The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/07/2006 AGENDA ,FILE CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337-1873 03 (360) 473-5280 JUNE 7, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in COUNCil CONFERENCE ROOM 603 A. General Council Business 2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in MEETING CHAMBERS lOCATED ON FIRST FLOOR A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Invocation 3. MAYOR'S REPORT 4. PUBLIC RECOGNITION & ANNOUNCEMENTS 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims & Check Register (#AB06-115) B. Meeting Minutes - May 24, 2006 (#AB06-116) C. Ordinance No. 4972, amending Subsection 20.60.065(f) of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) to make a technical correction (#AB06-117) D. BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT) Service Agreement with Kitsap County (#AB06-118) 6. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Ordinance No. 4973, amending Chapter 9.48 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "FIREWORKS" to clarify when and how fireworks may be sold; and the times for discharge ( #AB06-119) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing and Ordinance No. 4974, vacating 240-feet of Lafayette Avenue lying just south of 6th Street (#AB06-120) B. Continued Public Hearing and Resolution No. 2993 regarding the Change-in-Use and Future Sale of City Parks Property located at 1109 Warren Avenue - First Public Hearing was held on April 5, 2006; Second Public Hearing held on Apri/19,. 2006 was continued (#AB06-071 ) C. Public Hearing on an amendment to Figure 20.74(a) of Title 20 in the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) relating to heights in the Downtown Regional Center (#AB06-121) D. Public Hearing and Resolution No. 2994, approving the Highland Avenue & Pleasant Avenue Design Guidelines - Item postponed from April 19, 2006 (#AB06-084) E. If necessary- Public Hearing and proposed Resolution, continuing the moratorium enacted November 30, 2005; and continued by Resolution Nos. 2987 and 2991, on permits for development over 40-feet high in the Highland & Pleasant Avenues District (#AB06-122) 8. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING ~ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473-5323 by noon on the Monday preceding the Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST fo/1/0b PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE CITY OF BREMERTON MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. THANK YOU. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT ;:) L} Sa Lv '^ fA 'N'. 0-... 'A.. .~ / ? "a-/ LJ<112J'f, r1&I13 . ~(U~ 4D5" (pt-j~;t.. CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST 10 /71{)~ PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE CITY OF BREMERTON MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING. THANK YOU. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT Helio Neighbors! We have decided to join forces to show our strength in numbers. City Hall is trying to bulldoze their way through our lovely and very historic homeland to "create business for downtown Bremerton" .Our iandscapej even the value of our homes and the beautiful bald eagles at our shore here will be sacrificed, because influential people don't live here. This would never be happening here if this weren't so. Please help us stand against those who would have 50 or 60 ft. buildings next to our homes, with no view of the water left, the landscape marred, people from above staring into our windows. What about the threatened bald eagle habitat that we are blessed with? They will leave us, and "cost-efficient" condominiums will take their place and steal our views and parking spaces. Why let them sacrifice what is ours when business in Bremerton can only be altered when people choose to shop and spend selectively? Seattle is growing and so is our shipyard (in case no one has to~d you) so Bremerton is already promised a bright future. This false argument is being made to "bamboozle" us. We are not stopping progress to ask for our neighborhood to be left intact. P~ease join us in saying, "thanks, but no thanks". There are other locations they could consider. Please don't let them fool you with faulty logic and unimportant rhetoric. We hope you wiU join forces with us and let our councii members know this is wrong. The last chance to voice our strong feelings is June 7th. Please email your support for our coalition to: or mail to: Virginia Starr 652 Highland A.ve Bremerton, WA 98331 Kate O'Reilly 938 Pleasant Ave Bremerton, WA 98337 You can also mail your reponse to: "Not over 45 feet, You Don't!" or Save Our landscape and Eagle Habitat Coalition c/o City Council 345 6th Ave. Bremerton, WaR 98337 We hope to see you the council meeting June 7. We can make a difference. . ~ fL &.&.,; ~ ....... C ::::.e: . ~o s"- t:":t: ....., <~ c:::. ~ 6 ?!~ ~~~ ~ ~. c:iJ. Y;-~ S- .~ ~~ o~~ c:.J - V) , , 1 Q) ~ o ~ I, the undersigned agree with this statement and want my voice to be heard by the city council that I am opposed to the 50' or 60' height limit roposal and in favor of a 45' building limit on Pleasant &. Highland v~nueS.~d, WaShi",' gton Stre;tj~ __ V, J ,.-:.-?, k,~" [) name [<; c, - ~~/~ address 912 fl('yik'!cl Ave. 763c37 of a h nd ues VVa!;;hI ngt'41')n ~'-7dl / ,./11 .,'~ ",". ...J---, ~.~ '.""'"" _ .-' ".... ,/ . "-:. - ~", a irl'~1_t::'.L{:""'L~IX_t:__{;.:."t__ ,,_e<~...____'{,;: ress,..__6~Lf2.._~Li.L~l:l1::_.d~~_p_:tlv.::,E::.:_~._.~.__~ 6s: ~~ ('eslrJ~ ) f letc..-Vler I, the unders~gned agree with this statemell'l'6: arnd wanE: my "~j08C6 t'.V, be heard by" the dty councH that! am opposed to t~~e 5~' Ot~ 60' !1le~ght limit proposaf 45H1id ;n favor of ;:{ 45< buHding H~)'1~t f)n ~;ea5c;f'f"t ~t H8gh~"a,~"ry,/~ ,A:v.en,ues, BiIld v~,'a~~gt<>" St'"eet. . C' 'I ""me)1 (If h,t';q )ZfiJ ~ . ,!_ J, ht~-rf--- ( M a.v:j 0 (' i e L.73 OJ r t< ~) ,., ! ()::> .' [) /7. J f!' /7. (I ~'. .' .!- 'i) 1\ (;'}'C,:i;,Ut'l acsor'2SS /(;'1; 0/tlLll:fj-<:' ,.l.::LL ; -}/Z&!-/11il/l,../t.dlLi._!yl-) /...-!.,,}, ( , li, the unders;gned agree with this stateGnent and want ITft" ~~ft;}i'CE to, be heard bY' tg,e dty comacH that! am oPr)osed to the SO' O~~ 610' ['ge~ght ~irn~t proposal af1ct ;n favor e:f ~ 45< tai~[d~ng ~b~;~t on P~e:::'t5c;f'it ii!;, Hk!ilIJ~,:::;'h16 k.v,et'H.J!e~ at"~d \f\!ashCri{1rton StJ:'r-~et . - wi ~ ~.;:'.=___~. (~,_.~ _~"_'! __,,~ "~," ' _,' - '.' './ ,: " , ,/ \ i C, ._(--) " " ( J~ C"" ( ( , ,']"';!l"-",::, : \.~l_>~\--_.I\ ./of' '\J\...-L<---"-' '-'-, '" \ k, :il..~l'tiJ"-<----i.~ ~ _ ..-\...~! " 1~ '. '{3 a v' /' L{'5 -.J . , ':'i . /) ) j' '/ .f II. ',. " ''T-~ ,')...' _, ../..,.. ;::';C:('~i["t:;<';C C/o;"";, 'j/tllt fa. rl q tll/c.I'7l-(f!., I'J/tj/L(,;:..,/ tOre ,,,;..,.., ~.. . ~L.."......_~,.....,.,. . . J ....--..-~._--~- ~-----~...-..- cp& 3 3r~ If the undersigned agree with this statement and want my voice to be heard by the city council that I am opposed to the 50' or 60' height limit proposal and in favor of a 45' bu~iding limit on Pleasai1t &. Highland Avenues and Washington Street. name ;ftherT tV WJ0 S Lf:oE'fi'-r w J?d:E.i2~) address05'z, /11~Jt kU1d ;J-J& '?Y~111e/'1ot1 t{),f 1e,33<7 o .,--~--"~~~,.,,,,-,-~~,"';"'..'-"'-'. ~-'"" ,....~~...._-~-----....... -.-- _.-.-------- .__._-~-~- --- . ._._._~.-.__._--~-- If the undersigned agree with this statement and want my voice to be heard by the city council that I am opposed to the 50' or 60' . height limit proposal and in favor of a 45' building limit on PleaS8;Jt/ :a::hla~ :v~:;e6n: h{~lsl~ingt~~0;Y6'q~ address q l:l t-I )~~I ~....J J1'-t- l)((vy\Oi ~N '1"f,~/ (}f El 4~; r , '~.,_.."",~", c?:'d-:cc+, fi r ~"~Jt~..,.!. ,';tr!r'~-;;;Y"" d/"!/(.t , . ; ",""'" ~. I. rY // ;' : ." ~~, MY / '_ . ,~. .' y / i/ n~ r-n.e t~.~? /.L7_/i'~~;;:...:::::~.::...:;:..L.r:~,":~..-1::::'~;j'/'2t.'v-- vt-'~.._._--~ .. "-"-(;"7 ." '".1 "......."r;; ...,~~/'~ '. ' I .... '..' : .' ./ / d a." ,A _~0 .' ./ /,:;!-. _,.' '.. _ r - 0" . ., , ."""", ~_...~' ..... ,.,::.,., J ,.7" ...n~~... / ,/ /";"7 /.1 I -PJ. : _,' '" ./" ~~' 1~"; . I t'\..f:? n., / v- ~_. /....,. ~., .".....;,,,.. "4.... ~y .",~ ""_--.\1 ,. - ",. ~~ .I'" .1"7"' " - _, r If , '--", -- _' F ,,;;:..- i....:;:J;;:> . .. .'_<.__I____J'."'"._''".''''~-!:/-..,-.--,~,-.-.~.-....=..- 1.. -r-- .........,"-"."'-",..------~...".-",,., _. /'.~ '.- V J"~ ,'" ' (I ~~ a~~~7 ../ . v' '-J' /'.r -,')." ~__ / U~'. ~) '7 ,_~~_=.__~,____=______.___~_~___~_~.~_=~__~~___~r____=_=~~__~_~---- H~gh~7~d ~J((:;S f.IH;',d hir;Jt~n Stn~et", i z)- /) I I ,,. t'! . ,);1 " . f !,(..;, c, ' '....-1' . '-. I ' . d, I 1.1' \ . d . " ~;"'i,-<~}t-'t';;{j;:~ \ '! t..\ll~~': -:::.... _( ),."7 f/ _> '.if~..;', .:t:;'-- :./ - ~'.' . i ,1'4,/ 'jJ~u, id';"',,..,. "", ,. "-...~,~_;.~'.'-~~~"~-~----~& ~ ~ Yt{. tf ~ _....._~_......-- o~, ."~ ". [i / ..... ~,~.- 1 ~ i j"~"S :;;,,~o..,"c':.i~:~(~~~,_ji::~::;!ll(:L!.~(~\.:;~,.Q..-/.~LLL2~::;.. ..."Y?Ll;;CJ t, ' '" \ I . -." -~ ~ t~t'fa ' H.,."ijgh~.anld(\AVelJtt2n~"~"~.(jrfr'rVjflfSh.in.. at6~, Stn;~et.. .... ..' " j' '--.-. }", .4 I U I .--/ '; .." J" \ A _I", I ~'(,.V(l/l('. , .... . '--~~'--_.'~"-......... J; ,---- \=---,,-- .."..' ~-, ,./" I'i"me_~__~ /? l/ ,,,,, d '~p I J' .- ll~ '/ IQ'~ address"__lg_~~,) _~ ~:~~~7~~": tvtAC:..._l_.., vL_._~, -8 v-t'./lA/{bi/" f-crvt 9 1{.3 5 '1- -"." -', .~...<.c.,~__,._"""""'';''_~'''''-'_;''--:';'';..u",- ___."_ the undersigned agree with this statement a be heard by the city cOlJ.mdi that I am opposed proposal and in favor of a ' ~aighh:U~d,Aver,1~es / _"0;117/ i.~7J .f/~, .' //} na.11...jlLLc~~__'Y<________."~;s'~ .' resskJld~~}~.~{tlJ_,.ltJe~_~__~._~.._~..~~~.,_~",~_ eth Q(C{ \~u-::tt-SL ! t or 6.0 ~ If the ~..mders~~med agree with this stateF'~"'i1ent and \i\.fant my \fo~ce t,v: be heard by the city cOilncH that! am op~)osed tc.! the 50' Of' t;Qj' he~ght ~imH: proposaE and ~n favor of a 4.5' t:a.~Hding Em~t (:"Jr, f;h~R52frt ~t i!-~el1hd2a'tdJ f.;,v~nues and \flJCishinoton Stn~eL [,,-q,~..: Ufl,.'UJ ~,~- /~/L/l.,::'[ot- ( j\ I'') ,., 1 o. L :d:itdtoJ::E....,..._ L.. ~ C7\. ~ ! I" I '-_ ~'l ,.,,", . I' j" (' i il." .. ID." " ,., I,,>....., .3crdres~ '. Lj t/ 8 I-f I a 1 Ii/? CI In't....fll.{.e.. U/"i.:f'll.f;:,'/'" r:;/ll _.-- .--,. U ------~'~"-7-.--..- 730_ir"'-rvs) 96 3'7- COMMENTS TO THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 7 JUNE, 2006 by Helen Miller citizen of Bremerton DISRAELI, A BRITISH PRIMMINSTER ONCE INFORMED US THAT: "THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF LIES: LIES, DAMN LIES, AND STATISTICS." ALONG THOSE LINES, I WOULD ASK THE DIRECTOR OF DCD TO CLEARLY STATE, FOR BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC - WHETHER THE 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE HIGHLAND - PLEASANT - DISTRICT MEANS THE ACTUAL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING - OR THAT THE 60 FOOT LIMIT MEASURED ONL Y TO THE EVES OF THE STRUCTURE - ALLOWING ANOTHER 25% - ANOTHER 15 FEET TO THE PEAK OF THE BUILDING - FOR A TOTAL "STATISTICAL LIMIT" OF 75 FEET. IF SO, AS DISRAELI WOULD SAY THE 60 FOOT FIGURE IS ONE HUGE LIE. A SIXTY / 75 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT SUGGESTS A HIGH OCCUPANCY DENSITY - POSSIBLY UNUSUALL Y HIGH FOR BREMERTON AND ITS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. THE QUESTION COMES TO MIND AS TO WHETHER DCD HAS DONE ADEQUATE TRAFFIC STUDIES TO NULLIFY CONCERNS OF RESULTING GRIDLOCK IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE. ADDITIONALL Y, HAVE THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS STUDIED AND APPROVED OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS BEING WITHIN THEIR SERVICE CAPABILITIES? WHEN MAY THE PUBLIC REVIEW THESE STUDIES? AS A CITIZEN I AM TROUBLED BY MR. HUGO'S CAVALIER ATTITUDE TOWARD COUNCIL REQUEST FOR DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT. AT A RECENT PUBLIC MEETING WHEN MR. HUGO WAS ASKED WHETHER THE GUIDELINES WERE TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE AND THEREFORE ENFORCEABLE - HE CURTLY REPLIED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAD NOT STATED THAT TO BE A REQUIREMENT, AND WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD ONLY ASK 'I HE DEVELOPERS, NXCEJL Y, 'I 0 COMPJL Y. YOU FIGURE IT OUT - TO A DEVELOPER - DO YOU GO FOR VOLUNTARY DESIGN GUIDELINES - OR PROFIT? ALL THESE MONTHS OF PONTIFICATING ON "DESIGN GUIDELINES" HAVE BEEN A WASTE OF DCD'S SCARCE RESOURCES - IF THOSE GUIDELINES ARE TO BE ONLY UNENFORCEABLE SUGGESTIONS. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT BOTH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PUBLIC ARE ONCE AGAIN BEING HAD BY DOUBLESPEAK AND SLEIGHT OF HAND BY UNELECTED OFFICIALS. ~ - I' ~"~-__~~~~ "--~_ QJ . ...~_ in~~~-:-cM&L()LL~~~- . ~~~ __ _ _~m ~~tnl_CJ.&d-~ , -=~JIMf~-~ --~-~_fA-dt-$.~-f2iuL_~_~ =~~~ _ . ~ _ ~ . J__~ _ _ ----- 1-21t.1i-~It-ct.lffL-~ W~ . ~O'. /i_~-M~~~~~ . ---- I' . ~-rM.~ ~----~~ . I C-:-- ~ :$._LM-VXL~"-=--- __'__~_I .~,._a~ ~;~ ~_ _~-./)1&~ -- -- --L- ..~~ --- ----. ----Jt-. \u~-~ ,jLWp~_i ~_tMl1 C- ~ ~ (j. . . tJhjQ 1ft tYnLlB 7S a. ~ ' , liX &. . . ( ~J47-l4.tnJ- &1m_~_ff/ltdt~~_lLdd_rb_afI-1-f-WJ ~ IhN~~-l(J~~ Q)' /' .- ---,... -...... ~/ -tkZ2W~Jp'Yb , , . ~ ~JSl2 WI VV\ ~ lJ.la~ J ~ L/ /:>AA~..,J 1 ~ II - a~,i I".... ~ -. ..A- I WJ.!!!M __I.~_l m-'T1-7r.J.~---::r-:J:::: L1l~~_C(JM._(_)1t~lL ClmL- '--- --- . ~~--------._---_.,..~~ ", - ~.~ ~ _~:s.L-b --- -., . <: ,- - .,' 'j -' - - Cd#- f-ho~-~- - ~ ~ ~, ~ .... 0"1 --~--~--- ~-fli!!-; Q4f--:/II-a-/liil ( AJ-<</ OJ ) ~~., ~~,.q.._--~~~_1:i1~ (lUt.._i21L.d~_ _ !-1z / ., / .,- -- .~' '-~-, ", ,_~ --'-' .C" ~ -=~ ~ '-,.~ .. ---~ --~.,~.- Aff-~J_/-1L~lii~,U; ~ ~_._--~ ~ --=~~=~___ru~~~ -i19~- ?6/~~ a;;;: I;I!L~_I "--- ----. --ad_(}fI:f&_~j:dJ],(af.. __"'=-_~ rAh._ ~-=~=~. ~~-p_&ft&--~-f-~ - ~, I -~~= =~~ -. ". -r..~Cmf?-lt~vlLi!; --~1li-~b f- _~ -.--:~.srt.~f_t'il . . · ~_~_._ . 1"iI. ~ ~=-=~---g--- L0.-__~.~ yLdi1~~ ~~~~-~. ~~JQ!1~-~-1-~_iD ~1.<!N- ~ . .~ ==:.....- -~.~~ ~-t),O ~_\'_Jw~ --~~--:~-~1!mC6 ~ f- i! ~_~~ -... ~~~ - ~ -10"50 ---- -. , i-v-~ .- frf,-' 7"M-i-/7t7.(7~~-~, -. ~,\~CP-~ ._ ~/[1I~~-f)~-:~-h~-!~~ #h..- l~ M~_ p / ~~ ~~t?//~ .-f1----- /l~ , '\.- '. uU~-Ub-~UUb UU;~~ t"'.Ul ,. COHEN & COMPANY 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITIl: 700 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 TELEN10NE (310) 407-8655 FACSIMILE (310) 407-8656 EMAIL pCOheJl26@h/.tmoll.<lIm JlUle 6, 2006 Hon. Cary Bozeman, Mayor and Honorable Members of the Bremerton City COllllCil ~'. Tim ArnQIa::::> BRADLEY SCOTT, INC. 400 Warren Avenue, Suite 450 Bremerton, W A 98337 Re: Proposed Height Limit Reductions Ladies and Gentlemen: My company. Bremerton Capital Group LLC, owns the Washington MlLtnaI Bank building at 500 Pacific Avenue in downtown Bremerton. The property includes land, currently used for parking, on Pleasant Avenue north of61h Street, as well as land on 6111 Street between Pleasant Avenue and Highland Avenue. The Wasmngton Mutual Bank property was brought to my attention by a real estate agent. After doing substantial research on the revitalization of downtown Bremerton, and learning more about the City's potential, I was convinced that investing in downtown Bremerton would be an excellent decision. I was impressed by the commitment of members ofthe local community to ensure that downtown Bremerton would once again become a center for commercial and residential activity. I also knew that the parking parcels had substantial development potential in that they allowed for development of a 120 foot tall building. I lrnew that plans for development of condominiums along the waterfront, if successful, would provide a great impetus to develop residential units on my property. That is why I bought property in downtown Bremerton. Since my purchase, less than one and one~half years ago, the height limit tor my properties has been cut in half. I understand that additional reductions in the height limit are being considered. I am writing to express my strong opposition to any such measures. uU~-Ub-~UUb UU:~~ t'.U~ ....- For downtown Bremerton to achieve its full potential- which I know it can - the involvement of the investment community at large is necessary. The revitalization certainly benefits from the confidence and energy of investors, such as myself, who are willing to invest in its future. By appealing to both local and non-local investors, Bremerton stands to reap unlimited benefits. By amending existing laws to reduce height limits in downtown Bremerton, the City will significantly undermine the development potential of those properties. Tllls sends the "Wrong message to the investment corrununity. lfthe investment community pulls its resources from downtown Bremerton, then everyone in the City will suffer. I am witnessing an historical resurgence of redevelopment in downtown Los Angeles. Office buildings that had been empty for decades are being converted to residential structures. New high-rise developments are being built for the first time. Once again, night life is coming back to downtown Los Angeles. Those who work in downtown are able to live near to their work. This resurgence has brought a great deal of optimism and excitement to the entire City, particularly the downtown core. Downtown Bremcrton has an opportunity to see similar progress. We cannot let the City destroy the momentum that so many have worked so hard to create. The potential for developing large residential or mixed-used structures in downtown Bremerton will certainly benefit the local residents by increasing the amount of available residential units, and thereby make housing more affordable. I know that local residents are concerned that high-rise developments will have an adverse effect on their properties. I understand these concerns. Every potential development - of any height - will affect its neighboring properties in some way. That is no reason to make such development uneconomical, or to strip property owners of their existing rights to fully develop their propert1es. All ofthe neighboring property owners know, and have known for long periods oftime, that high-rise structures can be built adjacent or neat to their homes. I bought my property with the understanding that a 120-foot development could be built on the parking parcels. Now, I am being told that my property rights must be sacrificed for the benefit of adjacent property owners. Why are my property rights any less worthy of protection than those of my neighbors? Haven't my neighbors known, all along, that their property is near to a property that, one day, could be developed into a 120-foot tall structure? Have my neighbors been hoping, all along, that downtown Bremerton remains in a condition that no one would want to fully maximize the development potential ofms or her property? All along, have my neighbors been hoping for the worst for downtown Bremecton? I respectfully request that the City reconsider the reduction in the height limits for properties in the downtown core. At the very least. I would ask that the City ~. not further undemline our abilities to develop these properties by reducing the allowed height limits even more. These changes not only hurt the investment community, but they hurt all of Bremer ton. \, Yours very truly, ,/ Peter Cohen, forI U'erton Capital Gronp ILC Commissioners: KITSAP COUNTY CONSOLIDATED HOUSING AUTHORITY PATTY LENT, Chair KATHRYN QUADE, Vice Chair KIM ABEL JAN ANGEL CHRIS ENDRES EN TROY ERICKSON PAR~!;N!; KORpONOWY Executive Director NORMAN McLOUGHLIN June 6, 2006 The Honorable Cecil McConnell, President Bremerton City Council 345 6th Street, 6th Floor Bremerton, W A 98337 Dear Cecil, We understand that the City Council is scheduled to consider building height limits in the Highland and Pleasant Avenue area north of 6th Street. As your Community Renewal Agency the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority is very conc~rned (ibout the outcome of your discussions. We are proud that we have been able to - in partnership with the City Council and the Mayor - be part of the renewal effort that is helping Bremerton reclaim its place as Kitsap County's regional center. We are especially pleased to be part ofBremerton's success through our major developments of the Norm Dicks Government Center and the Harborside Condominiums. The Harborside Condominiums, and our neighbors, The 400 Condominiums, will bring nearly 150 new residences into the downtown core. Your commitment to downtown renewal is a key part of making this effort successful. One of the first questions that regional and national private investors ask us (is they ~onsider Bremerton is whether the city leadership is committed to help ensure that downtown achieves the critical mass necessary to support businesses like a destination grocery store and retail. As you may be aware, investors are looking for a minimum population of 2,000 in the downtown core to make moving here economically viable. To make this happen, we need to ensure that the core - which includes the Highland neighborhood - has the zoning necessary to include some multifamily developments. If some of these developments are to be located in tbe Hjghl,mg neighborhood, it is critical that they are a good fit for that area. Underground parking is going to be one of the key elements necessary to maintain the character of this neighborhood. In our experience, it costs about $25,000 per stall to build underground parking. This expense will only "pencil" financially if developers build enough units to offset the costs. 9307 Bayshore Drive N. W · Silver dale, Washington 98383-9113 Main (360) 535-6100 1# TDD (360) 535-6106 " Fax (360) 535-6107 http://www.kccha.ora tI a HUD approved certified Housing Counseling Agency We know it's tempting to split the difference between the desires of the neighborhood and potential developers - a well thought-out compromise if often the best solution. But in this case, a compromise of 50 feet would do more to harm the character of this neighborhood than preserve it. That's because a limit of 50 feet would make it economically impossible to design the building with features like sloping roofs, which is a key historical design element in that neighborhood. On the other hand, a 60 foot limit would allow this and other design elements that would fit in. We strongly urge you to establish the building height limit along Pleasant and Highland Avenues north of 6lh Street at no lower than 60 feet. Respectfully, Patty Len hair Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority Board of Commissioners I'M THE CHAIR OF THE KITSAP COUNTY CONSOLIDATED HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHRIS ENDRESEN AND JAN ANGEL, AND THE MAYORS OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, PORT ORCHARD, AND POULSBO, AND A RESIDENT OF KCCHA HOUSING. THE CITY APPOINTED KCCHA TO SERVE AS BREMERTON'S COMMUNITY RENEWAL AGENCY IN 2002. WE ARE PROUD OF OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND YOUR MA YOR.PROUD TO BE PART OF THE RENEWAL EFFORT THAT IS HELPING BREMER TON RECLAIM ITS PLACE AS KITSAP COUNTY'S URBAN CENTER. AS YOU KNOW, WE DEVELOPED THE NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, AND ARE BUILDING THE HARBORSIDE CONDOMINIUMS, WHICH WILL BE SOLD TO PRIVATE OWNERS AND PUT BACK ON THE TAX ROLLS. THE HARBORSIDE CONDOMINIUMS, AND OUR NEIGHBORS, THE 400 CONDOMINIUMS, WILL BRING NEARLY 150 NEW RESIDENCES INTO THE DOWNTOWN CORE. WE ARE WORKING WITH A NATIONALLY KNOWN LUXURY HOTEL DEVELOPER ON PLANS TO ADD A HIGH-END HOTEL TO THE WATERFRONT. WE ARE ALSO NEGOTIATING WITH DESTINATION RETAILERS ABOUT MOVING HERE. ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS THAT REGIONAL AND NA TIONALPRIV A TE INVESTORS ASK US AS THEY CONSIDER BREMER TON IS WHETHER THE CITY LEADERSHIP IS COMMITTED TO HELPING ENSURE THAT DOWNTOWN ACHIEVES THE CRITICAL MASS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT BUSINESSES LIKE A DESTINATION GROCERY STORE AND RETAIL. EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON BUILDING HEIGHTS WOULD BE A NEGATNE SIGNAL. PRN A TE INVESTORS CONSISTENTLY TELL US THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A MINIMUM POPULATION OF 2,000 IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE TO MAKE MOVING HERE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE CORE - WHICH INCLUDES THE HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD - HAS THE ZONING NECESSARY TO INCLUDE SOME MUL TIF AMIL Y DEVELOPMENTS. THE CURRENT DOWNTOWN CORE POPULATION IS NO MORE THAN ABOUT 700, AND WILL BE NO MORE THAN ABOUT 925 WHEN ALL OF THE CONDOMINIUMS ARE FULLY OCCUPIES. THE HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD IS A SPECIAL AREA, AND ANY DEVELOPMENTS THERE MUST BE SPECIALLY DESIGNED TO FIT IN THERE. UNDERGROUND PARKING IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IN OUR EXPERIENCE, IT COSTS ABOUT $25,000 PER STALL TO BUILD UNDERGROUND PARKING. THIS EXPENSE WILL ONLY "PENCIL" FINANCIALLY IF DEVELOPERS BUILD ENOUGH UNITS TO OFFSET THE COSTS. WE KNOW IT'S TEMPTING TO SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS - A WELL THOUGHT-OUT COMPROMISE IF OFTEN THE BEST SOLUTION. BUT IN THIS CASE, A COMPROMISE OF 50 FEET WOULD DO MORE TO HARM THE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAN PRESERVE IT. THAT'S BECAUSE A LIMIT OF 50 FEET WOULD MAKE IT ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DESIGN THE BUILDING WITH FEATURES LIKE SLOPING ROOFS, WHICH IS A KEY HISTORICAL DESIGN ELEMENT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. ON THE OTHER HAND, A 60 FOOT LIMIT WOULD ALLOW THIS AND OTHER DESIGN ELEMENTS, INCLUDING UNDERGROUND PARKING, THAT WOULD FIT IN. