until the Planned Unit Development is constructed, or until the preliminary approval expires in which case the previous zoning automatically returns. 2. Two (2) off-street parking spaces per dwelling until shall be provided. 3. An open space gum'antee, which ensures the retention of the open spaces and provides for permanent maintenance of the open space, is required per BMC Section 21.02.501 prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 4. Removal of riparian vegetation within the low marine bluff is prohibited in order to protect the near shore habitat. This prohibition shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or face of the plat and Planned Unit Development as a condition running at the same time with the authorized land use. Proof of such restriction shall be demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The clearing limits indicated on the TESC Plan received by the Department of Co~mnunity Development May 7, 2004 shall constitute the limits of vegetation removal. Any cleared Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation Wycoff Divelling Units, NO. BP04-0023] Page 16 vegetation within the shoreline areas 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark shall be replaced according to the conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. 6. One street tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of street frontage shall be provided within the front yard perimeter setbacks along Wycoff Avenue and 25th Street. The tree-planting pattern shall be approved by the Department of Community Development prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development and shall be integrated into the overall design of the development. 7. A landscaping plan for the Planned Unit Development shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, submitted to, and approved by the City. The landscaping plan shall include the vegetation replacement according to the conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, street trees, and the landscaping of all required open space areas not addressed in the SEPA. 8. Required landscaping and vegetation replacement shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 9. All construction shall be located such that the long-term stability of near shore habitat is protected and that a bulkhead or other shoreline protection is not necessary. The installation of a bulkhead or other shoreline protection shall be prohibited. This prohibition shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or the face of the plat and Planned Unit Development. 10. A minimum 30-foot wide public easement shall be provided waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark in accordance with the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. The public easement shall be recorded on the deed o£title and/or face of the Planned Unit Development. Proof of such restriction shall be demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits. l l. Frontage improvements are required per Ordinance 4856. Ail improvements shall be according to the City of Bremerton Engineering Standards. Improvements shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. A Right of Way Permit is required prior to construction. 12. The private street shall be developed according to City Engineering Street Standards. The street shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 13. A final storm drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer. Ston-n drainage facilities shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 14. If Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife requires a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit, it shall be obtained prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. Any conditions set forth in the HPA shall be included as conditions for approving the Planned Unit Development. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation WycoffD~elling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 17 15. Water and sewer improvements shall be provided per the Conditional Water and Sewer Availability letter. A water main extension and a sewer main extension into the development are required and shall be installed or bonded for prior to finalizing the Planned Unit Development. 16. Addresses for the individual lots shall be obtained from the Public Works department and shall be indicated on the final plat. 17. All conditions set forth in the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance shall be complied with as a condition for approving the Planned Unit Development. Those conditions are: a. All authorized clearing shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish construction. Clearing, grading, or filing of this site shall be limited to the period April 1 and October 1. All said site disturbances shall be marked in the field for inspection and approval by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and city building inspectors prior to alteration of the site. The face of the cut and fill on slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against erosion. (Reference BMC 21.22.100(c)(1)) b. Soils used as borrow materials must be "clean", as defined in the Breruerton-Kitsap County Board of Health (BKCBH) Ordinance 2000-6 "Solid Waste Regulations." Clean is defined as the following: ...soils which are not a dangerous waste or problem waste. Problem waste includes the following: ...soils removed during the cleanup ora remedial action site, a dangerous waste closure, other cleanup efforts, or other actions which contain hazardous substances, but are not dangerous wastes; ...dredge spoils fi'om the dredging of surface waters of the state where contaminants are present in the dredge spoils at concentrations not suitable for open water disposal and the dredge spoils are not a dangerous waste and are not regulated by Section 404 q£ the federal Clean ~Vater Act (PL 95-217); or ...waste abrasive blasting g~qt or other materials used in abrasive blasting that my contain, but is not limited to, silica, utiliOJ slag or copper slag. Waste abrasive blasting grit does not include blasting grit that will be reused for its intended purpose... c. The applicant must ensure either by process knowledge or by testing, that fill material is not contaminated. This would include the applicant's knowledge of the presence of industrial/commercial facilities, prior disposal activities, or other activities that may have contaminated the material to be used as fill. Findings, Conchtsions & Recommendation Wycoff Dvvelling Units, NO. BP04~00231 Page 18 d. Only suitable materials shall be used as fill. Suitable fill does not include vegetative organic matter, demolition or construction wastes, or other debris, except as provided by the Uniform Building Code (1994). e. All construction-trenching activities conducted within 1,000 feet of an active or closed landfill should test for the presence of methane gas and take those safety or engineering precautions necessary for the protection of human health and the environment. f. The applicant shall use all appropriate measures to control roadway carry-on or fugitive dust from excavation activities or materials transportation activities necessary to protect public health and the enviromnent. g. Disposal of excavated soil shall be taken to an approved site. h. No fill, or other construction debris, shall enter the adjacent Port Washington Narrows. (Reference WAC 197-11-660) i. Annoring or constructing of a bulkhead along any part of the shoreline shall be prohibited, except in the case of an emergency as determined by the City. (Reference SMP and WAC 197-11-660) j. All on-slope vegetation within the shoreline are that was not approved for clearing per Team Engineering TESC Plan (received May 7, 2004) and the geotectmical report shall be retained to ensure slope stability and provide riparian habitat. (Reference SMP) k. The removal of vegetation within the shoreline 200-foot jurisdiction shall be restored to as near pre-project configuration as possible and replanted with native grasses, shrubs and/or trees. (Reference SMP) 1. Any of the trees indicated for removal on the Team 4 Engineering TESC Plan and located within the 200-foot jurisdiction shall be replaced with the same or similar trees. The replacement trees shall be located within the shoreline area. (Reference SMP and WAC 197-11-660) m. A 15-foot minimum vegetative buffer is required at the top of the slope. The vegetation and trees may be replaced per the geotechnical recommendations, but the replacements shall consist of a variety of deep-rooting vegetation. (Reference BMC 21.22.100(c)(3)(iv)(2)) n. All recommendations set forth in the Golder Associates Inc. prepared Geotechnical Investigation of Project Site at 25th Street and Snyder Avenue N dated April 5, 2004, and the addendum dated May 26, 2004, shall be deemed conditions of approval and complied with. (Reference BMC 21.22.100(c)(3)(i)(5)) Wycoff D~,elling Units, NO. BP04-00231 Page 19 o. If any artifacts are uncovered, the Department of Community Development and the State Historic Preservation Office in Olympia (360) 753-4405 must be notified. 18. A final Planned Unit Development and plat meeting applicable development standards and conditions shall be submitted to the City for approval within two years of the date of preliminary plat approval pursuant to BMC Section 21.02.520(a). 19. Six (6) copies of the Planned Unit Development and plat (not Mylar) shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for final compliance review. 20. The Community Development Director shall approve the final Planned Unit Development prior to finalizing the plat. 21. A copy of the recorded Planned Unit Development and plat shall be provided to the Department of Community Development before building permits are issued. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner denies the SEPA MDNS appeal. Decided this ~'day of June 2004. es Driscoll rings Examiner for the City of Bremerton Findings. Conclusions & Recommendation Wycoff Dwelling Units, NO. BP04~00231 Page 20