HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/2009 AGENDA
FILE
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 983370 Phone (360) 473-5280
***AMENDED***
JUNE 3, 2009
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
1. BRIEFING: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603
A. General Council Business
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in FIRST FLOOR CHAMBERS
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. MAYOR'S REPORT
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS & PUBLIC RECOGNITION
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. .Claims & Check Register (#AB09-127)
B. Minutes of Meeting - May 20, 2009 (#AB09-128)
C. Minutes of Study Session - May 27; 2009 (#AB09-129)
D. Resolution No. 3089 temporarily extending Cable Television System Franchise with Wave
Division Holdings, LLC (#AB09-130)
E. Ordinance No. 5085 revising and correcting the City Boundaries of streets, roads, or highway
rights-of-way located within the City by approving a new legal description of the boundary of the
City of Bremerton (#AB09-131)
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing and Ordinance No. 5083 annexing the territory within the South Kitsap Industrial
Area (SKIA) Urban Growth Area known as "SYLVAN PRODUCTS, INC"; establishing Industrial
Zoning; and assigning a City Council District for the annexed territory (#AB09-132)
B. Public Hearing and Ordinance No. 5084 annexing the territory within the South Kitsap Industrial
Area (SKIA) Urban Growth Area known as "PAIJE, PALMER, ALPINE, & ESSLINGER"; establishing
Industrial zoning; and assigning a City Council District for the annexed territory (#AB09-133)
C. Public Hearing and Resolution No. 3090 approving the Action Plan Amendments to the 2008 and
2009 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Recommendations (#AB09-134)
D. Public Hearing and Ordinance No. 5082 amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan; and amending Section 20.80 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) to activate the Sub Area Plan (#AB09-135)
7. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Approve Plan to fill Vacant seat for the City of Bremerton Mayor (#AB09-136)
8. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
H'\'. - ""0'- , '. .v ....,.,., ,_"
9. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING.
. . . .-
IAmeriCans 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.
COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW
IF YOU WISH YOUR COMMENTS TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD
J
J D C((\I\e: 'ftL, GrQve-
J R~ ~~,
.J U
J ~,-~e Y~~.J--
J ~~CL
j
J
J
J
J
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CLERK
THANK YOU
J
J
V
J
COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW
IF YOU WISH YOUR COMMENTS TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD
F
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CLERK
THANK YOU
COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST
J
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW
IF YOU WISH YOUR COMMENTS TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD
hie-:? V R.A ( ;
J . l~ . I')
".
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CLERK
THANK YOU
COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW
IF YOU WISH YOUR COMMENTS TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD
.( /vUSJJ ~ 't)
! c- \VLD ( 0
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CLERK
)
THANK YOU
DATE SUBMITTED: 6/312009 BILL # 09-127
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 5 A
CITY COUNCIL . . n
............................................................................................
SUBJECT:
Committee Meeting Date:
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 3, 2009
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Cathy Johnson
Phone: 473-5296
Claims & Check Register
SUMMARY:
Consent Agenda item. Approval of checks and electronic fund transfers.
ATTACHMENTS: Check Register.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
~~~~~2I
CONSENT AGENDA [2J
GENERAL BUSINESS D
PUBLIC HEARING D
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
1) Check #'s 331886 through 332092 and EFT's 8792 through 8828 in the amount of $2,930,862.73.
2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending May 15, 2009 in the amount of $792,705.86.
3) Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending May 31, 2009 in the amount of $82,254.07.
COUNCIL ACTION: [2J Approve D Deny D Table
o Continue 0 No Action
DA.TE SUBMITTED:
BILL #
Oq - /'J-8
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMER TON
CITY COUNCIL
58
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes
for meeting of
(V1Ov~ )0/ ,).009
Committee Meeting Date: N/ A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: ::rune.... 3. ;)Qc> 9
Department: City Council
Presenter: Cecil McCOlmeIl
Council President
Phone: (360)473-5280
SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Meeting held rVlCU( :>-01 :;).oo'f.
ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes for M.O-A..( d-Oj d-e;JO "l
FISCAL IMPACTS(Inc1ud~Budgeted Amount): N/A.
APPROV ALS:
DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
Council President
N/A
N/A
N/A
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
N/A
~';r;;?:'~dl/
CONSENT AGENDA R'
GENERAL BUSINESS D
PUBLIC HEARING D
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve 0 Deny D Table
o Continue D No Action
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, May 20,2009
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order
Wednesday, May 20,2009, at 5:00 PM in Council Conference Room 603 of the NORM DICKS
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, with Council President Cecil
McConnell presiding. Council Members present were Will Maupin, Dianne Robinson, Mike
Shepherd, Roy Runyon, Adam Brockus, and Brad Gehring. Council Members Carol Arends
and Nick Wofford were absent. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich and
Legislative Assistant Lori Smith. City Clerk Carol Etgen was absent.
A COUNCIL BRIEFING was held to discuss General Council Business, including a 13-Minute
Executive Session to discuss "Potential and Pending Litigation" per RCW 42.30.110 (1 )(i); and
at 5:30 PM the meeting moved to the First Floor Meeting Chambers.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Brad Gehring followed by the
invocation provided by Pastor Brian Banke .of Memorial Lutheran Church.
MAYOR'S REPORT - There was no Mayor's Report tonight...