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO ESTABLISH THE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT ALONG PLEASANT AND HIGHLAND A VENUES NORTH OF 6TH STREET AT NO LOWER THAN 60 FEET. Not too hIgh on Highland Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgLcom] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 200610:59 PM To: City Council Subject: Not too high on Highland Please vote for 50 feet. That is high enough. Kind regards, Nels Royer Highland Ave. 6/7/2006 kitsapsun.com: Opinion Page 1 of2 kitsapsun.com To print this page, select File then Print from your browser URL: http:j jwww.kitsapsun.comjbsunjopinionjarticlejO.2403.BSUN_19097_4748475.00.html Seeking Common Ground to Build on Highland Ave. June 4, 2006 To what limit should individ-uals' interests be overshadowed by the common good? Or can they somehow build accord on common ground? Those questions will be facing Bremerton City Council members when they grapple with regulating building heights on a small but distinctive section of the city's "Downtown Regional Center." Specifically at issue are height limits for new buildings on Highland Avenue. Previously, the city's comprehensive plan that allowed 120-foot-high buildings on Highland as well as other parts of the downtown center, an area designated for high-density population in keeping with the city's projected growth and the state's Growth Management Act. That limit was in place for more than two decades until the plan development rules were revisited by the city late last year. Since then, between the city council and the planning commission, proposed or adopted height limits on Highland have gone from the existing 120 feet to 45 to 50 to 40 to 60. Why the gyrations? Because city officials have been divided between satisfying the desires of would-be condominium developers on Highland - who say they need at least 60 feet - and of some Highland residents, including council member Wendy Priest, who want heights limited to 40 feet. Currently, there's a moratorium on buildings more than 40 feet tall in the area. It's a temporary measure written to expire after design guidelines are written to ensure taller buildings would be good fit with existing homes on Highland - but no later than June 13. After that, if no additional council action is taken, the heights will go to the 60-foot limit adopted by the council late last year. But Priest said this Wednesday, she plans to introduce a motion to limit heights on Highland to 40 feet or perhaps, as she told our editorial board, to 45 feet. Priest also supports developing subarea plans for different areas of the city that would add details, such as design guidelines not covered in the comprehensive plan as a whole. We agree with Priest that subarea plans can playa vital role in melding the city's economic and population growth needs with design visions appropriate for our community. Subarea plans should begin with the downtown center and, throughout, have significant participation from city residents. Our board members also appreciate, and somewhat agree with, Priest's concerns about maintaining the distinctive character of Highland Avenue, which includes many homes built in the first half of the last century. Our board disagrees with her proposed heights limits of 40 or 45 feet, which we feel are too restrictive for feasible development of multi-floor, multi-family housing. Among other things, the restriction on height probably would preclude underground parking, meaning far more cars would be parking on an already- crowded street. However, we also feel that 60 feet may well be too high to keep any semblance of an attractive, early-20th- century residential neighborhood. We recommend a 50-foot height be adopted, which would allow construction of four-story condominiums with the potential for underground parking. Design guidelines proposed by the city for Highland also have shown that with attention to detail, multi-floor condominiums or apartments can be built to blend harmoniously into an older residential neighborhood. http://www.kitsapsun.comfbsunlcda/artic1e-print/O, 1983,BSUN _19097_4748475 _ARTIe... 6/13/2006 kitsapsun.com: Opinion Page 2 of2 By so doing, city officials would create that "common ground" needed for developers and longtime residents to move forward in a shared vision incorporating the heritage of Bremerton's past with its needs for the future. Copyright 2006, kitsapsun.com. All Rights Reserved. !O~ck~L.andPatiQ$ "Get free quotes from the best local deck and patio builders. thttp://www.renovalionexperts.com/ VlfaJmIYYQursFIQQJJ:::I~atingSY$t!:m$ Easy-to-install floor warming systems, ready to ship the same day with UPS. Free industry-leading 24/7 technical support. YWVWWARML YYOURS.COM Meet Catholic Singles! Join Free! A real community of Catholic singles. N ww. CalholicMatch. com Buya link here http://www.kitsapsun.com/bsun/cda/article -print/O, 1983,BSUN_19097 _4748475 _ARTIe... 6/13/2006 BILL # O~-IIS DATE SUBMITTED: AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SA ........................................................................................ SUBJECT: Claim & Checks Register Approval Committee Meeting Date: COUNCIL MEETING Date: Department: Presenter: Phone: (p -- 7 -0(; Financial Services Cathy Johnson SUMMARY: ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL IMP ACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): APPROVALS: DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: \ CONSENT AGENDA ~ I RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve: .1) Cbeck#'s ~()2"~- '309;29 . $ ~33~d7~, 7? $& 13 7 33, ) (J $ !;Z~ 7/3" u7 ~ /Ol) w S-O. 53 o ContinueD No Action DATE SUBMITTED: 5! 25/0 (p BILL# O~ - II (P AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 55 ........................................................................................ SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting - MaL( ~~ I ;;1.00 b . Committee Meeting Date: N/A COUNCIL MEETING Date: Tun~ 7, ~oCo Department: City Council' Presenter: Cecil McConnell, Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached are the meeting minutes for the Council Meeting held (Y\ G\. L( c:J-l..{ j ::Lo 0 ~ . ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes forMtA t-( J.-4) :2.0 0 (P. I FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROV ALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: CONSENT AGEND:-~ FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: / COUNCIL PRESIDENT: /6,~;::;,.'-:~"(./~~f?1:~~;?::~,,:{.;::;r;<<::;( RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass the CONSENT AGENDA as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve '--'D LJ ell} r-' or ' , U . SOle ['Continue --; o _~~io i\.ctt-oH DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 24, 2006 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 5:30 PM, with Council President Cecil McConnell presiding. Council members present were Nick Wofford, Will Maupin, Carol Arends, Dianne Robinson, Mike Shepherd, Wendy Priest, Adam Brockus, and Brad Gehring. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich, City Clerk Paula Johnston, and Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Brad Gehrina followed by the invocation provided by Reverend Ron Anderson of Manette Community Church. President McConnell announced that a Pre-Council Session to discuss General Council Business, including a briefing by AUDITHEAD LLC, was held in Council Conference Room 603 from 5:00 to 5:30 PM; and if citizens would like to receive information on upcoming Council meetings, they may go to the City's website at httpJ/vvwvY:...'1i.bremertofU,i\l8.US, or call the Council Office at (360) 473-5280. PUBLIC RECOGNITION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Norman Abbott, Director of Growth Management Planning & SEPA Responsible Official from the PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (PSRC) was here to provide a Power Point presentation on the "Vision 2020 Update - Draft Environmental Impact Statement". A full copy of the report can be found on the PSRC website at wW\N.viston.f..020.p:?fc.org. There will be a 60-day period from June 1 to July 31,2006 for public comments which can be made by visiting the PSRC website or by sending an e-mail toYL~ion2020Y.pd~te@psrc.om. Frank Horton Amateur Public Links General Chairperson announced that the 81st U.S. Amateur Public Links Golf Championship will be held from July 10 to 15 at the Gold Mountain Golf Complex. Anyone who wishes to volunteer may contact him at (360) 373-6322. President McConnell announced that the Community Development Department will host a public Open House on a minor update to the City's Shoreline Master Program. The public is invited to learn about improvements to public shoreline access, and to discuss minor program changes related to the City's new environmental rules. The Open House will be held on Monday, June 5, 2006 from 6:00 to 8:00 PM in the Meeting Chambers of the Norm Dicks Government Center. Ed Pietras and Ivan Weich invited the Council and public to attend the 2nd Annual Memorial Day Service to be held on Monday, May 29th beginning at 10:00 AM at the Miller-Woodlawn Cemetery. Helen Miller read a statement to express her concern about the "continuous opposition" raised by a Council Member during Study Sessions regarding the two recent committee appointments of John Ales, who was a "respected candidate for the City Council from District 3". Jason Clacklev, representing a group of teens interested in finding a building for a Teen Center as a replacement for the Tiki House, which is a resident garage where bands play and teens hang out, stated that they were directed to talk with the Mayor when this issue was brought before the Council at the meeting on May 3, 2006. The group is concerned that the Mayor is not interested in this project; and therefore they were back to again ask the Council for assistance. Mike Shepherd offered his assistance to help the group of teens get organized. City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, May 24,2006 Page 2 of 3 Mike Shepherd announced that he and fellow Council Member Dianne Robinson would be hosting a joint District 5 & 6 Community Meeting tomorrow beginning at 6:30 PM at the Girl Scout Hall located at 1109 Warren Avenue to provide citizens an opportunity to learn more about "Preparing for Pandemic Influenza". Adam Brockus invited the public to attend a joint District 3 & 4 Community Meeting with fellow Council Member Wendy Priest on Tuesday, May 30th beginning at 7:00 PM at the Manette Senior Center located at the corner of East 13th Street & Nipsic Avenue to hear an "Update on the Boardwalk Project" from Public Works & Utilities Director Phil Williams. CONSENT AGENDA A. Check Numbers 308534 through 308854; and EFT-9005 through EFT-9006; EFT-9008 through EFT-9020; and 9007P in the amount of $1,115,320.29 (#AB06-110) B. Meeting Minutes - May 3, 2006 (#AB06-111) C. Meeting Minutes - May 10, 2006 (#AB06-112) D. Meeting Minutes - May 17, 2006 (#AB06-113) E. Contract Award to BANK OF AMERICA for Primary Banking Services (#AB06-114) There were no comments from the public. 6:15:48 M/S/C/U (Priest/Arends) Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. With no further business, the meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 6:16 PM. The Council reconvened in the Council Conference Room 603 for a STUDY SESSION to hear presentations on upcoming agenda items. Prepared and Submitted by: ~5;;diu LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant Attest: PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk CECIL McCONNELL, City Council President CM/PJ/ls/cg ..-. ~ r' ~, DATE SUBMITTED: May 18, 2006 BILL # 06 - 117 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 5c ........................................................................................ SUBJECT: Ordinance No.' 4q7.;;L. amending Subsection 20.60.065(f) of the Bremerton Municipal Code to make a technical correction Committee Meeting Date: May 24, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 7, 2006 Department: Community Development Presenter: Andrea Spencer Phone: 473-5202 SUMMARY: City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4950 on November 30,2005 establishing a new Zoning Code. Ordinance 4950 was updated by Ordinance No. 4971. One amendment to Subsection 20.60.065(f) BMC was inadvertently omitted in Ordinance No. 4971, however, the amendment was discussed and approved during the City Council study session and public hearing relating to Ordinance No. 4971. The proposed ordinance makes the technical correction to Subsection 20.60.065(f) in order to correct Ordinance No. 4971. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed OrdinanceN O. 4-0. 7J.- FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. APPROV ALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: -", -- FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 4q '1 d-amending Subsection 20.60.065(f) BMC. CONSENT AGENDA [0" /' ,--... COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny 0 Table o Continue 0 No Action ORDINANCE NO; AD?- AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Subsection 20.60.065(f) of the Bremerton Municipal Code to make a technical correction. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4950 on November 30,2005 establishing a new Zoning Code. Ordinance 4950 was updated by Ordinance No. 4971; and WHEREAS, one amendment to Subsection 20.60.065(f) BMC was inadvertently omitted in the ordinance, however, the amendment was discussed and approved during the City Council study session and the public hearing relating to Ordinance No. 4971; and WHEREAS, City Council desires to make the technical correction to Subsection 20.60.065(f) in order to correct Ordinance No. 4971; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Subsection 20.60.065(f) of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Determining Neighborhood Compatibility and Neighborhood Average Lot Area" relating to Low Density Residential zones is amended to read as follows: (f) Determining Neighborhood Compatibility and Neighborhood Average Lot Area: New development is required to be compatible WIth the density of the surrounding neighborhood. Compatibility is determined by calculating the average lot area of all existing lots within three hundred (300) one hundred fifty (150) feet from the outer boundaries of the site subject to the following standards: (1) All lots greater than 8,712 square feet shall be rounded down to 8,712 square feet to determine average lot area; (2) The current platted and un-platted tax lot boundaries recorded with the Kitsap County Assessor shall be used to determine average lot area; (3) Flag Lots meeting the requirements in BMC Section 20.44.100 shall have their lot area divided by one and one-half (1.5) to be used to determine lot area; (4) All lots containing two (2) or more dwelling units (not including Accessory Dwelling Units) and all lots containing non-residential uses shall be rounded down to 4,300 square feet to determine average lot area; (5) All lots containing multi-family residential uses with twenty five (25) or more units shall be considered ten lots with area of 4,300 square feet each for the purposes of this calculation. No further bonus is allowed regardless of the number of units exceeding twenty five (25). SECTION 2. Severabilitv. If anyone or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not 1 Title 20 Technical Amendments "..' i. : ~ affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after the date of passage as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2006 CECIL McCONNELL, Council President Approved this day of ,2006 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: P AULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the EFFECTIVE the ORDINANCE NO. day of day of ,2006 ,2006 R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\2005 Zoning Code Amendment\Title 20 technical correction.2.doc 2 Title 20 Technical Amendments DATE SUBMITTED: 5-16-06 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTQN CITY COUNCIL 'bi II ~ 0 (0 - \ l 8 5D ........................................................................................ SUBJECT: BKA T Service Agreement with Kitsap County Committee 'Meeting Date: 5-24-06 COUNCIL MEETING Date: 6-07 -06 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Laura Lyon Phone: 473-5722 SUMMARY: The City manages Bremerton Kitsap Access Television ("BKA T") - providing production and access services to Kitsap County under a professional services contract. The current professional service contract which was executed on January 11, 1999 and as subsequently amended and extended, has now expired and is in need of replacement. Staff is recommending the City Council approve execution of a new professional services contract with the County that provides for continued provision of BKA T production and access services for a period of 3 years with the annual fee as established in the first year being adjusted each year thereafter during the contract term by an agreed upon published CPI index. ATTACHMENTS: Discussion Memorandum and Service Contract FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Provides revenues for the Public Access Television Fund to support operational costs. FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Bremerton Kitsap Access Television Service Contract with Kitsap County and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement in substantially the form as presented. APPROVALS: DEP ARTMENT DIRECTO CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: 7f/ (/ CONSENT AGENDA Ja " COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table D Continue D No Action ='_',',_.. ,-.---, ',,-.-," , _r.____ '_'c i..............,.....,...".,......m~" ~.' '.~.',........,... ;' ri) ... ;;~.;:>> ".-CO' ,-", ,0 .,. " Z.;:\::i::t.:,:,/;,,;:::,: / !,:.;:o-c :-~:L- "/ilt"..! Memorandum dPA~ To: Re: City Council Mayor Cary Bozeman Laura Lyon, Director of Financial servicesf BKA T Service Contract with Kitsap County From: Date: May 16, 2006 Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (BKA T) is an important resource for the City of Bremerton and for the greater Kitsap community. The City manages BKA T and has provided production and access services through professional service agreements with Kitsap County and the City of Poulsbo (among others). In addition, the City has operated under a separate funding agreement with Kitsap County - which provides BKA T with the County's Public, Education, and Government (PEG) pass through fe~s collected pursuant to their cable franchise agreements. The County PEG fees are provided to BKA T for the purpose of ensuring public access television is provided throughout the County. After a lengthy process, the City and County staff came to a mutually agreed upon service contract for production and access services from BKA 1. Council approved this agreement for execution on March 1, 2006. However, the County Commissioners when presented with the agreement from their staff - did not similarly approve it for execution. They were unwilling to enter into an agreement for the length of time specified (10 years) and wanted the scope of services reduced. Upon the request of the County, the contract has been revised to reduce the term of the agreement from 10 years to a 3 year period, and the scope of services covered has been reduced changing the first year annual payments from $45,000 to $37,500. The remainders of the contract terms are the same, including a CPI adjustment for each of the years subsequent to the first year of the agreement. However, because the terms of the contract have materially changed from the original document approved by City Council - it is being brought back to the Council for approval. City Council is being asked to approve the professional service contract with the County for production and access services from BKA T. It is independent of the Funding Agreement and required at this time because the existing service agreement expired at the end of 2005. A new agreement is needed to be executed so that the County can begin remitting payments for the 2006 services they have been receiving in 2006 to date and to continue providing required revenues to the Public Access Television Fund for operational costs. I have received assurances from the County that this agreement as revised will be brought before the Commission for action on June 5th and is expected to be approved at that time. The remaining agreement (Funding Agreement) will be brought to the Council in the future - once staff work is completed. The County recently concluded their franchise agreement process with Comcast and is now in a position to describe the PEG funds availability. The City has previously provided them with a proposed draft agreement and is awaiting them to provide their proposed revisions. "";"-', (-.-::-, 1_ _.~," :---::~ KC-124-06 BREMERTON KITSAPACCESS TELEVISION SERVICE CONTRACT KITSAP COUNTY The City of Bremerton (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Kitsap County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), referred to collectively as the "Parties," enter into the following Agreement on this 5th day of June 2006: . Section 1. Scope of Services. The City, through Bremerton Kitsap Access Television (hereinafter referred to as BKA T), shall provide governmental access television services including but not limited to video production and program scheduling related to the County's commitments as outlined in this Agreement. BKAT shall provide technical support, consultation; pre-production and post-production services; properly trained staff and volunteers including videographer for field assignments; proceeding/event tape duplication and delivery no later than the 2nd business day following completion of project to program sponsor; and coordination of programming hours and studio time. BKAT's specified number of service commitments covered by this agreement are herein established: Description Kitsap County Service Commitments Number per Location Schedule Year Estimated Time per Event Kitsap County County Courthouse First and Third Commission / Administration Monday of each Meetings Building month (9am - 24 4 hours ,,1. . .,Jpm) , :, ~.' ~ '. ~ County Courthouse Kitsap County / Administration Hearing Examiner Building As requested 16 3 hours Kitsap County Planning County Courthouse Commission / Administration Meetings Building As requested 6 8 hours Miscellaneous Various Locations Meetings, Forums, throughout the Workshops, Etc. County As requested 14 6 hours Kitsap County Various Locations Department throughout the Programs County As requested 2 12 hours The County shall retain control over program content and designate one person to authorize and schedule programs produced under this agreement. BKA T shall provide production and playback of regularly scheduled Board of County Commissioners and Hearing Examiner meetings. Production requests by the County beyond the scope of this Agreement will be taken on a per production basis. Fees for these services are separate from this Agreement and shall be determined by the applicable rate schedule as published by BKA T. Production schedules and timelines for services beyond the scope of this Agreement shall be determined by the Parties at the time of request. The County shall have total control over content of special productions. BKA T will work with the County to establish regular, consistent playback times for programs produced under this agreement. Once scheduled, program times shall not be moved, altered or deleted without consent of the County. Section 2. Payment Oblieations. In consideration for the services rendered from January 2006 through the date of execution of this Agreement and further in consideration for the future services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement the Parties agree to compensation as follows: The County shall pay the City on a quarterly basis, l/4th of the current annual amount as specified herein. Services rendered beyond the scope of this Agreement, as set forth in Section 1, shall be billed in addition to the annual amount at the rates established and published by BKAT. The annual payment for services provided will be $37,500 for 2006. The City will submit quarterly invoices in January, April, July, and October to the County. The billings for the first year of the contract will be as follows; July 2006 - $18,750 (covering the first two quarters of 2006), October 2006 - $9,375 and January 2007 - $9,375. Each year thereafter, on January 1 , the annual amount will be recalculated based upon the amount paid in the prior year increased by the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) - All Urban Consumers - as published in September of the prior year. The City will use the recalculated annual amount divided by four to prepare the quarterly billings to the County beginning with the April billing of each year. Each quarterly invoice will include a listing of actual hours used by the County during the billing period. It is the responsibility of the County to ensure payments are completed in a timely manner. Section 3. Term. This Service Agreement shall be for a period of three (3) years commencing January 1,2006 and terminating December 31, 2008. Section 4. Termination. Either party to this Service Agreement may terminate the agreement without cause upon giving one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to the other party. Section 5. Severability. In the event any provision in this Agreement is deemed unconstitutional, illegal, or void as a matter of law, the parties agree that all of the provisions of this Agreement that are not affected by such occurrence, shall constitute a full and complete Agreement between the parties. Section 6. Indemnifv and Hold Harmless. The County and City shall each indemnify, defend, and hold the other harmless from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, causes of action, losses, damage, or liabilities arising or resulting from any alleged negligent or intentional acts or omissions arising out of the performance or non performance of their respective responsibilities as set out in this agreement. Section 7. Notices. All notices and other communications to be given by either party may be given in writing addressed to the appropriate party as follows: Director of Firiahcial Services City of Bremerton 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, Washington 98337 Department of Information Services Director Kitsap County 614 Division Street MS-21 Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Section 8. Compliance with Laws. The Parties shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in performing their obligations under this Agreement. Section 9. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in the Kitsap County Superior Court. Section 10. Assi2nment. Any assignment of any portion of this Agreement shall not be made without the written consent of both Parties. Section 11. Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of that provision. Waiver of any right of power arising out of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any other right or power. day of ,2006.. Dated this CITY OF BREMERTON CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney day of ,2006. Dated this BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITSAP COUNTY WASHINGTON J an Angel, Chair Patty Lent, Commissioner Chris Endresen, Commissioner ATTEST; Opal Robertson Clerk of the Board ~ 1, : DATE SUBMITTED: May 17,2006 BILL # () " - II q AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COuNCIL loA ...,..................................................................................... SUBJECT: Ordinance No. L/q 7:3 amending Chapter 9.48 BMC relating to fireworks Committee Meeting Date: May 24, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 7, 2006 Department: City Attorney's Office Presenter: Ken Bagwell Phone: 473-2345 SUMMARY: In the interest of public safety, the current provisions of Chapter 9.48 BMC entitled "Fireworks" should be updated in order to clarify when and how fireworks may be sold, and the times for discharge of fireworks in Bremerton. The proposed ordinance updates the provisions of Chapter 9.48 BMC. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): ------~_._-_..-;;::=~--;-----~ APPROVALS: \ ~~--.:=..::::S:2 -:=~:;::-.::::::.-=-~___:::> DEPARTMENTDffiECTOR:~X ~~~ ~ --- CITY ATTORNEY: I / i .,_-----.- FINANCE DffiECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: I CONSENT AGENDA ~ //' / ,......f RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 4 q 73 amending Chapter 9.48 BMC entitled "Fireworks." COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny D Table D Continue D No Action , ,j'" ORDINANCE NO. ~ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 9.48 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fireworks. WHEREAS, the City Council, in the interests of public safety, desires to update the provisions of Chapter 9.48 in order to clarify when and how fireworks may be sold, and the times for discharge of fireworks in Bremerton; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 9.48 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Fireworks" is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 9.48 FIREWORKS 9.48.010 PERMIT - REQUIRED - FEE. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to engage in the retail sale of, or to sell any fireworks within the City \vithout first having obtained a permit for the year of such sale. Application for all local fireworks permits required by the State Fireworks law, Chapter 70.77 RCW shall be made to the fire marshall. The fees for such permits shall be as set forth in BMC 3.01. 9.48.020 PERMIT - CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE. A permit for the sale of fireworks shall be issued only upon the following terms and conditions: (a) The applicant shall have a valid and subsisting license issued by the State Fire Marshal authorizing the holder thereof to engage in the retail sale of safe and sane fireworks only. (b) The applicant shall have and keep in full force and effect a policy of insurance approved by the City's Attorney Risk Manager saving the City harmless for any acts or failures of the permittee, in accordance with RCW 70.77.the follo'.ving amounts: (1) One hundred thousand dollars or more for injury to anyone person in one accident or occurrence; (2) Three hundred thousand dollars for injury to more than one person for anyone accident or occurrence. (3) Fifty thousand dollars for injury to or loss ofproporty in anyone accident or occurrence. (c) The location of a proposed place of business shall comply with the zoning ordinances of the City. (d) The applicant shall provide a land lease agreement for the location of the proposed place of business signed by the land owner or his authorized representative. 1 Fireworks (e) The applicant shall provide a scale drawing of the location of the proposed place of business showing the relationship of the fireworks stand to streets and other buildings. (f) The applicant shall submitthe name, address and phone number of the person or persons responsible for the fireworks stand. (g) The applicant shall submit the address of all storage locations for stock that is kept on reserve and not on display for sale. (h) No permit applications shall be processed or accepted after the first day of June of the year of sale. (i) The applicant shall post a fifty dollar cash bond conditioned upon the prompt removal of the temporary stand and the cleaning up of all debris from the site. If the permittee removes such temporary stand and cleans up all of the debris before the tenth day of July of the permit year, he shall be entitled to the return ofthe fifty dollars. 9048.030 STANDS - CONFORMANCE TO REGULATIONS REQUIRED. (a) Only "common fireworks" authorized by WAC 212.17, except toy caps, shall be sold only from temporary stands which conform to the written rules and regulations of the fire chief of the City. (b) Each fireworks stand shall have an adult (18 years of age or older) in attendance at all times. No person under the age of 16 years old shall be allowed inside the stand. (c) A sign stating "NO SALE OF FIREWORKS TO ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 16 YEARS OLD, PHOTO ID REQUIRED". (d) All permittees shall conform to the minimum standards and conditions set forth in the Rules and Regulations for Retail Fireworks Stands by the Fire Chief. 9A8JHO PERlVIIT Lll\fIT,\TION ON NUMBER NONTR\NSFER}1BLE. Each permittee is entitled to not more than one retail outlet, and such permits are nontransferable. 9.48.0MO HOURS AND DAYS OF SALE AND DISCHARGE. (a) No person shall use or explode any fireworks within the City except from 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on July 4th of any year or as part of a public display authorized pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington. It shall not be legal to use or discharge fireworks at any other time, specifically including, without limitation, from 6:00 p.m. on December 31 st of any year until 1 :00 a.m. on January 1 st of the subsequent year. Only "common fireworks" authorized by WAC 212.17 are to be discharged during that the authorized time period. (b) Sales of fireworks shall be prohibited except from twelve 0' clock noon to 11:00 lU!l:....on June 28th; and from 9:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on each day from June 29th through July 4th to 11 :00 p.m. July ifth, in any calendar year. Nothing in this provision shall make it illegal to have public displays of fireworks when approved by the Bremerton Fire Department in accordance with the Bremerton Municipal Code. J c) It is unlav.'ful for any person to discharge or use fire'Norks in a reckless manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person or damage to property of another. (df) The possession of any class or kind of fireworks in violation of the provisions of this Chapter is prohibited. 2 Fireworks 9.48.0(}50 STATE STATUTE APPLICABILITY. This ch~pter is intended to implement RCW 70.77, and shall be construed in connection with said laws and all rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto. 9.48.060 RECKLESS DISCHARGE OR USE OF FIREWORKS. It is unlawful for any person to discharge or use fireworks in a reckless manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical iniury to another person or damage to the property of another. 9.48.070 PENALTY FOR VIOLATION. Any person failing to comply with the provisions of this chapter, or rules or regulations of the Fire Chief of the City, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both. Except that any person violating the provisions ofBMC 9.48.060 shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment not to exceed one (1 ) year and a fine not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). A person is guilty of a separate offense for each day during which he or she commits or continues to permit a violation ofthe provisions ofthis chapter. 9.48.080 ENFORCING OFFICER DESIGNATED. The Fire Chief of the City or his duly authorized representative is designated as the enforcing officer ofthis chapter. 9.48.090 PERMIT REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION - AUTHORITY. The Fire Chief may at any time suspend or revoke any permit issued under this provision of this Chapter, if the permittee has: (a) Violated any of the provisions of this Chapter, or any of his servants, agents or employees have done so; (b) Made any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in connection with obtaining the permit; (c) Failed to obtain or has had any license required by the State of Washington to engage in any act prohibited by RCW Chapter 70.77, or this Chapter, to be done without a license, suspended or revoked; (d) Has had any insurance coverage required by this Chapter cancelled, revoked, or lapsed. SECTION 2. Effective Date of Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 70.77 the provisions of Subsection 9.48.040 of Section 1 of this ordinance shall take effect and be in force one year from the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 3. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 3 Fireworks SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2006 CECIL McCONNELL, Council President Approved this day of ,2006 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the EFFECTIVE the ORDINANCE NO. day of day of ,2006 ,2006 R: \Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Fire\F ireworks Ordinance.doc 4 Fireworks DATE SUBMITTED: May 30,2006 BILL# 60 - l:J-o AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COuNCIL 7A .................mm..................................................................... SUBJECT: HEARING AND ORDINANCE # 4cn ~ VACATING 240 FEET OF LAFAYETTE AVENUE LYING JUST SOUTH OF 6TH STREET. Committee Meeting Date: COU1~CIL MEETING Date: Department: Presenter: Phone: ff\iA.~ [D j :J-oo Co June ,2006 PW&U, Engineering Michaei C. Mecham 473.5288 SUMMARY: The City received a petition from Kuntheary P. Goodson and signed by 100% of the abutting property owners to vacate 240 feet of Lafayette Avenue, lying just south of 6th Street. This date has been scheduled for a public hearing on the proposed ordinance vacating the subject property in accordance with state law and the Bremerton Municipal Code. This is a Class III right-of-way and compensation is not required in accordance with BMC 11.20.080. ATTACHMENTS: 1.) Ordinance # 4q74 ; 2.) Aerial Exhibit FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No Impact. APPROVALS: DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MAYOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance # 111.1 vacating 240 feet of Lafayette Avenue lying just south of 6th Street. I CONSENT AGENDA D I COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny 0 Table D Continue D No Action ab/Agenda Bills 2006!ROW Vac Lafayette/Ag Bill for Ord ORDINANCE NO.ttC\1l\- AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, relating to the vacation of 240 feet of Lafayette Avenue lying just south of 6th Street in the City of Bremerton. WHEREAS, the City received an application and petition from Kuntheary P. Goodson to vacate 240 feet of Lafayette A venue lying just south of 6th Street in the City of Bremerton; and WHEREAS, the City passed Resolution No. 2996 declaring its intention to vacate 240 feet of Lafayette Avenue lying just south of 6th Street, which resolution also set a hearing to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent of the property owners abutting said right-of- way signed a petition to vacate said right-of-way prior to the time set for public hearing herein; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held with proper notice on June 7, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of the Norm Dicks Government Center to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the public to proceed with the vacation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The 240 feet of Lafayette Avenue lying just south of 6th Street in the City of Bremerton, as described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby vacated to the petitioner, Kuntheary P.Goodson. SECTION 3. No vested rights shall be affected by the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 4. Severabilitv. If anyone or more section, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. Street Vacation - Lafayette Avenue South of 6TH Street SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordihance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2006. PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2006. CECIL McCONNELL, Council President Approved this day of ,2006. CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Paula Johnston, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the EFFECTIVE the ORDINANCE NO. day of day of ,2006. ,2006. 2 Street Vacation - Lafayette Avenue South of 6TH Street EXHIBIT A Legal Description Right-Of-Way Vacation A portion of Lafayette Avenue south of 6th Street THAT PORTION OF LAFAYETTE AVENUE SITUATE WITHIN THE PLAT OF FIRST ADDITION TO CHARLESTON AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 4 OF PLATS, PAGE 57, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ABUTTING THE FOLLOWING: LOTS 1 THROUGH 8, INCLUSIVE, AND THE NORTH 10 FEET OF LOT 9, OF BLOCK 1 OF SAID PU\ T; LOTS 1 THROUGH 8, INCLUSIVE, OF BLOCK 2 OF SAID PLAT. r .1 FOR VA CA T/ON OF POR T/ON LAFA YETTE A VENUE SEC 75J T24NJ R7EJ WM c/ TY OF BREMER TON 4/20/06 - G.F. APPL/CAN T - GOODSON DATE SUBMITTED: March 13,2006 BILL # 0 6- 01 / AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 78 .c:~t~~.~~.~~.p;p;~..i~:~~.~...................................................... SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Resolution Committee Meeting Date: March 22, 2006 No. 2993 on the change of use and future COUNCIL MEETING Date: 4-5-06,4-19-06 & 6-7-06 sale of parks property at 11 09 Warren Department: City Attorney's Office Avenue Presenter: Roger Lubovich Phone: 473-5302 SUMMARY: The Parks Department staff has determined that the property located at 1109 Warren Avenue, known as the Warren Tennis Courts and Community Center or the Girl Scout/Camp Fire property, is underutilized due to its location at a very busy intersection and its lack of parking facilities. Public Works and Utilities has determined that right-of-way improvements at the intersection of Warren Avenue and 11 th Street may necessitate removal of the Community Center. The Parks & Recreation Commission has submitted its advisory report and public hearings were held on April 5,2006 and April 19, 2006. An additional public hearing is scheduled for June 7, 2006. The proposed resolution surpluses the park property, excluding the Community Center, pursuant to Chapter 13.12 BMC. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Report from the Parks and Recreation Board; (2) Proposed Resolution FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The proceeds from any sale will be used for parks and recreation facilities. APPROV ALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MA YOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~? / /7" /1/ /( /C/;...~V/ 0 /p"J ,,;;I ./~ UUiJ--t (/ 'C.d/ ./ <,' 1" ,./' '. #~'" e.- .t/' ..,- - -. ,.--- ' '" .."" - 'J .. " c/' b' ~.e.{"1.c/, -::z;;:::' r':'<1<.-7"'/.{:-/':: I CONSENT AGENDA 0 I RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 2993 surplusing and approving the change in use and possible future sale of the property located at 11 09 Warren. to-\J Ct.AryLVt--t...dec.!, / COUNCIL ACTION: Q1\pprove D Deny D, Table ..t If D Continue D No Action a41c:Z4'~,"l'H.~~'L(;"'t t./O '1f::::-- (/ ,{J..:a.12.i/ .m~. . II After reviewing and discussing the City of Bremerton's proposal to utilize a portion of the property located at 1109 Warren Avenue, commonly known as Warren Tennis Courts and Community Center, for right-of-way improvements and to sell the remainder ofthat property for development, the Parks and Recreation Commission hereby advises the Mayor of the City of Bremerton and the Bremerton City Council that it supports the proposed action for the following reasons: 1. The property is currently underutilized due to its location at a very busy intersection and its lack of parking facilities. It has minimal usage and provides little direct value to the parks system. Funds spent on maintaining underutilized facilities would be better applied to maintenance and improvement of actively used parks. 2. Planned right-of-way improvemerit~, to irtchide sidewalk, a separate bike lane, and a streetscape, are important for citizen safety. They will necessitate demolition of the building located on the property at 11 09 Warren Avenue. 3. The total proceeds from the sale of the remaining property not used for the right-of- way, will be direct capital used to enhance other parks and recreational facilities only. This action is taken today to comply with the requirements of Bremerton Municipal Code section I3.12.030(a) amI shall constitute the Bremellon Parks Commission's advisory report to the Mayor of Bremerton and to the Bremerton City Council. 41,k-c,~j1/V-- 3 ~/D - oC, Dougl,M Groneman, Chair Date Parks1a.nd Recreation Commission RESOLUTION NO. 2993 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, declaring certain park property surplus to the City's needs and approving a possible sale and change in the use of the property in accordance with the provisions of BMC 13.12.030. WHEREAS, City staff has requested that park property commonly known as the Warren Tennis Courts and the Community Center, located at 1109 Warren Avenue, be surplused pursuant to Chapter 13.12 BMC because the property is underutilized and the portion ofthe park consisting of the Community Center may need to be removed or demolished for transportation improvements; and WHEREAS, the Parks Board of the City of Bremerton has been consulted and has issued an advisory report supportive of the proposed change in use and sale of this property; and WHEREAS, the City Council has evaluated the advisory report ofthe Parks Board and finds that the property's value for serving park and recreation needs has diminished and the property is no longer suitable for use as a park; and WHEREAS, the City Courteii has leased the Community Center to Camp Fire USACentral Puget Sound Council, and Girl Scouts - Totem Council ("Camp Fire/Girl Scouts"), the current tenants of the Community Center, while the City is planning for the right-of-way improvements but for a period not to exceed three years. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to defer further consideration of surplusing the portion of the park generally upon which the Community Center is located until the City's plan for the right-of-way improvements can be further reviewed; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to surplus that portion of the park property generally upon which the tennis courts are located, subject to an easement granted to Camp Fire/Girl Scouts, as legally described in Exhibit A and as shown in the site plan attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, pursuant to BMC 13.12.030, public hearings were held on April 5, 2006, April 19, 2006 and June 7, 2006 relating to the proposed surplus, change in use and sale of the property; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 Surplus and Sale of Park Property SECTION 1. The City Council finds and concludes that portion of the park property generally upon which the tennis courts are located, subject to an easement granted to the Camp Fire/Girl Scouts, as legally described in Exhibit A and as shown in the site plan attached as Exhibit B, is hereby declared surplus to the City's needs and is no longer suitable for use as a park, play field, open space or recreational activity. SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to market the property for sale as deemed appropriate. SECTION 3. The net proceeds from the sale ofthe above-mentioned property will be used to improve parks and recreation facilities. SECTION 4. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this_ ,2006. CECIL McCONNELL, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney P AULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\FilesICurrent Active Files\1109 Warren (Campfire-Girl Scout)\Surplus and Sale Resolution I.doc 2 Surplus and Sale of Park Property EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A: ", '", THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY LYING NORTH OF 11TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 12TH STREET, BEING A PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, TR!::.CT 8; WARREN SMITH'S ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PL)\TS, PAGE 51, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST MARGIN OF WARREN AVENUE ';-:;9 FEET NORTH OF YHE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 3, DIElZ'S ADDITION TO THE T(;WN OF BREMERTON . , ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE S"I,IN KITSAP COUN"rV . , . WASHINGTON; THENCE WEST 139.25.FEET TOA POINT MIDWAY BETV/EEN THE WESTMARGIN OF WARREN AVENUE AND THE EAST MARGIN OF BROADWAY AVE; nW~NCE NORTH ON SAID LINE 319.07 FEETTO THE SOUTH MARGIN OF 12TH STREET; THENCE E.!'"ST 138.89 FEEr TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 12TH STREET AND WARREN AVENUE; THE~;CE SOUTH 320.5 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT WARREN AVENUE. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY LYING NORTH OF 11TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 12TH STREET, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 3, TRACT 8, W.ARREN SMITH'S ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 51, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 973.77 FEET WEST OF THE QUARTER SECTION CORNER ON n:E EAST LINE OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 190 FEET; THENCE WEST 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 190 FEET; THENCE EAST 50 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE WEST 80 FEET OF SAID LOT 3: Page 1 cf' 2. EXHIBIT A EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM PARCELS A. BAND C A portion of the right of way for Warren Avenue, being a part of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Tract 8, of the Plat of Warren Smith's Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 2 of the book of plats, Page 51, records of Kitsap County, Washington, situate in the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 14, T. 24 N., R. 1 E., Willamette Meridian, Kitsap County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the east quarter comer of said Section 14 and an existing monument in case, thence along the south line of said northeast quarter of Section 14, N 88025 '05" W 665.47 feet to the southeast comer of said southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, also being an existing monument in case; thence N 20048' 10" W 205.62 feet to the intersection of the southerly right of way of Ith Street and the westerly right of way of Warren Avenue, also being the True Point of Beginning; thence along said westerly right of way, S20032'19''W 113.24 feet; thence SOl 001 '26" W 15.40 feet to the intersection of the said westerly right of way with the northerly right of way of 11th Street; thence leaving said westerly right of way, S88058'34"E 44.02 feet; thence on a curve to the left, the center of which bears N14021 '03"W 29.95 feet, through an angle of 70024'14", an arc distance of 36.80 feet; thence NI045'48"E 95.19 feet to the intersection of the said southerly right of way of Ith Street extended; thence along said extension, N88020' 16"W 29.34 feet to the True Point of Beginning. AND SUBJECT TO An easement for use, over and upon a portion of said Tract 8 described as follows: Beginning at the east quarter corner of said Section 14 and an existing monument in case, thence along the south line of said northeast quarter of Section 14, N 88025'05" W 665.47 feet to the southeast comer of said southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, also being an existing monument in case; thence N 20048' 10" W 205.62 feet to the intersection of the southerly right of way of Ith Street and the westerly right of way of Warren Avenue, also being the True Point of Beginning; thence along said westerly right of way, S20032' 19"W 113.24 feet; thence leaving said westerly right of way, N 01053'43" W 107.15 feet to the intersection with said southerly right of way of Ith Street; thence along said southerly right of way, S88020'16"E 36.20 feet to the True Point of Beginning. (Said easement for use to be rescinded and extinguished with termination of lease) Page 2 of 2 P=l r-o S ~ ~ l:{t 4-+----1 ,..........""".~.~""""'..:...="""'I"I..,,,,"',i;,, I j. i ! h' I L..... '~.~.~,,:' ......J /' ~"K"11 1I11ll.1II~'~m,II:nIft"'IIIII"II.'II"""'lIIitfJI"""_'IH"'IIUII+tWIfI''''''", " 1 . .. r6ffll'lItf/.l~J....J"IIftIIlI///lII"""MII J' I _ I ..__/Ilmrt'm".-......~ J"..........t.,lIn."..._..mllllllHo......IUI:lItIll' ....M"._.............._. ......, . '''-'''-'''_ _......_..... ~........ ..-.......M._........::7_...., _......_....._....~....._ ..t "l,:?'Y'1:::L. S TRl"l:"i /} ... i ......-......--.-. ~1~~~;.2(Fi6' .V......-.......-;' /' I ;...... 29.34' I f : -1-1'- i i If ! ./ ../' I cr.. I ~ I j' i N I ~ ............. .T:..~......... ~ . \ "" ,f ...........__.1I1111111"ol..........m..lll"IIl...'........n.,I1I1IIIl'"II11I..':I.:;.:1I1..,wlllln~.:'I"U"n"'II!_IOl"rnlllll....,'.._I""rlllll1l1ll'lV.tlMMIIll""\r.......-IIIIII.,...-............. {).I$ .I'l';. ~........., .......... '"'I"__...~'I~Il......_'......lllllll...If_I\...........lrll"..,'_......,Il,.......11__......1111.__..."""11I ............."'"'''....._.. ....................u_ _...oAI'IlIl'~l...."""~:~.i.'::.':h,.,IIUl....,... .1....1... I I", "1' "J I i " Co. I ('" "1" , I ..... I I.' t .1 ..............................~ ,(7..' I I ......:........................-.............-...........-...........:--..............-.........-............j .............. ~............ ~ - . i8888.~~~~'~,~~~,f~i~ l: Iii 'IT":f..i:.; S88'21'55'( ~645,17' (MEAS,>' CENTCRlINE cr STRm S88'23'21'(- 4644,77' (HAYNER> ! -illj'l.ll'N\Or.l'Il'fNII~~!l"l':;:-.,.,. . I I ---1 i J I I I I I I I i I I j i I I i I I t. lINt br 'J.' ... or lOT J '![! :o,\Iri!5 ':;:r..'''~':: ~. '< ,~t:;~'~' ;~ :.... Ilt: r.~ I..J 1"" I ~;:j \.-'1 lli.ttf~ ~ - PROPOseo tAS''''[HT MEA - PR1lPOlCO lL<St ....tIo CAlI 'Ill: l:VROJlen\L.OO2\c.S_IWJ.\DWC\SUIMY.DWC By Oat. Stal. , a.ZO' Oat. SIJf'Ytytd Oft"", Chtek.d -v>provod .Aece I,d DrtJttrI'"g Humber CITY OF BREMER TON f'lJDUC ""/lID . muna DHlt1tIfZRIIIO DIV1'1fHf 3b:l7 IX YlfMM DIUW IIIfEl*OTON, WA. H3fO SMtI'_O'_ ~.! I In '11 1 1/ I i I I ~!:N~:K !:!;!1.~I-\ '10 ..j'~~I"'" , . ~". ~. <to' 127.0I'(PlATl """..."". -......... ~ CCNTt~L1Nt c~ :CTlCH I' D<HIBIT FOR lUoSE OF A PORTION OF THE PLAT OF WARREN SMITH'S ACRE TRACTS (AS ~tCOROEO IN VOL. 2, or lllE BOO~ or PlATS, PC. ! 1 SITUATE IN SEC, 14, T, 24 N" R. 1 E., W.M, ~IT;IJ' COUNTY, WASHlNCTON 'b~ .", i...I I.\: ,;(, ,; I:;: ~ . co o I S8I'2!'OS'C -6&5.'7' (HEAS.l S88'2&']4 'E -US,304' ("'AYN~FU I I .~ d :..' -+- ~ ... '-' Q..; ~ ~i '~ 'U v':1 ...:..L ~ 1- "-' ~ ;;- .-t <.:J , .-+- .~ ':S v ~ ~ --- ';;:) ...:::\ -..!. ..-' 0') A DATE SUBMITTED: May 31, 2006 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL Bt'll ~ oro - t~\ 1C ...mamma..aaaDD.aaBBB.amsamus..aBaa..ma...a.a..m..........aa...uBams...aa.......gma..aml SUBJECT: Public hearing on an amendment to Figure 20.74(a) in BMC Title 20 relating to heights in the Downtown Regional Center. Committee Meeting Date: 5/24/2006 COUNCIL MEETING Date: 6/7/2006 Department: DCD Presenter: Chris Hugo Phone: 473-5243 SUMMARY: During a Committee Meeting on May 24, 2006 the City Council directed staff to schedule a public hearing for a potential amendment to the height requirements as illustrated in Figure 20.74(a) of BMC Title 20, Land Use (the zoning code). Proposed for consideration are two motions - 1) Maintaining the existing heights or 2) Poposed ordinance to amend the zoning code heights in the Highland / Pleasant district. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance No. that would amend the heights in the Downton Regional Center 2. Downtown Regional Center Height Option Alternative Sketches FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None APPROV ALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MA YOR: CONSENT AGENDA 0 FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~~/fi:zj;;;~r RECOMMENDED MOTION: OPTION I - MAINTAIN HEIGHT (60 FOOT MAXIMUM) Move to retain the heights as illustrated in Figure 20.74(a) of BMC Title 20 Land Use with no changes to the Highland / Pleasant district. OPTION 2 - AMEND HEIGHT - (50 FOOT MAX - 45' PLUS 5' ADDT'L FOR PITCHED ROOF) Move to pass Ordinance No. amending the heights for the Highland / Pleasant District in Figure 20.74(a) of BMC Title 20 Land Use. COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny 0 Table o Continue 0 No Action ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, repealing and replacing Figure 20.74(a) of Chapter 20.74 BMC to incorporate changes to the maximum height limit in the Highland/Pleasant Avenue District. WHEREAS, City Council desires to amend the current provisions of Figure 20.74(a) entitled "Downtown Regional Center Maximum Building Heights" of Chapter 20.74 of the Bremelion Municipal Code to incorporate changes to the maximum height limit in the Highland/Pleasant Avenue District and to make related footnote changes; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:. SECTION 1. Figure 20.74(a) entitled "Downtown Regional Center Maximum Building Heights" of Chapter 20.74 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and a new Figure 20.74(a) is hereby adopted as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Severabilitv. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2006. CECIL McCONNELL, Council President Approved this day of ,2006 CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor 1 Figure 20. 74(a) ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: P AULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the EFFECTIVE the ORDINANCE NO. day of day of ,2006 ,2006 R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\Figure 20.74(a) amend.doc 2 Figure 20. 74(a) Downtown Regional Center Maximum Building Heights I [J --t- I-LL I L- P= =i~ :=:= L~ I I-'--'X~ ]I ~H JJ=~ \ ~ I [! - f--- _ f--- ., IrE -j H II or ~-"- I [ ;; 9JJ~ IT'-x mx I It' ~ HI x f-LJ -11 dJl -- r= I x f---bJ= I--- - I--- ~ I I I I I I II I I j I I~ II ,I I / 1~ -;/ ~~ 11=4= ~ I-- - I-- '-- I--=i I-- -I-- -_ =- f- - J-- - =U- I- - - L P.-= J-- - TI1T I HJ' 5tlfF ~~ _f~ ~ II II Puget Sound Naval Shipyard l- I- ,..... r-.' r II 1IIIIrn6J;t. JJ II II [11 111,.r I ~~ I -5tb_St i I II I 4l:IlSt. I I II I * The overall height limit is 70 feet as measured pursuant to Bremerton SMP Chapter 8 Definitions, Height, and WAC 173-27-030 (9) provided that at no point shall a structure be more than five stories plus five feet above the elevation of Washington Avenue at the site's front property line (edge of right-of-way). The added height of any roof structure shall be excluded from the height determination. ** The maximum height of 40 feet shall be applied to all structures having pitched roofs with a 3: 12 slope or greater. Structures with roof pitches less than 3:12 shall have amaximum height of 35 feet. '-- =rl ~~ I----r= -1= --- - =J~ -r - ~~ - I I lJ' I ,/ Exhibit A Figure 20.74(a) \\ ~ I f-~ 1==1 WFl = J-- = ~~ -l-- I-- l-- .- ~ ~ ~ I 'x /I I t=r- '" I I '- R -J \.!::::\. ~~~ ----', )---' I-~ ~ ______ r,lip...* ~ ______ ___ -.r=- ~ - <D > .- ~~~. o :0 -'--- 0) S ----r-,~ ~~~iL- -~ - - 5u I---- 1---' <D - > - ~ t== -,g I- J--.u - 1 '-- ~-_. I - _ I--i_ ----.J h - =fir- II- I, 1/- , /1 ~ 11 ^ xu ...... \ I II ~u II I II I >< --J. Ii-: I~ "-..../ I I:::::: = - - Ol t. I-- I=: h-f--,. I-- 1-11 Il/~ 1 st :: t. /-... ~ *** The maximum height is 45 feet as measured from the average grade of the site's lot line abutting Highland Ave. For sites east of Highland Avenue, the maximum building height shall not exceed an elevation 45 feet above the elevation of Highland Avenue as set by a perpendicular line from the mid-point of a site's west property line to the east right-of-way line of Highland. For sites west of Highland Avenue, the maximum building height shall not exceed a elevation 45 feet above the elevation of Highland Avenue as set by a perpendicular line from the mid-point of a site's east property linetto the west right-of-way line of Highland In both cases, an additional 5 feet of roof height may be allowed only to accommodate a pitched roof structure. Building heights within 200' of the Ordinary High Water Mark are subject to Shoreline Master Program regulations. / Downtown Regional Center Height Option Alternative Sketches 45' From Highland Grade - Option With Design Guidelines 8c-1 ;C:: ~~ Or ~ q~b ~~c9~ 4-q~. ;O~ J?U ~o~ ~8a ~~ 45' of height allowed from the grade of Highland Ave. Will not exceed 4 stories above Highland Ave. grade. 5 Additional feet allowed only to accommodate roof structures. Height limit continues at 45' above Highland level, allowing taller structures on Washington and Pleasant due to grade change. rHO 4$' Measurement taken from average grade of front lot line at Highland Ave. 45' From Highland Grade - Option With Design Guideline ,,1 / $<:;,..-(. '/<9~ ~r ~~c. a ~<9~. ~~. 7c9~ A ~.9' q~o \S'<9.s- o/}~ ~ ~ f'Jrj f o4J I ~'ti ~~ : ~ ~~ f~ ~~ ~<J ~ <<.0 D ~ . ' -:-"'--- ~'f. -. "+ _, . , ~* ?(O~1IViflsVM LJ .~. . " c1; ~r ~ . '. ~ ,. ;.r~~~j "-,~)~lf ,'(:j/YV,ihi:;ftl" '<:A ~.' :_-'><d_'~'::?-'~::.::'~~:>"+~~";' ~'_ .j,,-::-~,.;;, ~~,~:'::J.,-t~'f,'~' .,,'. . ". .'1 . " ,~!.~ 010 Jlj o'J-o. Din ccs +-' C <D <D "'0 +-' ccs 0 Cf) l0- a.. <D CJ -E. "'0 C <D C ccs "'0 ccs a.. ::s ...c (J.) ('J 0) :t:: .~~. I en E Cf) 0) (J.) 0 c 0 lo- I.J.. .- "'0 ...c .... +-' LO ::s S ~ co ~ May 31, 2006 HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF KITSAP COUNlY Bremerton City Council City of Bremerton 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Brernerton, W A 98337 Dear Council Members, in rhe on-going discussion regarding building heights in the DowntO\vn Region Center has resulted in my going back to review the recently adopted City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. I have included, and emphasized significant portions from the Comprehensive Plan. I ask that you re-read these important goals and strategies for the Downtown Region Center. According to the new Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Region Center is Jhe most urban and the most dense area of the city. It is defined as "the core area of the City of Bremerton", where "parking should be underground or within structures" and the "downtown provided a living environment to a growing segment of society that no longer desires the suburban lifestyle". It goes on to indicate that subject to future review density should be "40 units per acre", that height should be "consistent with current zoning heights for downtown", that the goal is to "create and revitalize the downtown as [he premier urban center of the West Sound region" and that "the intent of the designation is to increase opportunity for signilicant population to locate near these Centers". Some of the Comprehensive Plan language regarding the Downtown Regional Center is listed below: Downtown Regional Center The Downtown Rel.donal Center (ORC) is the core area of the City of Bremerton. It offers a mix of opportunities to live and work in a vibrant, well-designed environment. The DRC zone provides residential or office uses on upper Hoors, with retail uses at the street level to energize the urban experience. Parkine should be undereround or within structures - not in surface lots. Street trees, well-designed public gathering areas, and lighting should be employed to create a safe, inviting experience at the street level day and night. Residents will find access to employment, . transp~Jru!tio~, (lnd b:J.sic ;lmenities; a.long- .\vith a concentration of .restaurants, galle.,fies; a!1d unique shopping- exp.er.ienCf\~.; The Downtown Rer!ional Center desienation facilitates the oneoine creation of a vibrant. attractive downtown. a critical need for the entire West Sound rerdon. Existing plans for the Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront (See goal LU]4) and the Campus/Evergreen District Plan will be a beginning point for sub-area planning and design review for this center. The downtown provides a Iivine environment to a erowine seement of society that no lom!er desit'es the suhurban lifestvle. It provides housing for a wide variety of income levels in an environment that allows less reliance on the automobile. The potential juxtaposition of employment, living, cultural, and recreation opportunities, allows the greatest etIiciency of public expenditures and infrastructure of any development envisioned in this Plan. ~NAHB ~~ il"m""cA"oCCIT!O" or: !-lOr.!E B\.;il.;)Ef~S Aflilia!ed ~",'itll Bui!(jing Industry Association of vVashingron 5251 Auto Center Way · Bremerton, Washington 983] 2 (360) 479-5778 . I (800l200-5778 . FAX (360) 479-0313 in ro@kilSaphba.com . www.KitsapHBA.coJ11 DRC (Downtown Regional Center) General development parameters Density: 40 units per acre (ReQuires future review) Height: (Consistent with current zonin2 hei2hts for downtown, details to be added) Structure Type: Various, single use residential and commercial, and/or mixed use structures Character: The Downtown Re2ional Center offers well inte2rated employment, shoppin2 and residential opportunities as part of lar2er urban core. A primary goal is to provide an active street life. Location: Downtown area Policy direction: Create and revitalize the downtown as the premier urban center of the West Sound re2ion, providing jobs, residential opportunities, and cultural and economic activities. Discussion: The Downtown Re2ional Center is the core area of the City of Bremerton. At the heart of the lar2er downtown, the DRC offers a mix of opportunities to live and work in a vibrant, well desi2ned environment. The DRC desi2nation focuses on providin2 residential or office uses on upper floors, with retail uses at the street level to ener2ize the urban experience. Parkin2 should be under2round or in structures - not in surface lots. Street trees, well desi2ned public 2atherin2 areas, and li2htin2 should be employed to create a safe, invitin2 experience at the street level - day and ni2ht. LV3 Create an environment that will promote 2rowth LU3A Modifv existin2 zonin2 desi2nations and cate20ries to provide sufficient industrial, commercial, and mixed use for new business opportunities. .Maintain an inventory of available sites for new development, especially within desi2nated Centers LU3C Encoura2e increased density with development incentives and zonin2 flexibility. LU3D Provide for advanced utility plannin2 to offer uP2raded, ready-to serve, services for development desi2ned to achieve maximum density. LU3E Provide development incentives and flexibility within the Zonin2 Code to encoura2e desirable desi2n elements with flexibilities within the Zonin2 Code,provisions for all new development and redevelopment. · Establish a creative and cooperative process for desi2n solutions · Establish value criteria and a correspondin2 system to allow tradeoffs and exceptions between development standards and desi2n standards LUliE Encoura2e private investment in mixed use and hi2her density developments. · Offer desi2n and development standard choices for mixed use proiects LU12G Provide land use and zonin2 designations that support transportation Centers or hubs. · Encoura2e hi2h density residential and mixed use development near transportation Cemers and hubs UBA Create high density residential uses mixed with commercial spaces. LUBB Provide for commercial and retail services to support down residents, shoppers, and workers. VBD Encoura2e the expansion of services and utilization of amenities to attract district beyond core business hours.' LU14 Adopt standards and measures to assure that downtown Bremerton becomes an attractive, vibrant, urban core with a mix of commercial, office and residential uses (Use adopted 20als and policies, included here, to 2uide implementation). Discussion: The following goals policies for downtown Bremerton was adopted by the Bremerton City Council in 2001 after extensive hearings and community participation. General Policies, Downtown 6. Regulations should reward new development with intensity and/or height in return for incorporating features such as public spaces, housing, and underground parkin2. 9. Development alon2 the northern ed2e of downtown should step down in height and include substantial landscapin2 in rec02nition of the adiacent, low-scale residential nei2hborhood. Overall Goals, Downtown: L. Downtown Bremerton will be an urban Center within the PU2et Sound re2ion. 2. Downtown Bremerton will be the maior urban Center and inter-modal transportation hub for Kitsap County. 3. Downtown Bremerton will offer a compact concentration of employment, local shopping, entertainment, cultural attractions, government services, and housin2. Policies, Downtown Core (DC) 1. The Downtown Core should contain buildin2s having sufficient height and intensity to create a hi2h concentration of employment, retail, and residential. The Land Use Element serves as one of the best places to see the level of consistency that exists within the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan's land use strategy emerged from almost three years of community discussions, producing a bold ncw direction for the City of Bremerton. The community decided that the aooroaches of the vast do not work. Business-as-usual would likely result in continuinl! loss of l!rowth and vitality away from the City. Downtown Regional Center with primary attractions to draw people downtown. An inventory of developable sites with phased infrastructure plans will be established and monitored. In key areas for economic expansion, developable sites should be pre-qualified for environmental permitting as "planned actions". This strategy will extend to rehabilitation programs, such as grant funding to clean up the City's challenging brownfield sites. Special accommodations, such as advanced utility planning and the providing of cutting edge technology, will further encourage use of these sites. In capital improvement plans, the allocation of City resources will strengthen the economic base, mostly by leveraging private investment whenever possible, especially for projects that will diversify industrial and employment enterprises in Bremerton. The new land use strategy seeks to return Bremerton's vitality, economic strength, and desirability as a place to live and work. Called the Centers Concept, this strategy also capitalizes on new demographic trends and new opportunities. The Centers Concept: ~he Foundation of the Lund Use Element As citizens examined their aspirations for the future, a new community realization emerged. An overwhelming portion (~tthe of the community's shared ideas, dreams, and vision for the future described a very specific type o.f development. That development type differed from existing separated land uses, automobile dominated landscapes, and homogeneous neighborhoods. Bremerton's citizens desired walkable communities, where residents could access sen,ices without driving across town. They desire to live in a more intimate atmosphere where homes, small businesses, and public gathering spaces were all within easy reach. They wanted to find ways to reduce traffic, create a quieter and more sociable atmosphere, and encourage a more pleasing urban experience. After reviewing the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, I am surprised at current City Council debatc regarding building heights in the Downtown Regional Center. I find the discussion of building heights at near single-family building height inconsistent with the approve Comprehensive Plan. Previously, the area being discussed for 40' or 45' or even 60' had 120' allowable building height. Why shouldn't this area have the same building heights as other portions of the Downtown Regional Center? I would recommend that the City Council consider increasing the proposed building height in the area of discussion to at IC8.st 80' and perhaps even 100' or 120' consistent with other building heights in the Downtown Regional Center. Another of the general policies for downtown states "regulations shouid reward new development with intensity and/or height in return for incorporating features such as public spaces, housing, and underground parking." LU3C states that the city should "encourage increased density with development incentives and zoning flexibility." The proposed height limits do neither. Another ofthe general policies states "development along the northern edge of downtown should step down in height and include substantial landscaping in recognition of the adjacent, low-scale residential development." Since the Downtown Regional Center extends to Evergreen Park, well to the north of 11th street, the logical area for stepping down building heights would be in the area north of 11th street - consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. LU 11 E states that the city should "encourage private investment in mixed use and higher density developments". Currently, there is interest from the private sector to continue the investment that will assist with the City of Bremerton's redevelopment and revitalization efforts, consistent with approved policy direction, as having the downtown become the premier urban center of the West Sound region. Unless the City Council reaffirms the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by allowing building heights consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, you will send a very chilling and mixed message to the private sector. The urban amenities discussed in the Comprehensive Plan are not financially feasible with the proposed lowering of building heights. r encourage the City Council to approve building heights c~nsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. S7/~/c Art Castle Executive Vice President Home Builders Association of Kitsap County Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: Silvia Klatman [silvia@bremeitonchamber.org] Sent: Friday, May 26,200611:54 AM To: silvia@bremertonchamber.org Subject: Chamber supports 60' building height limits Good afternoon! Attached is a news release regarding our decision to supp0l1 60 foot building height limits. Please contact me at (360) 479-3579 or silvia@bremertonchamber.org if you have any questions. Thank you! Si(via X(atman, 10M Executive Director Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce ",nr,f')Oor, News Release For Immediate Release May 26, 2006 Bremerton Chamber ~orts 60' Building Heights Bremerton, Washington - The Board of Directors of the Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce voted to support the City Administration's recommendations to place 60-foot building height limits in the Highland and Pleasant Avenue area of downtown Bremerton. "There were a number of factors that led to the Board's decision," according to Ron Muhleman, President-elect of the Chamber. "Probably the most important is creating enough living space downtown so that additional residents can help support downtown retailers, restaurants and service businesses. This would also provide more incentive for a grocery store to open downtown - a critical component to any redevelopment project." Muhleman continued, "Our committee and board members also thought it was important to consider the need for underground parking in the City's core. If the City lowered the building height to just 40 feet, it would be very difficult to afford to build underground parking and maintain an aesthetically appealing design. Something would have to give." The Board made the decision based on the recommendations of the Chamber's Legislative Committee. Bremerton City Council Member Wendy Priest and Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development, gave presentations to the committee on Wednesday. # # # The Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce, founded in 1907, is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting member businesses and providing leadership to enhance a positive business environment. The Chamber can be reached at chamber@bremertonchamber.org or (360) 479-3579. # # # Media Contact Silvia Klatman, 10M Executive Director Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce 301 Pacific Avenue / P.O. Box 229 Bremerton W A 98337 (360) 479-3579 silvia@bremertonchamber.org r. ,;' e-mail From:TroxeIJasonGPSNS[mailtOitroxeljg@psns.navy.mil] Reed: Wednesday, May 24,2006 1:50 PM To: City Council Subject: Citizen Letter - Building Heights Jason Troxel 627 Washington Avenue Bremerton, Washington 98337 proj ectsoup@gmail.com The City of Bremerton City Council Members ci tycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us May 24, 2006 Dear City Council, As a property owner on W ashington Avenue, I want to state directly to you that I am in favor of population density in the downtown area. I feel that the uncontestable zoning change in building height was not at all in accord with the City's long-term development plans for the downtown area; I also feel that the decision to change the building codes, and to continue to hold them in limbo, is a violation of the implied contract between Bremerton and the residents, developers, and the State of Washington, all of whom invested monies based on Bremerton's outline for directed and inspired growth iri this area. In the three years I have lived on W ashington Avenue I have seen the impact that downtown development and affluence has brought to our neighborhood. The panhandlers that used to approach my wife or myself are no longer present; the shootings and drug dealers have become less prominent, the evenings are quieter and we feel more secure. What has not changed is the decrepit image of the Highland district. While there are clusters of charming homes, interspersed throughout this district are abandoned domiciles, overgrown and unkempt empty lots, decaying structures, and a lack of parking, all of which are in our opinion artificially holding down the property values in this neighborhood-in affect going counter to the direction that Bremerton claimed to be heading. There has been much talk of the desires of the residents of the Highland District who adamantly oppose building over 40 feet. In the three years I've lived in my house I have never once received a phone call from my district council member, nor a letter, nor any interaction what-so-ever from any Bremerton Representative to gamer my opinionof what zoning issues are important to me. I have attended council meetings to oppose the height restrictions, to adjudicate the design requirements for building to the now proposed 60 feet height, and to reject Councilwoman Priest's request to send the issue back to another panel for further deliberation. I say to you: If there truly are historic residences in this Highland District, let's see them listed on the National Historic Register and let's see Bremerton provide financial aid in their restoration and preservation to coincide with the downtown development plan. If not, however, then let developers and individual homeowners alike benefit from the very economic windfall that everyone south of 6th street has been enjoying, un-impeded. I urge this City Council to pass the 60 feet building height without further delay and I ask that my council members focus their efforts on supporting the population density growth of this area. I hope that these honored members will investigate innovative ways to offer financial incentives through grants, guaranteed fixed interest loans, building bonds, and tax incentives to Highland District property owners that will help speed the process of revitalization for individual investors and developers alike. Bremerton cannot continue in this stalemate; we must seize this opportunity to allow for the homogenous development and growth of our downtown / waterfront community. I thank you for your time and urge your swift judgment in this matter. Very Respectfully, Jason Troxel cc: Council Members Mayor Bozeman Chris Hugo, DCD Lori Smith ~:~? [~rrl rr:;~~ ~~... _3 ~:i 11 [fa::.1!il i u~~ Cc: Subject: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council Monday, April 24, 2006 5:50 PM Adam Brockus; Brad Gehring; Carol Arends; Dianne Robinson; Mike Shepherd; Nick Wofford; Wendy Priest - HOME; Will Maupin Chris Hugo; Andrea Spencer FW: Citizen Comments - Building Height Restrictions From: Sent: To: FYI... -----Original Message----- From: Mary Klein [mailto:cellobird@seanet.com] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:26 PM To: City Council Subject: Building Height Restrictions Dear Bremerton City Council: I'm glad you've decided to revisit the building height limits issue. Even though I live elsewhere than downtown, I think lower than 60 feet is the way to go in this instance. You've probably heard all the pro and con arguments regarding a 60-foot limit so I won't rehash them here. I'm writing to tell you that I'm a Bremerton resident in favor of a lower maximum height than 60 feet. I hope you reconsider the issue carefully, think of the current residents/homeowners who will be affected by taller structures, and vote for lower building heights in that area. Bremerton Can have livability as well as redevelopment! Very truly yours, Mary E. Klein 1344 Whitney Avenue Bremerton, Washington 98312 mailto:cellobird@seanet.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith "--"---=-__'''~-'''''''''''''''''''~''''''''''__'''''''~''''''''_,""~...,...._,_.,..,....,...,.,.,.........._,,,,,,,,.,.,--,..-...,..........,.,.."._.'':''',---____.,..-,.._--__~".,...,.....,."..,----'"':'...",.,...,."."..--........,...""'-_-....___"~".,_.....,...,,...--~........,-'"-...",-'.__....,_.-:-_...,._~!.,..__.....__,_""~._...,....,..,.-.,.,-.c."..--.~..,...~__"."__< From: Justin Zeigler [justziggy@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 9:26 PM To: City Council Subject: Highland/Pleasant Height Restrictions April 17, 2006 Dear City Council: I attended the March 21 Planning Commission meeting regarding the design guidelines for the Highland/Pleasant neighborhoods. I was very impressed with the fine detail in the descriptions of what was acceptable/not acceptable. I think the community development team should be commended for their hard work and attention to detail. I found it very interesting that even with the guidelines at hand; the planning commission was still very concerned with blending a building of a large 60 foot magnitude in with the single-family residents that surround the neighborhood. They were so concerned by the process that they have again recommended to you, the council, to reconsider your decision to have it as high as 60 feet. They share many ofthe same concerns that I feel and that my neighbors have voiced. I cannot urge you enough to take their concerns and recommendations to heart when you review them and remember that density can be achieved at a 40 foot level or lower. The developers are only in it for the money, not for the future of Bremerton and preserving its past. Best regards, Rachael Zeigler Highland A venue Homeowner 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgLcom] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 . Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgLcom] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/PleasanUWashington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want u something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington AVenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/PleasanUWashington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail Gore. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 " Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 ('I Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.coni] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/PleasanUWashington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 East/ake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/1812006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Dear Council Membeffi, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 East/ake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/PleasantIWashington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 - >,,; ,." Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.conij Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Dear Council Membern, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something largerthan 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith ......,~,..,..,,,_.,.......,.,..~~_~_~~.....__.W"'~~...,......._-,-.-~_.........,-_~--:--___L.____._.__~_,.,...."..,..,.,-.-..-_----,...,.""_......,___........_..,...,,.~._'."'.~______..~_..,_..--,,.___,._."___.."____-_.....,...__,,......,.._,,..,_-:_'C-.c._-,__..,.___~_'''_....~_...,.-'_____,._ From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi:com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/PleasanUWashington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/PleasantlW ashington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/PleasanUWashington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.tom] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/PleasanUWashington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/1812006 Height Limits on Highlancl/PleasantlWashington A veriues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.corh] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/PleasanUWashington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.cbm] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 Eastlake Ave. East Seattfe, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 Height Limits on Highland/Pleasant/Washington Avenues Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: NERO (Nels Royer) [royern@zgi.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20066:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Height Limits on Highland/PleasantIWashington Avenues Dear Council Members, I have lived on Highland Ave., in the house I own, for the last 8 years. I believe a height limit of 35 or 40 feet is sufficient to help create the density sought by the city, while still respecting the character of the neighborhood. In other larger cities like Seattle, residential buildings taller than this are now only allowed within the downtown retail core. I'm sure the developers would prefer there be no parameters constraining them, but their ultimate motivator is money. Height limits, like other design guidelines and building codes are necessary to ensure the buildings are appropriate for the location. They are not to guarantee maximum profits for developers. Arguments from both directions could continue indefinitely, so just think of your neighborhood. My street is probably very similar to where you live. If you would not want something larger than 3 or 4 stories next to your home, then please do not allow anything taller than 40 feet in my neighborhood. Best regards, Nels Royer Nels Royer Sr. Clinical Research Associate Zymogenetics, Inc. 1201 East/ake Ave. East Seattle, WA 98102 ph 206.442.6746 fax 206.515.4942 4/18/2006 "RECEIVED. CITY COUNCil OFFICE" DATE 't(/~/Ob _.. Bremerton City Council 345 6th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 April 10, 2006 Dear President and members of the Council: I am writing to you not only as a member of the Bremerton Planning Commission, but as a resident of Bremerton who has been involved in the visioning process for city since the first public meetings. After countless hours of input from our residents, citizens work groups on specific topics, and an over all task force of more meetings, the current GMA plan for Bremerton was brought forward and approved. In this process, one of the strongest messages and one of the most consistent messages that was heard was the goal of a vital, walkable, 24 hour city with a variety of living spaces that alloWed people to live and work downtown, to shop downtown, and to play downtown. When we settled on the centers concept to implement the goals presented through the process, we had three level of centers. Going from the least dense to the most dense and urban are as follows: neighborhood center, district center, and the regional center. The regional center encompasses the downtown waterfront district, the downtown core, and the Highland district. This is so designated Bremerton's comp plan and by the Puget Sound Regional plan as well. In order to provide the vitality needed to sustain our downtown core and waterfront, the need for the residential component is critical. Areas that are directly adjacent to our downtown core and that are walkable to services are very important to the success of the downtown revitalization efforts. The condominium projects on the water are a good beginning, but they are not enough. That is why this area is so critical to the well-being of the regional center. Because I was unable to attend the last Planning Commission meeting, I wish to make my thoughts known to the Council prior to any decision that may be made. I wish to propose that the Council consider the height and the design standards proposed in a sort of combination as they are so intertwined. The proposed design standards you are considering tonight (April J 9th,200b), are thoughtful. and provide for a blending of the existing viable properties in this area with newer more dense types of construction. I have traveled to Portland in this last year and visited several areas including the Pearl district, which has implemented this very same kind of standard while allowing for more height than the suggested 40 feet. The effect was stunning, as it was in Tacoma, Ballard,and San Francisco. The standards are the key. I would ask the Council to carefully consider your decision for the long-term effects, not just the immediate picture. With the marrying of the 60 foot height and thoughtful design standards, I believe we will be accomplishing what the residents of the city have told us that they want: The additional height allows sub-standard properties in the area to be razed and new structures built that adds the much needed housing. The design standards mitigates the effects and thoughtfully blends existing residential styles. The additional 20 feet spreads the cost over more units resulting in a better quality building with more elements. If you restrict the building height to 40 feet, the building is harder to fit into the perimeters of our existing marketplace. In order to make it cost effective, I fear that the design elements will be barely minimum to meet the requirement, and you will end up creating an area that will not attract residents to live there, We cannot all afford to live in the waterfront condos currently being constructed. The Highland district will offer a needed range of residential choices next to the all important core of the city. It should be allowed the full 60 feet construction height to encourage quality contraction and redevelopment of substandard housing that currently exists in the district. Thank you for your time and consideration, Most respectfully, ....".;,./,.,.....-----_. // cc: City Planning Department; Chris Hugo cc: Mayor Boseman DA TE SUBMITTED: April 5,2006 BILL # O(y -Of:) ,I AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL if> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a,a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBJECT: Public hearing and Resolution No. a/I'!'! to approve the Highland A venue / Pleasant A venue Design Guidelines Committee Meeting Date: April 12, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING Date: April-ol9, 20~ Vu~e "7, '~()or; Department: Comm Development Presenter: Chris Hugo Phone: 473-5243 SUMMARY: The Council approved a new Zoning Code on Nov. 30, 2005, and by separate motion set the height limit for the Highland and Pleasant Avenues residential area at 60 feet with a concurrent moratorium on new development over 40 feet in order to draft design guidelines for new, larger residential projects. After a complete public involvement process, the Planning Commission voted unanimously on March 21 st to recommend the guidelines to the Council for adoption. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed resolution 2. Staff Report 3. Planning Commission minutes of 3/21 /2006 public hearing FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Approval will have no fiscal impact on City operations. FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERA TIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: APPROV ALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MA YOR: [ CONSENT AGENDA 0 I RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. a't'll{ to approve the Highland Ave. / Pleasant Ave. Design Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission. Cl-(} Cl4'JU41-c&/ ~, COUNCIL ACTION: [9'I\pprove D Deny D Table D Continue D No Action 1)~~~~,nud~at4Adtk ~c! .bVtA~C--1'd0 ~~a4rJtaMWL! . M.~ ~ ~ ~.11 d( .~r 1v1<L4td~J' ~)arnu~d~~S(;~ ~ YJctJ9..vuiZr-z %GdY)u~~ rF~ h --UI-~5 (Z~~p'-~&tpudttv ~60~ if 00 otcUj 5 .. RESOLUTION NO. dqqq A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, adopting Highland Avenue/Pleasant Avenue design guidelines. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted new city-wide zoning regulations on November 30, 2006; and WHEREAS, the new regulations specify a 60 foot maximum height in a Downtown Regional Center residential area along Pleasant and Highland avenues; and WHEREAS, concurrent with the adoption of the height limitation, the City Council directed that design guidelines be prepared to mitigate the impact of new, higher-density residential developments on existing residences in the Pleasant / Highland A venue residential area; and WHEREAS, a public involvement process including three public meetings and three meetings of a stakeholder work group prepared draft design guidelines for consideration by the City Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft guidelines on March 21, 2006, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously on March 21, 2006, to recommend the final draft guidelines to Council for adoption; WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Commission's recommended draft guidelines on and found them to be an effective means to accommodate new, higher density residential development within the Highland / Pleasant Avenue residential area; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals and Finding of Fact Incorporated. The recitals set forth in this resolution are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Exhibit A are hereby adopted and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 3. The Highland A venue /Pleasant A venue Design Guidelines set forth in Exhibit B are hereby adopted and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. I Higl1land A venue/Pleasant A venue Design Guidelines SECTION 4. Severability If anyone or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this_ ,2006. CECIL McCONNELL, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk R :\LegaI\Legal\Resol utions\Col11l11l1nit y Developl11ent\H igh I and-Pleasant Des ign GlI ide lines. doc 2 Highland A venue/Pleasant A venue Design Guidelines EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary - Proposal to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Highland Ave. I Pleasant Ave. Design Guidelines. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Project Description At the time of the 2005 Zoning Code adoption on November 30th, City Council deliberated on appropriate building heights in the Highland Ave. I Pleasant Ave. residential area. City Council adopted a 60' building height limit with a moratorium on building heights over 40' until staff could create design guidelines for new large-scale structures. The Highland Ave.! Pleasant Ave. residential area contains some high quality architecture. There is a wide range of homes including several with notable design character and historic qualities. Many homes date to the early part of the 1900's. Most existing structures are the scale of single family homes, though many of the larger stately homes have been converted to apartments. The Highland Ave. I Pleasant Ave. Design Guidelines help create a 'good fit' between new, larger scale multifamily structures and existing residences in this area. To the greatest possible extent, the guidelines seek to reduce the impacts of new structures up to 60 feet tall, on smaller scale residences. The Highland Ave.! Pleasant Ave. Design Guidelines are applied at the time of land use and building permit applications for any new development within the designated guidelines area. The guidelines are a complement to the City of Bremerton Zoning Code and are administered by the Director of Community Development. All new, housing developments of 4 or more attached dwelling units in the study area are subject to the guidelines. 2. Procedural History 2.1 November 30th, 2005. City Council adopts 60' height limit with moratorium on building heights above 40'. 2.2 December 29th, 2005. Public Meeting held. 2.3 January 9th, 2005. Public Meeting held. 2.4 January 1ih, 2006. Stakeholder Committee Meeting held. 2.5 January 25th, 2006. Stakeholder Committee Meeting held. 2.6 February 1, 2005. City Council extends moratorium to mid-April. 2.7 February ih, 2006, Public Meeting held. 2.8 March 16th, 2006. Stakeholder Committee Meeting held. 2.9 March 21st, 2006. Planning Commission Public Hearing held & recommended to City Council for adoption. EXHIBIT A 3. Public Comment 3.1 Numerous individuals provided comments at Public Meetings, Stakeholder Committee meetings and to the Planning Commission. 3.2 The planning process included a "Stakeholder Committee" comprised of the following members: a. Rex Garland. PO Box 343, Bremerton. b. Ginger Perkins. 3879 NW Munson, Silverdale. c. David Kelley. 644 Pleasant Ave. d. Claire Schrodt. 631 Washington. e. Michael Brown. 3331 Kitsap Way. f. Steve Priest. 904 Highland Ave. g. Kyle Cruver. PO Box 847, Bremerton. h. John Ales. 405 Shore Drive, Bremerton. i. Andy Kosusko. 220 Shore Drive, Bremerton. j. Nancy Stephenson. 642 Washington. 3.3 Individuals attending Public Meetings include the following: a. Bernard Bell. 937 Pleasant Ave. b. Dallas J. Graves. 650 Highland Ave. c. Wally C. NW Solnae Pl., Bremerton d. Sally Banfill. 912 Highland Ave. e. Kay Gapp. 215 NW Solnae pI., Bremerton f. Dent Colleen Carleson. 823 Kaster Dr. NE g. Donald Smithhisler. 645 Washington Ave. h. M. Shane Schrodt. 637 Washington Ave. i. Claire Schrodt. 631 Washington Ave. j. Rory Henneck. 930 Highland Ave. k. Dave Hedger. 2623 Terrace. I. Noah Reddell. 941 Highland. m. AI and Sheila Smith. 636 Pleasant Ave. n. Jason Troxel. 627 Washington Ave. o. Michael Brown. 3331 Kitsap Way. p. Wesley Larson. 3218 Eastlake Ave. E., Seattle. q. Joanne Hanson. 915 Highland Ave. r. Lee Hanson. 915 Highland Ave. s. S. Smith. 636 Pleasant. t. Noah Reddell. 941 Highland. u. Don Large. PO Box 275, Bremerton. v. Nancy and Gary Stephenson. 642 Washington. w. Wendy Miles/ Ed Wolfe. 216 6th St. x. Emily Moshay. PO Box 847, Bremerton. y. Helen Miller. PO Box 788, Bremerton. z. Curtis Lending. 631 Washington. EXHIBIT A 3.4 Individuals providing written and verbal testimony to Planning Commission: a. Neils Royer. rovern@zqi.com b. Annie L. Barrus. 908 Highland Ave. c. Sally Banfill. sbanfill@oz.net d. Adam Brockus. 1146 Perry Ave. e. Rachel Ziegler. 914 Higland Ave. f. Steve Priest, 904 Highland Ave. g. Donald Smithhisler. PO Box 1016, Bremerton. h. Michael Brown. 3331 Kitsap Way, Bremerton. I. Wendy Priest. 904 Highland Ave. 4. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The Design Guidelines are intended to carry out the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. The Design Guidelines seek to ensure that additional density prescribed for the Downtown Regional Center by the Comprehensive Plan is compatible with the existing residential area. Numerous Comprehensive Plan goals and policies call for design guidelines that are neighborhood-specific. Additionally, the Planning Commission emphasizes that several policies in the Comprehensive Plan, within the Community Character Element, call for collaborative and community-based sub-area planning for the edges of the Downtown Regional Center. A selection of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies achieved by, and relevant to the Design Guidelines include the following. 4.1 Page LU-50 Description of Land Use Designation for the Downtown Regional Center. Density: 40 units per acre Height: Varies per zoning code. 35 Feet - 120 Feet. Structure Type: Various, single use residential and commercial, and / or mixed use structures. Character. The Downtown Regional Center offers well integrated employment, shopping and residential opportunities as part of a larger urban core. A primary goal is to provide an active street life. Location: Downtown area. Policy direction: Create and revitalize the downtown as the premier urban center of the West Sound region, providing jobs, residential opportunities, and cultural and economic activities. " 4.2 CC1 B Ensure that new development is of a type, scale, orientation, and design that improves upon the neighborhood's desired and defined character, aesthetics, and qualities. 4.3 Community Character Element Page CC-13 - "... Design Standards based on the Community Character goals and policies, shall be developed and applied as requirements to projects in the Centers which meet certain thresholds. Finally, Design Guidelines developed through sub-area planning processes, shall be EXHIBIT A administered within areas of the City such as neighborhoods and newly designated Centers" 4.4 Language in Overall Vision Statement (Pg. 15) "Downtown is at the core of the inter-connected Centers with a vibrant, unique concentration of services, public resources, and attractions. In conjunction with building such mixed use urban settings, the qualities of single family areas and other cohesive and healthy neighborhoods will be preserved and protected." 4.5 Policy LU 3E "Provide development incentives and flexibility within the Zoning Code to encourage desirable design elements with flexibilities within the Zoning Code provisions for all new development and redevelopment. · Establish a creative and cooperative process for design solutions. · Establish value criteria and a corresponding system to allow tradeoffs and exceptions between development standards and design standards." 4.6 Policy LU 11 A Provide for growth through increased densities in Neighborhood Centers and designated activity Centers. 4.7 Policy LU11 D Strategically locate mixed-use development and higher density development around existing infrastructure and transportation hubs. 4.8 Goal LU13 Achieve a vibrant and active downtown. 4.9 Goal CC1 Demonstrate excellent urban design qualities in new development. 4.10 Policy CC1 A Utilize urban design guidelines, standards, and project review procedures to promote high-quality development that enhances the positive effects of new investment in neighborhoods. 4.11 Policy CC2C Encourage building and site design that allows a variety of housing forms and also is compatible with the character of the immediate surrounding area, thereby generating community support for new types of housing development. 4.12 Policy CC48 Utilize design guidelines that are understandable, enforceable, predictable, and consistent when applied to sub-areas, Centers, and individual neighborhoods, in order to evaluate proposed development. 5. Supplement to the Zoning Code The proposed design guidelines are fully consistent with the City of Bremerton Zoning Code, Title 20. The design guidelines are applied within the BMC Chapter 20.79, MR zoning designation. EXHIBIT A 5.1 No conflicting regulations. The Design Guidelines are applied in addition to all of the development standards contained within the MR zone. None of the guidelines are in conflict with the MR Chapter. Development and building types encouraged by the Design Guidelines are fully allowable per the MR zone. 5.2 Cross Reference. A cross reference has been added to Figure 20.74(a) of the BMC. This empowers the Design Guidelines. 5.3 Supplement, Not Additional Standards. The Design guidelines are not an amendment or addition to the BMC Zoning Code. Instead, the guidelines are a manual for additional assistance to the Director for making what effective Type I Decisions, and determining SEPA impacts. The guidelinE?s also inform applicants of the City's desired and preferred design elements. II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission approves and recommends the Highland Ave. / Pleasant Ave. Design Guidelines to the City Council for adoption. The Planning Commission finds the Design Guidelines to be an effective set of measures to help new larger-scale structures up to 60 feet tall 'fit in' with the existing Highland / Pleasant residential area - to the extent possible. The Planning Commission finds the Guidelines to be clear, to advance high quality design, and to encourage design features that reduce the impacts of new large-scale buildings on neighbors. In recommending the Guidelines for adoption, the Planning Commission does not address the separate issue of whether 60 foot height limits are appropriate for the Highland Ave. / Pleasant Ave. residential area. The Planning Commission emphasizes that the Design Guidelines are crafted per City Council's direction to address buildings with height limits up to 60 feet, but suggests that the Guidelines may be applicable and beneficial to new larger-scale structures with other maximum heights. For Council's consideration, the Planning Commission underscores several points related to earlier recommendations, and the Comprehensive Plan. First, the Commission reminds Council that the recommendation for height limits at the time of zoning code adoption (November, 2005) was 40 feet. The Commission believes the 40 foot height limit was arrived at through extensive deliberation, including deliberation at the Council level in workshop format. The Commission also notes that prior to the 40 foot recommendation (which was based in part on Council input), the Commission had recommended a 50 foot limit for this area as part of a preliminary Zoning Package. (Package #4, September, 2005.) Secondly, the Planning Commission points out several highly relevant Comprehensive Plan directives, though the Commission understands that various Comp Plan goals and policies must be balanced. The Comprehensive Plan clearly suggests that special care EXHIBIT A is required when considering new, more intense, development in neighborhoods. (See Policy CC1 B.) Design Guidelines can help mitigate the appearance and feel of new buildings, but only the underlying zoning parameters can control a building's scale. By including language about preservation in the overall Vision Statement, the Comprehensive Plan placed a high priority on preservation in conjunction with new development in Centers. (See Vision Statement pg. CC-1.) The Comprehensive Plan also states that design guidelines should be developed through sub-area planning. (Page CC-13, Community Character Element). In light of these Comprehensive Plan directives the Commission suggests that the edges of the Downtown Regional Center be among the highest priorities for Sub-Area Planning, especially since Sub-Area planning may be an effective avenue to reach resolution and consensus on scale issues in the Highland Ave. / Pleasant Ave. residential area. Respectfully submitted by: Executive Secretary Approved by: John Cockburn, Chair ,. i>(~(~I~"r~_J,"4~'rl-~~"-' '-\'~'~. ,4"'plo.l:":' 1~/4v.~~!~'}:/>~~S~f~t:lj~~,,{\.J' ,~",;,//~,,;_, ~.,'I.j;i.,."_.'~";. '> V,.',. ~ 150 ~"1~ &. '3.. 'et'~~ ~."....~ ';.~<-:_ 'f~,~~[, <t,:~ . ,~O~ } ':"j~ "1_,. '~+h::'SO~tt k )~u if" .... .;;~ '11~ ".)~~~:.:4!~f~i~'.,~~~1;>~>,~i::~,~:, .:',"~ .';~~ '.:' ,~""., ;~~ ~[~~ ;" ","~,~";~~.'"w' 'I .~. ,,>;:j\'~'l.."~;r ~.' ,'; ";\(~iJ:~""'".~: ,._.!? ';.r~l:,~~~"~~"k:::'lli.~,~:':';. .... ;Jmr,llirffiJl~ii1iatM~cilwn~~rfj)ft /h\~o' :'..':'~'-~';:':,_~--'~,:-:~~-~- r:~~ -~- -~: ->:( i(l'~; '- ~ - ,-',' .--:-~ . -:'-"~ '. 'J8)~~~ni' @wfl~k~Dnfn,@~' "," "","~""-'.., ~- - ~-:"~, " . Purpose The 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan calls for increased density to help restore vitality to Downtown which is designated as Kitsap County's only Regional Metropolitan Center. The Highland / Pleasant residential area is adjacent to the Downtown Core area and is intended to accommodate new, higher-density development to realize the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. The HigWand / Pleasant Design Guidelines help create a 'good fit' between new, larger scale multifamily stmctures and existing residences in this area. The Highland / Pleasant residential area contains some high quality residential architecture. There is a wide range of homes including several with notable design character and historic qualities. Many homes date to the early part of the 1900's. Most existing stmctures are the scale of single family homes, though many ofthe larger stately homes have been converted to apartments. For these reasons, particular attention should be given to how well new buildings fit with the existing residences. Design guidelines are an effective tool to insure that new projects relate well to these surroundings. Application of The Guidelines 1 The Highland / Pleasant Design Guidelines an~ applied at the time of land use and building pemlit applications for any new development witrun the designated guidelines area (see boundaries on the following page). The guidelines are a complement to the CIty of Bremerton Zoning Code and are adnlinistered by the Director of Community Development. All new, housing developments of 4 or more attached dwelling units are subject to the guidelines. Design guidelines are more discretiomuy than quantitative standards (such as zoning mles) and afford greater leeway to the designer. Photos and diagrams qre included in the guidelines to illustrate characteristics that new development is expected to achieve - and, just as importantly - to avoid. Not evelY guideline is peliinent to every project, but project designs should make a positive response to all that are relevant. Developers and designers should articulate how their proposal achieves the intent expressed by the guidelines. The Director of Community Development can only issue permit approvals for those projects that reasonably satisfy the guidelines that apply. April fl), 2006 The Director may convene an ad hoc advisory review committee of surrounding residents and propeliy owners for any project application. The Director has discretion on howto incorporate the committee's comments in project review. The applicant can appeal the Director's Type I decision, including all conditions that are derived from the guidelines, to the City Heating Examiner. The study area is located within the Downtown Regional Center designation ofthe Comprehensive Plan. The Highland / Pleasant neighporhood is bounded generally by 6th St. to the South, the ntid-block lot line betweeen Pleasant Ave. and Pacific Ave. to the west, 11 th St. to the north, and the Puget Sound shoreline to the east. -::-::, ~.; ~ .~_-,I. . . !~,~)' : , ! - _;.. V19~:QJty }, ~~: :.' '; .' Jh"c: i~Kc~, f, I .~! H(g'hlallrl A Vie', / P/c:IS;lIl1 A I'C, Desi!(l' Guidelinc"; The five core (5) guidelines listed below are each supported by specific sub-guidelines, which are detailed on the following pages. A. Bulk Reduction Intent: Reduce the appearance of bulk and promote a visual scale that is consistent with existing neighborhood structures by managing building mass and incorporating design elements that relate to the surrounding cu'chitectural context. A-I Facade Articulation A-2 Horizontal Modulation at the Neighborhood Scale A-3 Avoid Upper-Story 'Slabs'. A-4 Vertical Modulation at the Neighborhood Scale. B. Light / Air / Privacy Intent: Reduce the operational impact of new buildings on neighbors by maintaining spaces for air and light and protecting the privacy of adjacent residents. B-1 Slightly Raised First Floor Level. B-2 Sideyard 'Breathing-Room' Setback. B-3 Attractive 'Muted' Sideyard Facades. 3 C. Street Activation Intent: Promote streetscape and street fa<;;ade design elements with human scale, activity, and a sense of community to integrate new developments with the existing residences. C-I Ground-Related Units With Stoops and Porches. C-2 Neighborhood-Compatible Front yard Setbacks. C- 3 Attractive Front yard Landscaping. C-4 Residential Facades Only, Facing the Street. Continued on reverse... April 1(1, LOU(, D. Building Quality and Style Intent: Enhance residential character and break up visual mass by using design cues from the historical peliod and architectural features of quality neighborhood examples. D-l Architectural Cues from Quality Neighborhood Examples. D-2 Distinctive roofforms. D-3 Varied Materials with Cues from the Neighborhood. E. Below Grade or Screened Parking Intent: Maintain the human scale of the existing residences and reduce the impact of parked cars by locating parking below grade or screening it from the street. E-I AU Parking Underground or Screened from View. E-2 Subordinate Appearance of Garage Entries. E-3 Courtyard slllface parking. J I (,!.! !J L If Ii I A \ t' " PI, ,i..;;1/!I ,\ \ C l)Co,; iL; /I G u j d t'i i II e ~ Facade Articulation Facades of buildings facing the street should be atiiculated with a variety of at'chitectural features such as: cor- nices, gables, balconies, recesses, protrusions, ornament, and varied materials. No facade should be 'blank' or unariiculated as seen from the street. The building has a blank facade facing the street. The building facade is articulated with a variety of materials, details andfeatures, creating interest and reducing bulk. ~ Horizontal Modulation at the _ Neighborhood Scale Building facades should have modulation at horizontal intervals. Modulation should occur at intervals similar to the scale of the existing structures in the Highland / Pleasant neighborhood. (Roughly every 25' - 40'). Modulation can be achieved through a variety of elements such as materials, textures, roof lines, recess etc. 5 The building does not have neighborhood scale modulation. The building has horizontal modulation at intervals, denoted by fuaterials, COIOf; texture and a recess. April 11), 20{){) Avoid Upper Story 'Slabs' . Above two stories in height, the width of buildings should be broken up to reduce the appearance of bulk. No building should have a continuous width greater than 65' as seen from a street or sideyard above two stories in height. The width of this large condo building is broken with a central courtyard which breaks up the mass and lets in light and a it: Wide footprint, single-mass structures are not a goodfitfor the existing residential chaf{{cteJ: Courtyards (above left), "U" shaped design, substantial recesses, or altogether separate structures (below left) are acceptable methods to reduce bulk. Facade treatment alone is not adequate to avoid upper story 'slabs'. Re- duction of the mass into seperate visual components no wieler than 65' is required for pOltions of buildings above two stories. Continuous, wide structure is too bulky. These stand-alone 60' -tall structures have slender widths, less than 65', that create a better scale adjacent to srnaller residential structures. This building is a 'slab', and appears 'unfriendly 'to neighborhing residences despite extensive facade treatment. l/ighhliul Al c. / PIL'<L';;//lI ;he Design Glliclclillc~ Vertical Modulation at the Neighborhood Scale Building facades should have modulation at vertical intervals. Modulation should occur at a height similar to the eave lines of existing structures in the Highland / Pleasant neighborhood. (Roughly 20' - 30' high). Modulation can be achieved through a range of elements such as cornices, setbacks, materials, textures etc. The building has no vertical modulation so it seems tall and uninteresting. The building facade is modulated at a height in the range of 20' - 30'. 7 Lack of vertical modulation makes the building appear very tall. April 19, 200() Page left intentionally blank. I I i!.!hl.l!/(/ An- / r'!t';I<.;;WI 4\ c. 1 )c.si,!.!f! Gllle/eline,.; Sideyard 'Breathing Room' Setbacks Sizeable light / air / privacy setbacks should be reserved as a buffer for neighboring structures. The sideyard setbacks above two stories should meet the measurent standard illustrated below. The horizontal distance A, must always be at least half the veltical distance B. This will ensure an adequate light / air / privacy setback for neighbors. Yes Distance A must be at least half Distance B. No Distance A is drawn horizo!ltally from the level of the eaveline at two stories of height. Distance B is the vertical distance from A to the tallest eaveline of the structure on the sideyard. Only providing the minimum sideyard setback for a tall building:'1full height intrudes on neighbors' privacy and creates discomfort to adjoining residents. 9 lIB Attractive, 'Muted' Sideyard Facades Facades facing the sideyards of existing structures should be designed to preserve privacy. Design should avoid placing windows and balconies that would look directly into adjacent homes. Design should also use architectural features, vegetation, and quality materials to create visual interest for adjacent residents and to avoid stark facades. No Sideyard facade does not grant privacy to neighbors. Yes Views are directed away from neighbors. .' .... Windows and balconies look directly onto 1djacent yards reducing privacy. The buildings ,ide facade is not attractive. April }Y, 200fJ Views are directed mvayfrom neighbors, vegetation is used to screen the building, and windows are carefully placed. Slightly Raised First Floor Level The first noor of residential buildings should be slightl y elevated (30" or more) from street level. This creates privacy for residents since windows are not at eye level for people walking down the street. A slightly raised first noor level is also characteristic of traditional townhome or brownstone design. This building:\' first floor is slightly raised to protect residents' privacy. In this building, passersby have a direct view into doors and windolVs. 10 /-Ji,!!I'/;l1Id Ale. i P/e;'/'i,1I11 A\T. nesign Glfic/diIlt'~ i-" "-I ' , i : ~ No 2J I uti []: I Building 11I1k:: i.......~... P?<;S.D!,! 4.:-., .+-..J res ect Street typical setback. r-h hi I 1 11 ,~ v: ,', .es Street The building does not continue the existing neighborhood setback. The building continues the setback existing in the neigh- borhood. . Ground Related Units with Stoops and Porches Ground-related housing units are encouraged, and entry features such as porches and stoops should be included. Entrances to ground-related units and shared entIies to upper-level units should be interspersed. These features help create sense of community and are more compatible with a single-t~m1ily environment. 11 None of the groundfloor units have entrances onto the street. Multiple resideiltlal entrances create a lively stfiiet environ- ment. Shared entrances are interspersed with entrances to individual units. April 19, 2000 Attractive Front yard Landscaping Careful attention should be gi ven to landscaping within the frontycu'd setback. Front yard landscaping should help 'soften' the appemance of larger buildings, and should help differentiate the public realm (sidewalk) from the private realm (residences). Landscaping may be accompanied by low fences, and/or walls. The generous landscaping d{fferentiates the public street edge from the private realm of the building. (2 Ell The lack of landscaping leads to a harsh intetlace with the street. Residential Facades Only Facing the Street At no time should non-residential facades be visible directly from the street. Portions of the building used for parking, storage or other non-residential functions must be either located to the side or the rear of a structure, or should be screened with a building facade that appecu's residential in chmacter and design. The parking ent/)' is well-designed so the street level of the building is residential, Non-residential facades at the street. lJighlancl Alt.. / PIC;/S;lll( All' Design Guide/im's Architectural Cues Fr01ll Quality Neighborhood Examples New architecture should take cues from the style and period of quality neighborhood examples. Many homes in the neighborhood were built in the early 1900's in architectural styles including Victorian, brick tudor, craftsman, and others. Brick tudor s(yle home. (Highland Ave.). Crc{jtsman style home. (Highland Ave.) 13 Designers should take cues from these style elements, rather than propose new buildings that are strictly contem- porary or from a historical period not present in the (;ll'chitecture of the neighborhood. This page contains images of quality historic architecture in the neighborhood that (;ll'e good models for the architectural elementat that should be expressed in new, large-scale projects. Victorian style home. (Highland Ave.) April 19, 2006 'Y". Kitsap Historic Register home. (Highland Ave.) Distinctive Roof Form Roof line is an impOltant element of building quality and style. Rooflines should have distinctive design and be varied for interest. Many rootlines in the Highland I Pleasant neighborhood are pitched, so pitched roofs are appropriate. However, other well-designed fornls that create interest are also acceptabl~. The ro{~lline is varied with pitches, to create interest. The ro{~lline is monotonous and flat. '4 Varied Materials and Textures .,.. Within Appropriate Style IiIIiI Materials and textures are important stylistic elements that can help larger structures fit an existing residential context. Traditional materials such as brick, siding, :md shingles may be more appropriate than contemponu'y materials such as corregated metal. Materials that age quickly such as vinyl and stucco also are not as successful. l - -. . ~ A variety of materials befitting of historic styles are llsed. (eg. brick and quality siding products) Corregated metal does not fit the e.dsting residential charactet: 1-J ig-hhll1(/ A IT. / {'lei-/sanl A \c. Design Guidelines Page left intentionally blank. Space for additional guildeline ifnecessary. 15 A. f1ril 11), 2{i{}fJ All Parking Below Grade or Screened From View AIl parking should be located in garages below grade or entirely screened from view as seen from the street. Where possible, garage entries should be placed to the side or rear of buildings. Where parking is not located underground, it must be screened from view in interior COlllts or with street -fronting residential buildings. The parking garage is tucked-under the building. All parking is hidden .limn view. The parking is visible. and directly abuts the street.. 6 Subbordinate Garage Entries . In all cases, entries to parking garages must be visually subbordinate to the entries of shared or ground-related residences. Design should tuck the entry to the garages near edges of buildings, or to the side or rear. Materials ,md colors should also help to diminish the appearance of the garage. Yes No I . rage entry well-designed. The pedestrian entry to the building is visually nwre prominent than the garage. Garage e too prominant. The parking is highly visible, and more promineflt than the pedestrian entry. U i;.:h/;/I/(I A \ c. / P/t-;/S;i111 A \ c. [)c!.;iy(/ C;/liclclill(,~ Courtyard Surface Parking When parking is located on the surface, it should be 'tucked away' in interior courtymds that are screened from view from the street. Multiple small pmking courts interspersed between buildings moe prefelTed to single expan- sive pm'king moeaso Parking in front det.racts from the street 17 April 19, 200(i 8 J 1i.~hl;I[/(1 A\ (', .I /'/(';18;/111 A I (. I Jc:-;ig/l GlIicfdill('~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Chris Hugo Date: April 5, 2006 Re: Highland Ave. / Pleasant Ave. Design Guidelines Background As you know, at the time of the 2005 Zoning Code adoption on November 30th, City Council deliberated on appropriate building heights in the Highland / Pleasant neighborhood and adopted a 60' building height limit with a moratorium on building heights over 40' until staff could create design guidelines for new large-scale structures. The moratorium is in effect until May 13, 2006 or until the guidelines are adopted. Stakeholder Committee Process Between November 30th, 2005 and the present, a formal Stakeholder Committee was convened for several work sessions, and several public meetings were held. Public meetings and stakeholder meetings were convened to craft guidelines that meet expectations of both local residents and the development community. To notify the public of meetings, flyers were delivered to all residences within the affected area, and large format boards were posted at two locations in the neighborhood. Flyers were also sent to all property owners in the affected area. The dates of all previously held and upcoming Public and Stakeholder Meetings on the topic are as follows: ~ Public Meeting 1, December 29th, 2005 ~ Public Meeting 2, January 9th, 2006 ~ Public Meeting 3, February th, 2006 ~ Stakeholder Committee Meeting, January 1 ih, 2006 ~ Stakeholder Committee Meeting, January 25th, 2006 ~ Stakeholder Committee Meeting. March 16th, 2006. The Stakeholder Committee IS comprised of area. Design Professionals, residents, and property owners. Scope and Intent of Guidelines The intent of the Design Guidelines for this area is to ensure that new larger scale structures 'fit in' with the existing character of the neighborhood to the greatest possible extent. As a core location within the Downtown Regional Center, increased density in the Highland / Pleasant neighborhood is required to meet various Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. However, the Highland / Pleasant neighborhood is also one of the City's most unique and historic neighborhoods. Design guidelines are intended to strike a balance, so more density can be achieved, while maintaining the historic and unique characteristics of the district. Design Guidelines will function as a supplement manual to the City of Bremerton Zoning Code. Rather than hard and fast rules, (like zoning regulations) the Guidelines will be more discretionary and provide leeway for designers. The Director will conduct a design review of all projects in the affected area to determine whether new development is meeting the intent and desired outcomes articulated in the Guidelines. The Director will have the ability to condition proposals as a Type II Decision, when he/she deems the proposal to not adequately meet the Guidelines. In cases of particular sensitivity, staff also proposes adding an allowance for the Director to convene an ad hoc Citizen's Advisory Committee to the Director, to assist with the Design Review. The Guidelines themselves will not be an amendment to the zoning code, they will be a stand-alone guidance manual. As currently drafted, the Guidelines focus on five (5) core principles, each. of which is supported with numerous specific sub-guid~lines. The five core guideline principles are: · Bulk Reduction · Light I Air / Privacy · Street Activation · Building Quality and Compatible Style · Below Grade or Screened Parking Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Draft Design Guidelines on March 21, 2006 and considered public testimony. The Planning Commission deliberated and recommended the guidelines to the Council. In addition to recommending the Guidelines, the Commission entered into findings (see exhibit to the resolution) that communicates concerns regarding the need for future sub-area planning in this area. . Page 2 DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROV AL ON 4/18/2006 Minutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 21 2006 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Cockburn at 5:32 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Friedberg~N~f{', Commissioner Hoell, Commissioner Mosiman, Commissioner Kosusko, and Commissi'o6.er Streissguth. Quorum certified. "" Also present: Chris Hugo, Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, Geoff Wentlandt and Pam Ransier (DCD staff). "'r,:~ ' i( " III. ~:"'; ::C<: Yif;: ;::\i::,: ~::/~1~." ''':.~ Approv'aJ:'~f~~~nda : ~:. ,",.;' ,.; thea"genci::L It W~i::iagreed by general consensus to /'. Commissioner. Cockburn introduced approve the agenda as presented; IV. Approval:..QfMinutes The minuteso{.th~,Special Meeting held on February 7, 2006 were presented for approval by Commissi:8ner:'Cockb.u~n. A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf and secon~~.~by Commissio~~r Hoell to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2006,::3'~'I?~esented. Calleqi'f?r a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Friedberg- Nerf: Yes;fi,(;;Qmmissioner HQell: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: '~:,;:::i,:~S:"-'\:, , "~"-"',: .. Abstain; Co"';' 'ssioner Strer*;s,~uth: Yes. The motion carried. The minutes of t"f.peciaIJ%eeting held on February 14, 2006 were presented for approval by Commissioner Cockb)jl;~( A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2006, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. The minutes of the Special Meeting held on February 28, 2006 were presented for approval by Commissioner Cockburn. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2006, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Friedberg-Nert': Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2005 Page 1 of 1 1 DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/18/2006 Abstain; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth: Abstain. The motion carried. V. Public Meeting A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any comments from citizens. none, he closed this portion of the meeting. Seeing "h'~' '< B. Public Hearing: .;i.'< 1. Minor Changes to the Zoning Code: Nicole w~~a, Ci~>flanner, began the staff presentation on the changes to the zoning code. Sh~';:reviewedi;I%t following proposed changes::!.) · Amendment #1: Add a stand alone SEPA review to table2Q;;Q2.040, Type II Director Decisions; ""':'i: · Amendment #2: Change the filing date requirement on the applicatIon to amend the Comprehensive Plan to read "between January I SI and the first business day of April"; · Amendment #3: Correcti~n.of clerical errors in sections 20.42, 20.44.060, 020.46.080, 20.48.060(a), 2(O.$~,l~9,and 20.79. · Amendmen1'#4: Add the definition"oI',adetached structure; · Amendment #5: Amend 920A4.070(Measuring the Height of a Structure, so that maximtu:p:"pujlding heighti~<measuredt()>the average roof height, not the peak oqhe/stfliit~e; Add anewq~finition fofaverage roof height; · Ame~slh}~Bt #6:EJ.~ange the deci~al. place at which the City rounds up to a whole nuint>er whentthe number ofu.nits ends in a fraction. This will include all sections oftH@cod~..tIiat;f0.unds unit~:;> <'!< :-'-':': :.: ,>': ;'. ":,!,' :,. . ".~:, :,~~--'t<': ,", ~:>~:::', ":}::'-~:?~"::;._ ;y,' : ,',' ".':"':' · Amendment #7::i~xempt'slngle":I~mily residential homes from being required to shield refuse contarners by a 6-foot high solid wall or sight obscuring fence; · Amendment #8: Deleteis20.48.260, Drive Through Stacking Requirements: · Amendment #9: Add language to the clear vision triangle requirements to make an exception for structures that, due to visibility issues, cannot meet the setback requirements AND the clear view triangle requirements; · Amendment # 1 0: Add provisions to 920.52, Sign Standards, to allow for wall signs above flat roof parapets in the Downtown zones. · Amendment #11: Add language to the repair and maintenance section of non- conforming uses to prohibit specific activities that were disallowed in the previous zoning code and inadvertently left out; · Amendment #12: Add language to non-conforming structures to allow for expansions up to 20%, so long as the structure does not become more non- conforming; · Amendment # 13 :_0 To allow school buildings located within the low density residential zone an additional 10 feet of height through the use of a Conditional Use Permit to accommodate structures such as gymnasiums and auditoriums; add the word "Uses" to the heading to make complete; Planning Commission Meeting March 2], 2005 Page 2 of II DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/18/2006 . Amendment #14: Amend 920.60.065, Low Density Residential (R-IO), to allow slightly denser infill development and to simplify the calculation of neighborhood compatibility; . Amendment # 15: Add building height limits for mixed-use structures in the Employment Center. In Amendment # 1, Commissioner Kosusko asked for clarification as to why staff did not feel a stand-alone SEP A required notification of Determination of Completeness, Notice of Application, Notice of Hearing, or Notice of Decision. Andrea Spencer, Planning Manager, used the sale of publicly owned property, which requires a SEPA review, as an example. The sale requires a public hearing and notice, but the SEP A is an administrative process and is posted on the property and in the newspaper. Commissioner Hoell noted in Amendment #2, I'}n"1+~ry 151 is a holiday. Staff suggested wording it as "the first business day of January::, . ." . l ~,: ,?: _"_ _y,n. ",_,'." ',"',;',::':':"- ....- ;~:"'_.::'.-:" "",'c_ :":,:" .;~, Commissioner Kosti~,~~'.feLt"t~%tac;r8?s~reference should be made to the Low Density Residential zone code in"1\l!lendmerit#3"(5) referring to 920.52.130. " - "" . ~ There was discussion regardingjf there was truly a need to change the descriptive heading in 920.79, Multiple RGsidential (MR) to High Density Residential (HDR). Commissioner Streissguth asked for the source of the six-foot separation requirement on detached structures (Amendment #4). Staff explained that requirement was directly from the Fire Code. Commissioner Kosusko commented that the definition for detached structures was too broad and the six-foot separation requirement may not apply to structures that are not residential. Chris said staff would verify if this term is used anywhere else in the code before presenting to Council. There was discussion on Amendment #5. with Commissioner Streissguth and Commissioner Kosusko stating a change to the adopted roof height measurement goes against the thoughts and work that went into the original decision. Chris explained that the adopted method is difficult to work with and did not consider this amendment a correction to an error but a necessary return to the previolls method. Planning Commission Meeting March 2 I, 2005 Page 3 of] I DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/18/2006 For Amendment #8, Commissioner Kosusko suggested keeping the chapter section and making a reference to BMC 11.2 instead of deleting the section all together. Commissioner Hoell asked for clarification on Amendment #7, wanting to know if the amendment would affect S20.46.120(a) through (c), orjust (a). Staff said it would affect only (a). In Amendment #9, Commissioner Hoell suggested adding the process by which relief may be granted. Chris recommended adding "by the Director" at the end of S20.50.060(l)(3). Commissioner Streissguth asked for examples of what initiated Amendment #10. The Windermere building on Park Avenue and a renovated building on Pacific Avenue were given as examples. Commissioner Friedberg-N~rrasked if this would change any sign dimensions already in effect. Staff said it wou1ci'not. '.. Regarding Amendment #11, Commissioner,s;treissguth asked if 920.54.060(f)(l) & (2) had been removed from the updated zoning code as aresult of City Council workshops. Chris replied that it had not; it was left out in error:'A deliberate omission would have been contrary to land use rules. .':;:.(,~+\)">;, In S20.60.040(j)(iii), of Amendment #13, Commissioner'C~,~J.<'burn asked if the 45-foot building height was the true height or the average heigqf,~;f Chris explained that this section dictates the height of the public building but nof the method of measurement, which is the subjestQt~1\~ehdment #5. There was ?rief~iscussionion Amendment # I 4 and how the counting of dwelling units factors into the deB~itycaIYl:!lation of a proposed development. '.~ ",:\ . ~.."",~, Commissioner Cockba~nope~'~cipdbllf:comment on this item. Adam Brockus, 1146 Perry,A"enue: "Some of you probably also know I'm a City Council member. So. By the way, we went through the Critical Areas Ordinance; we had a few amendments on it, and what I found kind of valuable from the experience is it's better to change - to fix things here and not once we get on to the Council. But we can. Al! right. Amendment 2: I spotted the problem with January first like the good Commissioner, but I think, maybe, a word that should go in at the end between the first business day in January and the first business day of April, we should put the word 'inclusive' so that somebody knows that they can come in at 4:30 PM on April 2nd or whatever it turns out to be and they have until that time. OK. Amendment 5 on the measuring the height of the structure and the average [roof] height. I came in thinking of some of the Tudor-type houses that we have around with the very steep sloped roofs and I had this imagination of somebody twisting and bending this so much that you almost get a Eiffel Tower as long as the average height gets in there they can, you know, get something in there that can go up 60 feet and still reach that average thirty- five foot height. So I don't, I would have to say J kind of disagree with this and maybe what we want to think about is maybe a minimum slope to some houses, especially in an R-I 0 zone, with a maximum height that may be altered or changed or looked at by you guys. Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2005 Page 4 of 11 DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/18/2006 will say, onjust about every building plan, there is - they do show the slope of the roof at some point in it. Let's see, moving on. The roof sign, Amendment 10: where would the Manette TV sign go? Well, there we go." [Chris Hugo: "It's just a legal non- conforming sign."] "I will say that will be looked at. May I request the Commission Board head to give me extra time since I've got flashing yellow here?" [Commissioner Cockburn: "That's fine."] "Thank you. OK, going past that. And I'll say, I'll ask at my district meeting-if anyone has some affectation to that sign. But, as we're going through the sub-area process for the Neighborhood Center, we'd like to keep an eye out for that. OK, going to Amendment 14, in Manette we do have a property that came to mind. It's kind of a semi-flag lot at 17th and Perry. There's one large house but it flags into a very large open space that has not been developed. How would this affect that space? Would it just be ripe for sub-division and going through or would this more or less push it more towards a large multi-family residential spot?" [Commissioner Cockburn: "17th would be out of the Center, so it'd be R-IO."] "R-IO - sq,H;1ulti-family would not be permitted in that part? [Chris Hugo: "No."] "So it woulg;h)~0;~hb-divided. OK. That was a little clarification." [Chris Hugo: "Also, regardipg'the sign: this provision here doesn't affect that sign over there, anyway, becausethis only applies to the Downtown zones. That sign's covered by the Sign Code and it hasn?tbeen allowed there for ever, anyway."] "That's been grand fathered in. OK, butalso another example came in was also, you know. You think of Seattle, you think of prqbably two things: the Space Needle and the Pike Place Market~igg.. If somebody caH;1~d~ with a thing saying, you know, you got a great sign that'll b~(oniht,huildings right Qutofront of the ferries that say "Welcome to Bremerton", is there p6Ssibilitie~,9~that everhappening or this shoots it right off?" [Chris Hugo: "This is actually arelaxationofthe code. Up until now, you couldn't do that anyway: But if somebOqy.comes in .~ith a Bremerton Place Market, then we'll probably re-Iook at this."] "OK, lef.':? see. Andthen the final one, back to Amendment 15, you know, I'm going to de~}de to hold off on comment on that one, but it was dealing with the maximum building height I thank you for all your work and really thinking.'l?out it. See you at the next public comment." .,.,.;.;:i;_{~:::_~:, . ~, C;,9ih'~issior{~:f!i{]q~kburn asked if there were any other public comments on this item. ,,4~~;~ing none, he'tlp.~~~ this portion of the meeting. .c,.<,;. ;::: Andrea recomrnen,ded voting on each amendment separately to avoid a lengthy narrative in trying to approve fifteen amendments with modifications in one motion. Commissioner Kosusko suggested deleting the phrase, "such as 'grass-crete' or pervious pavement" from Amendment #3 -( I ). He also felt that the MR zone should not be renamed High Density Residential (HDR) in #3-(6). Commissioner Streissguth agreed that the MR zone should not be renamed until more information regarding the proposed change is available. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to recommend to City Council Amendment #1 to the Bremerton Zoning Code.as written. Planning Commission Meeting March 2 I. 2005 Page 5 of 1 I DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/18/2006 Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to recommend to City Council Amendment #2 to the Bremerton Zoning Code with the following change: "between the first business day of January and the first business day of April, inclusive". Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg-N erf: Yes; Hqell:. Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes: Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. .' A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth.and secQn~ed by Commissioner Kosusko to recommend to City Council Amendmen~ #3 to.t~~t~remerton Zoning Code with the following changes: section (1), delete the words "s.~p~ as 'grass-crete' or pervious pavement"; section (4), add the language, "such as"~~~'IJers, trailers, and boats"; section (5), add a cross-reference to the Low Density R~~i~ential zone; and delete section (6). Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Y es.JhfdPotion carried. .. A motion was made by Commissionei'K?~~s~o and seconded by Commissioner Streissguthto recommend to City CounciLAn'1eri~ment #4 to the Bremerton Zoning Code witha'consideratiol1 to revise th~'-reference to the separation requirements of the International Building Code to take into account different construction types. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedb~rg-Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried "'S;;'~L~;~i;::\;l:lJ):i;', -,_:,_,_~, >/6'': ' ';;:'::'>"~-:::'::_' :":,,,:,'\..~:.; 1;:,'rnotion was.ti'!~de by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner iA;;;~t~eissguth to N@~irecommend to City Council Amendment #5 to the Bremerton i. "ZJ6D,!pg Code. . <.... ,/, Called>fi vote: Co~~burn: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Abstain; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman:'fr:t:s; Strei~~guth: Yes. The motion carried <~~',,' .:';c ,> A motion wa~i'.ri'ade by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to recommend to City Council Amendments #6, #7 as written, and #8 with the addition of a reference to BMC 11.12, to the Bremerton Zoning Code. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried There was additional discussion-on Amendment #9 regarding requirements from Engineering and alternative methods of providing a clear view at an intersection or corner. Planning Commission Meeting March 2], 2005 Page 6 of ] 1 DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/1812006 A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to recommend to City Council Amendment #9 to the Bremerton Zoning Code with the following change: add the words, "by the Director" at the end of ~20.50.050(1)(3). Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and sec?!1ded by Commissioner Hoell to recommend to City Council Amendments #10/:;"'#15 to the Bremerton Zoning Code as written. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Hoell:, Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried '>'""j 2. Highland/Pleasant Avenues Design Guidelines: Chris Hugo ga~~:~b,~>sta~freport on this public hearing item. He reviewed the history of the buildingn'eights of that neighborhood and then moved on to the design guidelines for that residential area by staff through public meetings and stakeholder meetings. He gave a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the design goals. was an item in the design guidelines. issue and would not be affected by Commissioner Cockburn asked Chris replied that lot coverage design guidelines. Commissioner Cockburn asked about/the change from 450 to 600 in the side yard. Chris advised that the revision allows better economic building techniques. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf wanted to'know if the City was legally within its rights to deny a developer's plan if it didn't meet the design guidelines. Chris explained that if the guidelines are adopted by the City CounciL that would be a legal direction to staff to follow those guidelines. If the developer disagrees, it can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Kosusko noted a need to define what the depth of a setback should be in example A-3 of the Design Guidelines to "break up" building width. Chris agreed. Example C-l requires setbacks for the structure, but not what the depth of the recess would be. Commissioner Cockburn opened public comment on this item. Steve Priest, Highland Avenue: "I publicly want to state a couple concerns, and I think it was already brought up that this document is set up to address a structure that's sixty feet high and I think that's good. And I think design standards are great. But, it's also been stated that no matter what you do, a sixty-foot structure is not going to fit the scale of this particular neighborhood. So I just wanted to talk about a.couple concerns based on the Comprehensive Plan. Actually, maybe I'll just refer right to that. As far as the sixty feet is concerned, and I know that what I'm going to say doesn't necessarily affect Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2005 Page 7 of 1 I DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/18/2006 what you guys have to make a decision on this evening, but I wanted to publicly state this: in the Community Character Goals and Policies of the Comp Plan, (CC I-B), it states, 'Ensure that new development is of a type, scale, orientation and design that improves upon the neighborhood's desired and defined character, aesthetics, and qualities.' I want to note scale in there. I'm going to jump to one other one and then get to my point here. 'Utilize design guidelines and criteria that are based on local community participation and the particular character in development issues of each special district or neighborhood (CC 4-C)'. I guess my concern is that the community did not get to give any input on this height and I just feel that kind ,of goes against what the Comp Plan says, and so publicly that's a concern I have. Th~~:;;?;: ;:;,~':{> th Adam Brockus, 1146 Perry Avenue: "I was at the N()'vem:p~r 30 meeting and I was also the one who was also at the meeting that talked~bout the;,~~.i;ghts a few weeks ago. When I did not second a fellow council-person's;,motion, whaliI......:.w.....as intending was I :?-:,<:.>,"..,.. --- ;-,: wanted to wait until the Design Guidelines caIT\eoutand then that;~~~;:!he better time to review the 40, the 60, or whatever else th::JJ:goes into it. I do have;tfi'~..gelief that our urban, our growth should be concentrated into urban am:! Neighborhood<:t~pters and try not to create more intill or suburban sprawl that Idon'Hhink we want in Bremerton in 2020. And I think the Design Guidelines are a good start. I do like a lot of the things that were said "Yes" rather than "No", especially the parking on C-4. I do have a little quibble on the 0-1: there's only one Tudor style homeqnJlighland Avenue; I think it's more of a Craftsman than Victorian area. But the thingt;:.i~;il;look at all of the "Yes" buildings on this and I say, 'Yes, it does do the function of what the Design Guidelines would do. How do we get the sixty-foot height while keeping the neighborhood feel?' But I'm thinking <2f:.!?);l~}J1ore step that gets into that and that is how do we get a better Bremerton?9~~:s:thiS/:.g~t.::~s to that next step? Does this get us to the point where someone wiJl.,j:!l,i.sl...come iil'.ifrom Seattle off the ferry and say 'Wow. This is a place I want to livefin;lIil~}'.is a pl~^€~ I want to raise my children in.'? And I am, unfortunately, . "",'-":t'~~: ,_:'::>:~I:F';\~>.'_ ,. not quite finding itt~;,:1hese~:~~ign>;qL1,iQelines and I wish we had maybe pictures or maybe things or maybej.~&S.amplesthaf:.:say maybe they are out there. But, you know, I consider Bremerton to be'iispecial place. I mean, in the forties we built mighty ships that took down empires and westiU had people who worked together, people who lived together well, and I think thatis something that should be shown in our architecture, in our homes, in our residences, and I ask the question, 'Can these design guidelines take us to that step?'. I'm not saying I am right off saying that I would not vote for this Design Guidelines, or I would, but I hope you look to that. Thank you." Rachel Zeigler, Highland Avenue: "I just want to make a couple points on record, also. At the end of our street there was a big bulletin that was put up that said, 'Hey, come give us your opinion on the 60-foot guidelines', but there was nothing saying, 'Hey, we're going to put 60-foot buildings in your neighborhood - what do you think about it?' until it was already done. And I just wanted to state - I don't know if many of you have been down Highland A venue, but it's a very narrow road and adding 60- foot buildings is going to create quite the bit of traffic and I don't know about you, but I don't really want my front yard being taken over to widen up the street, and I am very concerned about that. I am all for density and Lthink density has its place, but I don't think 60-foot buildings has its place on a residential street like ours. I think that this can be accommodated with 40- feet structures; I don't think it has to go up to sixty. Ldqn't think it should out-do the Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2005 Page 8 of 1 1 DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/18/2006 City/Government building here. I feel that things should be kept in perspective and I hope that things will be looked at more closely, and I do hope that in the future that more public input is put out there for everything, even this meeting. No notice was given out for anything, it's just by chance that r found out things like this and I just hope that you do consider the public input, you do consider our street, and r hope many of you walk down Highland and think, 'Maybe this isn't a good idea', and think about how you would appreciate it going up jn your neighborhood or next to your home because your neighborhood may be next. Thanks." Mike Brown, 1904 Marine Drive: "I own some property on Pleasant Avenue and r was a member of the Stakeholders group. r just want to talk about the process because I thought the process was a collaborative one; it well represented, r thought, a lot of varying opinions and interests. I thought the staff did a good job of keeping us pointed in the right direction, which obviously isn't an)~,!~~ task with people who aren't as sophisticated with the issues that were being q~alfwith. I just thought they did a good job so I thought I'd pass that on." /9f .<{ '~>" i;;;;.W.{.......\ Wendy Priest, 904 Highland Avenue: "1' cO[,Ile,t?>,Y6u tonight as a resident of the neighborhood. I didn't plan on addressing you sdr~qq]Je my thoughts aren't too jumbled. I just want to speak to two things: I know you are:l()oking at specific guidelines and making your decision on those, but as a couple people'm~ntioned, I want to go back to process. It was my understanding, in going through this'n~ighborhood process, we'd be able to look at the scale. And that wasn't considered and th~re wasn't the opportunity for people to talk about that: And if not there, when? And we had promised residents a sub- area. plan for dowllt()\vrr,to look at the whole downtown. And 1 think, until we do that and we really 19ok at whet~ density and the highest density makes sense, and where we have structuresithat maybE{; need to be a new development really matching the old architecture. 1 ihi~~L~e sq~~l?be really careful how we proceed. There's homes on that street that, in talkin:8;",;!~,'SQ'm~P~~";,,~t,.~9mmunity Trade & Economic Development, architectural historian;'q~.lt,~ve thatfney.;;qualify for historic register and it could be a great opportunity for a historic Clistflct. Granted, there's properties that need to be redeveloped, but that could be done in SUc.\1:\~0way. And some of the images that Chris showed for three- or four-stories would b~ 'perfect. And those three- or four-story structures could accommodate 40 - 50 units per acre which meets our density requirement of 40 units per acre. So, thank you." Donald Smithhiseler, 645 Washington Avenue: "1 actually wanted to, 1 guess, a ditto for what Mike Brown had to say. And in addition to all your efforts; I also wanted to thank the City Council for their efforts. This has really been a difficult road and we really need to look what is going to be the future of Bremerton, not only for two or three years, but for the next ten, fifteen, twenty years down the road. So, do we look forward or do we look back? Thank you very much." Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any other public comments on this item. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. Chris reminded the Commissioners that no buildings over 40 feet in height can be built in the Highlq.nd/Pleasant area until after the building height moratorium expires, unless Planning Commission Meeting March 2 I. 2005 Page 9 of 1 ] DRAFT SUB,JECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/18/2006 the City Council voted to extend the moratorium; if the moratorium is not extended, development can continue at the height of 60 feet without design guidelines. He advised the Commissioners on the need for guidelines to ensure some form of control on development in that area. If the guidelines are adopted, the building height moratorium would end. Commissioner Streissguth spoke at length on the Planning Commission's original position of wanting a 40- foot building height in the Highland/Pleasant A venue area and the desire to maintain the community character while meeting the density requirement with that height. She wanted to know when a neighborhood sub-area plan would be initiated and if building heights be adjusted through that process. Chris reminded the Commissioners that the sub-area plan that would affect Highland and Pleasant A venues covers the regional downtown area which includes the ferry terminal and goes north to Evergreen Park; it is not just Highland and Ple~sant A venues. He reported that staff would be taking the City Council members oqa.tourof areas designated for annexation and sub-area planning to get some guidanc~.from the Council. Chris also said that sub- area plans can be adopted out of sequencean.<;I elements of the sub-area plan could be different from the current zoning. . There was extensive discussion of what buildingh~ight the Design Guidelines were supporting, and what the instructions were from CityCquncil regarding the guidelines. Chris explained that the Design Guidelines were forgliH9ings with four or more dwelling units and were not tied to any building height.@ity Council had approved a building height of 60 feet in the Highland/Pleasant area an'a tasked staff to come up with design guidelines to help those new structures fit in. Commissioner Kosusko asked why the guidelines had been changed from structures over 40 feet tall to structures with four or more dwelling units. Staff felt that if design guidelines were to be instituted it would be best to make them broad enough to include multi-family structures less than 40 feet in height. d;t', :<:-;::> C:~D1missioherc:ockburn asked for more clarification on the proposed "Breathing giQom" setbacks. lysing figure B-1 in the Design Guidelines, Chris explained how all ':_::'-~}-:__ :':; -:-.. ',_::-1:'.: si9;~~of a building w9lIld have to be stepped back to prevent a looming presence. A motion was made by Commissioner Hoell and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to recommend to City Council for approval of the Highland AvenuelPleasant Avenue Design Guidelines as presented, to amend Figure 20.74(a) of the Zoning Code to include a reference to the Design Guidelines, and to include in the accompanying staff report the Planning Commission's support of a 40-foot building height, its belief that a 60-foot building height is not needed to meet density requirements, that the Community Character section of the Comprehensive Plan directs the Planning Commission to consider type, scale, orientation, bulk, Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2005 Page 1 0 of 1 1 DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON 4/18/2006 character, and history, and to urge Council to set a priority to do sub-area planning in the Downtown Regional Center. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried Commissioner Cockburn closed the Public Meeting. VI. Business Meeting A. Chairman's Report: None .:,.,..., B. Director's Report: Chris introduced the newest Pl,~h~ingQ9,J1,1mission member, Bill Mosiman. Commissioner Mosiman is originally front;;:Milwauk:e~;-.\Visconsin, and now lives on Madrona Point Drive and is a school administrator for Spe9j~L Education in the Central Kitsap School District.i:);(t,y: \. ;:/,';''- Chris reported that the Critical Areas Ordinance passed and a two-month:appeal period has begun. Andrea announced that Kitsap<::;oynty is beginning their 10-year update of their Comprehensive Plan. Commissiopers.,:,:,,:~~,. invited to attend the County's "kick-off' meetings. Chris remarked that this',;~ciuI&;b~i>~Femerton's opportunity to layout the City's future interest in the,Urban Gr6\vth Areas':oIJ.\!he:<::;,omprehensive Plan map. C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: Commissioner Kosusko':~sked to proactively look at the height issue in the Highland/Pleasant A venue 4na wanted staff s input. He also express~q.c?ncern for the push for annexation when there are areas currently insiq.'e:<tHe~'ii~':'li~its that need attention. Commissioner Streissguth suggested .Qs>lding a worksh.QP:,on the UGA. ",,~.t~\f;::~~;< ",~v,:_:;;, ':. ."'''''' ;\'('L VII. Adjournment <\~~~iJY:"', ^~-;-'<. Meeting wasa~joprned at 8:42',p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 18,2006. ~'>iY:::~F~y .,' ~:; , "i") Respectfully submitteaby: .l.." Chris Hugo, Executive Secretary Approved by: John Cockburn, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting March 21. 2005 Page 1 1 of 11 Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: Justin Zeigler Oustziggy@comcast.riet] Sent: Monday, April 17, 20069:25 PM To: City Council Subject: Highland/Pleasant Zoning Dear City Council: I have had a chance to view the design guidelines for my neighborhood on Highland A venue and am very pleased. I believe the guidelines are something that should be approved but with the height at 40 feet as the planning commission recommended a second time. Doing otherwise is a big mistake and will ruin the character of the Highland/Pleasant Avenue neighborhoods. While looking at the design guidelines it became very apparent that these guidelines would work for any height. The planning commission recommended 40 feet and these guidelines will work for that with no additional work necessary. I understand that it is one of the cities goals to increase density. But density can be achieved with 40 feet height limits without drastically affecting what could be in a few years a historic neighborhood that will someday be a tourist draw in itself. Highland/Pleasant avenue neighborhoods add a special flavor to the city life and should be looked at very carefully and preserved. Just because developers want to improve their bottom line doesn't mean we should let them do it at the expense of ruining Bremerton's history. Thanks for you considerations, Justin Zeigler 914 Highland Ave resident/homeowner 4/18/2006 Lori Smith From: Sent: To: Subject: sbanfill [sbanfill@dz.net] Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:57 PM City Council Highland/Pleasant Design Guidelines "Among the most critical elements to neighborhood quality are keeping new-buildings to a similar scale" From the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan - Community Character Goals and Policies Dear Council Members: I have read through the proposed Highland/Pleasant Design Guidelines and believe the five principles discussed are excellent ideas and should be combined with a forty foot height limit. This will help us achieve density without ruining the character of the neighborhood. It maintains a balance between those of us that want single family homes and those who want multi-family projects. Also, condos in smaller projects are more sought after and still create plenty of profit for those who build them. During this process of developing guidelines, I have sometimes struggled to articulate some of my concerns and recently I discovered that many of these concerns are specifically addressed in the city's own comprehensive plan! The plan states that new development should be of a scale and design that improves upon the neighborhood's character and should not diminish the resident's quality of life. It also says that the neighborhood residents are the best equipped to determine the design details of their area. So, as a neighborhood resident, I am asking you to follow the city guidelines and keep things in scale. 60 foot buildings are completely out of scale with our neighborhood of 1 and 2 story Bungalow homes and will create traffic, parking, noise, and privacy issues. 40 feet is high enough. Thank you for the work you have done on this project. Sincerely, Sally Banfill 1 Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: Lori Smith on behalf of City CounCil Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 5:11 PM To: Adam Brockus; Brad Gehring; Carol Arends; Dianne Robinson; Mike Shepherd; Nick Wofford; Wendy Priest - HOME; Will Maupin Cc: Chris Hugo; Andrea Spencer Subject: FW: Highland / Pleasant Guidelines Fyi... From: Shane & Claire Schrodt [mailto:bremertoninvestor@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 20064:44 PM To: City Council Subject: Highland / Pleasant Guidelines Dear Bremerton City Council, On April 19th you will be voting on the Highland Avenue / Pleasant Avenue guidelines. I wanted to provide a quick piece of information that is pertioent to the discussion. The planning commission in its Conclusions and Recommendations points out that the Comprehensive Plan states that design guidelines should be developed through sub-area planning. They are absolutely correct in this statement. However, they omitted a key inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan related to this very issue. In Land Use Goals and Policies (LU8) the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that sub-area plans may not be complete before development begins in centers. It says: "... to facilitate development in Centers before such specific area planning processes can be completed, minimal guidelines and standards that apply to each type of Center, on a city- wide basis should be adopted as a short-term measure. " You have these minimal guidelines and more. Please allow the revitalization of the Downtown Regional Center to continue. Sincerely, Claire Schrodt 631 Washington Avenue 4/12/2006 Page 1 of2 Lori Smith ._.".........,.--"...--~~-~..,......~,.",..,....,...--.....,---~--,...,..,..--...-".......--,.~"....'"".....",-...-,.-',....'-........----~-_.~'"""''',...,..,.-..............'''''''"....-,..,.,......,,.,.-...-.'':'~..............,......----....-"'.....,.,--....,...."..-..,...~..,..,-_.~--=--~~-"'I'" Sent: To: From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council Wednesday, April 19, 2006 3:42 PM Adam Brockus; Brad Gehring; Carol Arends; Dianne Robinson; Mike Shepherd; Nick Wofford; Wendy Priest - HOME; Will Maupin Subject: FW: Highland/Pleasant Design Guidelines Reply from Chris Hugo to Citizen Letter regarding Highland/Pleasant Issue... From: Chris Hugo Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 12:00 PM To: 'sbanfill'; City Council Subject: RE: Highland/Pleasant Design Guidelines Hi, Sally: Thanks for your continued input on the proposed guidelines. However, one of the things that seems to be missed in the citation that you and others have identified in support of your position in building heights is the meaning of the word "neighborhood" in this context of the Plan. In the case of Highland and Pleasant A venues, they are part of theDowntown Regional Center that is a designation that not oly serves all of the city but all of Kitsap County, too. It also reflects our Puget Sound Regional Council designation as a "Regional Metropolitan Center," one of only five such designations in the PSRC four-county region. Although, understandably, you consider this your neighborhood, the Downtown Regional Center, by definition, should not be confused with the traditional neighborhoods that are the subject of the Community Character chapter. And, even if we do include your streets in a "neighborhood," it would be the Downtown Regional Center neighborhood from Sinclair Inlet to Evergreen Park and from the Narrows to Warren Avenue. That is what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The focus of this "neighborhood" is the Core (with the tallest buildings on the peninsula), and your street is immediately adjacent. The scale and design of new buildings should complement that of the existing and planned Downtown Regional Center-- some can reasonably argue that even 60' is inadequate for a regional metropolitan center serving a quarter million people today and over a third of a million within a generation. The new Comprehensive Plan is a large, complex document, and it must be read in its entirety to understand its direction for growth and development. To some extent, the Plan is intentionally vague on some of the specialized development environments as its primary function is to establish a growth framework for the entire community. Still, the designation of the Downtown Regional Center is probably the most unique of all Plan designations, and with it comes a special set of growth expectations that must be recognized separately from the generic discussion of "neighborhood. "It would not be consistent with the Downtown Regional Center designation to limit building heights to only 5' higher than the most restrictive zones in the city, and changing that designation would require abandonment of the PSRC designation that has been in existence for many years. In the interest of the whole Bremerton communityand Kitsap region, I retain my professional opinion that anything under 50-60' will be a disservice to tens of thousands of citizens who hope for continuing revitalization of their Downtown. While some additional density might occur with a 40' limit, it will not be of a quantity to stimulate Downtown redevelopment nor of a character that complements the existing residential area. I base this on 35 years experience as a public planner serving communities from 200 to 200,000 and working with some of the nation's foremost planning and design professionals. One of the most notable is Mark Hinshaw with LMN Architects in Seattle. Mark has authored several books, consults coasHo- coast, and has been a good friend of mine for about seven years. He has worked with Bremerton Councils since 2000. Mark supported me when I worked internally to get the height limit down from 120' to 60' in the new zoning code. And, like me, he agrees that 60' is the appropriate standard for the existing character of these streets (provided that we apply design guidelines as currently drafted). Further, to a person, our very community-oriented planning staff is fully in support of 60' (if not greater). While this letter is not expected to change anyone's mind, I hope it provides perspective on the Adminstration's support of a 60' standard. Thanks. Chris Hugo 4/19/2006 Page 2 of2 p.s. Despite the statement in the paper today, the Planning Commission's original recommendation for heights was 50 feet. -----Original Message----- From: sbanfill [IJ:l'!i.ltQ~ba[lfill@Q~1J~J] Sent: Tuesday, April 18,20063:57 PM To: City Council Subject: Highland/Pleasant Design Guidelines "Among the most critical elements to neighborhood quality are keeping new buildings to a similar scale" From the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan - Community Character Goals and Policies Dear Council Members: I have read through the proposed Highland/Pleasant Design Guidelines and believe the five principles discussed are excellent ideas and should be combined with a forty foot height limit. This will help us achieve density without ruining the character of the neighborhood. It maintains a balance between those of us that want single family homes and those who want multi-family projects. Also, condos in smaller projects are more sought after and still create plenty of profit for those who build them. During this process of developing guidelines, I have sometimes struggled to articulate some of my concerns and recently I discovered that many of these concerns are specifically addressed in the city's own comprehensive plan! The plan states that new development should be of a scale and design that improves upon the neighborhood's character and should not diminish the resident's quality of life. It also says that the neighborhood residents are the best equipped to determine the design details of their area. So, as a neighborhood resident, I am asking you to follow the city guidelines and keep things in scale. 60 foot buildings are completely out of scale with our neighborhood of 1 and 2 story Bungalow homes and will create traffic, parking, noise, and privacy issues. 40 feet is high enough. Thank you for the work you have done on this project. Sincerely, Sally Banfill 4/19/2006 908 Highland Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337-1825 17 April 2006 Bremerton City Council RE: Design guidelines for Highland Avenue area Dear City Council Members: As you are planning to meet concerning the design guidelines this Wednesday, I wanted to express to you that the guidelines seem to me to be appropriate and well thought out. As far as I can tell, these guidelines can easily be implemented while adhering to a 40-foot height limit. Forty feet or lower is the appropriate height limit for this neighborhood if its character is to be preserved, and that will certainly allow for plenty of population density. Please remember that Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan states that new buildings should be kept to a similar scale to the existing ones in order to retain the community character. Thank you for your hard work and your earnest consideration of these questions. Sincerely, Annie L. Barrus Bremerton City Council 345 6th Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, W A 98337 Curtis Lending PO Box 288 Bremerton, W A 98337 April 12, 2006 Dear Bremerton City Council, Since you are having a study session on the Highland Ave/Pleasant Ave design guidelines that were asked for at your November 30 meeting, I think it is appropriate to remind you of what actually happened at that meeting. One of the amendments to the zoning code dealt with 40 foot height restrictions in this area. As you would expect, Linda Streissguth, the head of the planning commission started the discussion of the height amendment. She started by saying, and I quote, "There is still a lot to be done. Our recommendation comes to you as an interim measure." Let me repeat, she explicitly stated the 40 foot height limit was an interim measure. Why was it interim? Because the planning commission was properly concerned about large, ugly buildings being built. They wanted to make sure that design standards were in place before building began. My partners and I share the same goals as the planning commission - attractive, high density in the Downtown Regional Center. Our only concern was that design standards and sub- area plans might take a long time to be implemented. A long delay would be devastating to us. We 100% agreed with the planning commission goals and, as residents of Bremerton, we totally agreed that we did not want ugly monstrosities in our neighborhood. At this meeting, the City Council appeared to agree with the goals and concerns of the planning commission and were sympathetic to our concerns. Everyone was in agreement as to the goals and concerns. The only problem was to find a method to work everything out in a timely manl}er. Then Roger Lubovich and Chris Hugo came to the rescue. They proposed height limits of 60 feet with a moratorium to allow for design guidelines. This met the planning commission's long term goals and addressed their concerns about ugly building. It also provided us with real dates that we could work with instead of a promise to eventually readdress "interim measures." This is why you voted unanimously for 60 feet. You addressed all of their concerns. And you did it in a manner that expedited their long term goals. It was not a compromise. It was a solution. That is why it passed unanimously. The 60 days have turned into 5 months but that is a minor issue. The important things are that the stakeholder group and the planning department developed the guidelines. The planning commission approved them. Everyone involved has a done a great job. Now it is time to for you to approve the guidelines and allow the private, residential redevelopment of Bremerton to proceed. I am confident that you and the rest ofthe city will continue with the skill and wisdom that you have shown over the past 5 months. Sincerely, Curtis Lending Page 1 of 1 Lori Smith From: Brad [rucker52@msn.com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 7:23 PM To: City Council Cc: 'Annie Barrus'; 'Sally Bantill'; 'wpriest'; Justin Zeigler; NERO (Nels Royer) Subject: Highland Ave / Pleasant Ave Design Guidelines Dear Council Members, Today I reviewed the Highland Ave / Pleasant Ave Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission, Community Development Department, and Stakeholders Group are to be congratulated for their thoughtful work preparing these guidelines. If followed, the guidelines will help to mitigate some of the negative aspects of large-mass buildings. Of course, as I've indicated previously, I oppose development in the neighborhood of 60 feet in height. My preference would be to see the guidelines applied to buildings with a maximum height of 40 feet. I see nothing in the guidelines that would not apply equally well to 40 foot buildings as to 60 foot buildings. I would ask that the council give special attention to the planning commission's Conclusions & Recommendations. Once again the commission asks if 60 foot height limits are appropriate for this residential area, reminding the council that the original recommendation was a 40 foot limit. The commission also stresses a priority need for sub-area planning for areas around the fringes of the downtown core - something with which I am in complete agreement. Surely the planning process can be more deliberative than deciding neighborhood by neighborhood based on what a developer proposes. I urge you to follow the recommendations of the planning commission; approve the design guidelines, but also initiate the sub-area planning process as quickly as possible so the height limit issue can be resolved for the Highland/Pleasant neighborhood and for all the other neighborhoods surrounding the downtown regional center. Thank You, Brad Rucker Essential Surveys PO Bo:-;: S72 Ilr~l1lel1l.1'" WA ')x33 7 360.792.~}{ l7 bLad@.EtssenHaJ.S!!DLeY_sJ.NOO 4/18/2006 DATE SUBMITTED: May 17, 2006 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL B,ll '%; 06 ~' L2.:2--- --="""""'=.,....=...... 1f ........................................................................................ SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Resolution No. _ continuing the moratorium enacted November 30,2005 and continued by Resolution Nos. 2987 and 2991 on development over 40 feet high in the Highland I Pleasant Avenues district SUMMARY: On November 30,2005, the Council approved a 60-day moratorium on development over 40 feet in the Highland I Pleasant Avenues district between 6th and 11 th Streets until design guidelines could be developed. On February 1, 2006, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2987 continuing the moratorium until April 13, 2006. On AprilS, 2006, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2991 further continuing the moratorium until June 12,2006. Staff is requesting an additional continuation of the moratorium, until December 6,2006, to allow for City Council's consideration and adoption of design standards and zoning regulations. Committee Meeting Date: May 24, 2007 COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 7, 2006 Department: DCD Presenter: Chris Hugo Phone: 473..,5243 ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution FISCAL IMP ACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This item has no fiscal impact to the City. APPROV ALS: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINANCE DIRECTOR: MA YOR: FISCAL/BUDGET: OPERATIONS: COUNCIL PRESIDENT: I I CONSENT AGENDA 0 I RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. continuing the moratorium enacted on November 30, 2005 and continued by Resolution Nos. 2987 and 2991 on permits for development over 40 feet in the area designated 60 feet on BMC Figure 20.74(a) until December 6, 2006. COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny D Table D Continue 0 No Action ~-eW\o,,~d t". O~ ^3elt\dG. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, adopting findings offact and continuing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for any building, land use, or development permit or approval for development over 40 feet in height in the area designated with 60 foot height limits within the City of Bremerton. Such area being MR zoned properties east of and including those properties abutting Pleasant, south of 11 th Street, north of 6th Street and east to the shoreline. WHEREAS, RCW 35.63.200 authorizes cities to adopt moratoriums, provided a public hearing is held within sixty days of adoption; and . WHEREAS, on November 30, 2005, the City Council approved a motion imposing a moratorium barring acceptance or approval of any building, land use, or development permit for development over 40 feet in height in the area designated with 60 foot height limits within the City of Bremerton until additional review has been completed and any necessary code revisions have been adopted by the City Council implementing design guidelines for development in the area so designated with the 60 foot height limit. Such area subject to the moratorium being MR zoned properties east of and including those properties abutting Pleasant, south of 11 th Street, north of 6th Street and east to the shoreline; and WHEREAS, the moratorium became effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 4950, which was December 13,2005; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.63.200 provides that a city adopting a moratorium shall adopt findings of fact immediately after the public hearing held within sixty days of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 1,2006, before the Bremerton City Council and following said hearing, Resolution No. 2987 was passed continuing the moratorium until April 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on AprilS, 2006, before the Bremerton City Council and following said hearing, Resolution No. 2991 was passed further continuing the moratorium until June 12,2006; and WHEREAS, staff is requesting an additional continuation of the moratorium to allow for City Council's continued consideration of design standards and zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 7, 2006 to consider the 1 60 FootBuildmglleight Moratorium Continuation continuation of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered written comments and public testimony and finds it is in the best interest of the City of Bremerton to continue the moratorium for the protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of the community; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals and Findinf! of Fact lncorvorated. The recitals and findings of fact set forth in this resolution and Resolutions No. 2987 and No. 2991 are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. Findinf!s of Fact. The City Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact: 1. The City Council is currently reviewing its policies under the zoning code with regard to design guidelines for development in the area so designated in the moratorium with the 60 foot height limit; and 2. The existing character of the Highland / Pleasant Avenue neighborhood is predominately single-family, detached housing up to 35 feet high; and 3. During public hearings on the adoption of the new zoning code, there was substantial public testimony in favor and in opposition to heights over 40 feet; and 4. Within the moratorium area, the City Council is concerned about the potential impacts to public health, safety, and general welfare that development of 40 feet in height may create; and 5. The Bremerton Municipal Code does not contain provisions to adequately address the various impacts that development over 40 feet present and the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare would be jeopardized by allowing development over 40 feet prior to a review of the matter and possible adoption of new design guidelines by the City Council; and 6. At the direction of the City Council, the Department of Community Development has initiated a stakeholder planning process with public involvement to prepare new design guidelines, and 7. Public meetings were held that were well-attended by neighborhood residents, property owners, and other interests to provide direction on new design guidelines, and 8. On March 21, 2006, the Planning Commission approved proposed design guidelines and forwarded the same to the City Council for consideration and action, and 9. The protection ofthe health, safety, and welfare supports imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of all applications for issuance of any building, land use, or development permit or approval under the Bremerton Municipal Code for development over 40 feet in height in the area designated with 60 foot height limits within the City of Bremerton until additional review has been completed and any necessary code revisions have been adopted by the Bremerton City Council; and 10. RCW 35.63.200 authorizes cities to adopt moratoriums provided a puhlic hearing is held within sixty (60) days of adoption; and 2 60 Foot Building Height Moratorium Continuation 11. The purpose of this moratorium continuation is to provide additional time in which the City Council may continue to consider the proposed guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission as well as changes to associated zoning regulations. SECTION 3. Continuation of Moratorium. Based on the findings of fact adopted in Section 2, the City Council hereby determines that it is necessary for the moratorium enacted by motion on November 30, 2005, and continued by Resolution No. 2987 until midnight on April 13, 2006, and further continued by Resolution No. 2991 until midnight on June 12, 2006, be further continued until midnight December 6, 2006, unless the moratorium is shortened or extended by action of the City Councilor until the effective date of any ordinance or resolution establishing design guidelines in the Highland A venue/Pleasant A venue area designated with 60 foot height limits within the City of Bremerton, whichever is sooner. During said moratorium, no building, land use, or development permit or approval shall be issued, nor shall any such permit or application be accepted for any land use permit or approval for the purpose of development over 40 feet in height in the area designated with 60 foot height limits within the City of Bremerton. SECTION 4. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or sentences ofthis Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. day of PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this ,2006. CECIL McCONNELL, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney P AULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Resolutions\Community Development\60 Foot Height Moratorium Continuation.3.doc 3 60FootBuildmgHe~ht Moratorium Continuation