PUBLIC RECOGNITION & ANNOUNCEMENTS
Will Maupin invited members of the public to attend the next Parks & Recreation Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, May 26 beginning at 6:00 PM at Sheridan Park Community Center
located at 680 Lebo Boulevard to discuss the proposed design for Lions Park. For more
information, please contact (360) 473-5305.
Mike Shepherd announced that the next "Greater Veneta Neighborhood" meeting would be
held at the Memorial lutheran-Church located-on .the corner of 1011} & Veneta on Thursday, May
21 at 7:00 PM to discuss how to help local residents affected by the economic crisis,
beautification efforts, and a brief update by Council Member Shepherd.
Roy Runyon mentioned that a number of events would be held as part of the first Kitsap
Harbor Festival to be held from Friday, May 22 through Monday, May 25 in downtown
Bremerton and Port Orchard. Anyone interested may contact Carol Atkinson of Main Stream
Association at (360) 377-3041 for more information. A dedication ceremony would also be held
for the Lone Sailor Statue.
Adam Brockus learned that on the Washington State Department of Transportation would hold
another meeting to receive public comment regarding the ferry system on Monday, June 1 at
6:30 PM at the Bremerton Conference Center; and he noted that Mayor Cary Bozeman will be
resigning effective June 8 to accept a job as the new CEO of the Port of Bremerton.
Marie Vila CDBG Administrator, announced that the City received nearly $148,000 in Recovery
Funding from the Federal Government which will be funneled through the City's CDBG Program
as "CDBR". More details about the funding requirements and recommendations can be found
on the City's website at www.cLbremerton.wa.us.
Municipal Judge James Docter first announced that there are 10-days left in the "Debt
Amnesty Program"; and the Municipal Court will be closed and all calendars cancelled during
the week of June 15 to June 19 while the building receives a new roof.
President McConnell announced that Item 5-M was pulled from the Consent Agenda and will
now be heard under General Business; and Item 5-0 from the Consent Agenda was pulled.
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, May 20,2009
Page 2 of 5
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Check Numbers 331627 through 331885; and EFT-8763 through EFT-8791 in the amount
of $1,927,166.93; and Regular Payroll (payout) in the amount of $45,812.01 for the pay
period ending April 30, 2009 (#AB09-110)
B. Minutes of Meeting - May 6,2009 (#AB09-111)
C. Minutes of Study Session - May 13, 2009 (#AB09-112)
D. Approval of West Sound Narcotics Enforcement Team (West NET) Interlocal Drug Task
Force Agreement with Kitsap and Mason Counties (#AB09-113)
E. Ordinance No. 5080 amending Chapter 1.06 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC)
relating to Disclosure of Public Records (#AB09-114)
F. Budget Adjustment to the Equipment, Rental, and Reserve Fund 510 to equip the Fire
Department Command Vehicle (#AB09-115)
G. Budget Adjustment to Equipment, Rental, and Reserve Fund 510; and Sole Source
Purchase of Sewer Camera Van from CUES NW (#AB09-116)
H. Purchase of four (4) Pre-Stressed Voided Slab Stringers form KNIFE RIVER for "Gorst Creek
Bridge" Project; and Approval of Construction of Bridge Abutments by CITY FORCE ACCOUNT
(#AB09-117)
I. Interlocal Agreement for Professional Services between Kitsap County and the City of
Bremerton to perform Biennial 11th Street Bridge Inspection (#AB09-118)
J. Contract Award to Sound Excavating, Inc. for Extension of Water Main and Construction of
Low Pressure Sanitary Main for "Airport Extension - Phase II" Project (#AB09-119)
K. Change Order NO.2 for "BrelTierton SewerWastewater Treatment Plant Wet Weather
Facilities Upgrade" Project; and Budget Adjustment (#AB09-120)
L. Prosecution Services and Budget Adjustment (#AB09-121)
M. Profession31 Services Agreement with rARAMETRIX for "Gorst Sewer3ge" Project; 3nd
'l'/3stew3ter Fund 8udget Adjustment (#1\809 122) Item will be heard as Item 6A under
General Business. . .
N. Purchase of 0.37 acres in Gorst for location of Sewer Pump Station SB-3 as part of the
"Gorst Sewerage" Project (#AB09-123)
O. Purch3se of 32' x 50' portion of property in Gorst for loc3tion of SeVier Pump St3tion S8 1
3S p3rt of the "Gorst Sewer3ge" Project (#1\809 12-1) Item was pulled...
P. Resolution No. 3088, Approval of State Revolving Fund Loan Agreement(s) between the
Department of Ecology and the City of Bremerton (#AB09-126)
There were no questions or comments from the public. . .
05:40:45 M/S/C/U (Brockus/Robinson) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented.
GENERAL BUSINESS
6A - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PARAMETRIX, INC. FOR DESIGN
AND PERMITTING OF THE "GORST SEWERAGE" PROJECT; AND APPROVAL TO
INCREASE WASTEWATER FUND BUDGET (#AB09-122): Public Works Director Phil
Williams explained that the City has been offered $6,102,550 in grants and loans to design,
permit, and construct a sewer collection system within the Gorst Urban Growth Area -
execution of the grants and loans is currently pending. Staff have evaluated qualified firms and
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, May 20,2009
Page 3 of 5
selected PARAMETRIX, INC. to provide design of the Gorst Sewerage Project. An increase in the
2009 Wastewater Fund budget of $955,000 is necessary to fund this project - this budget
increase is fully funded by the grants and loans offered by the Department of Ecology. The
requested action before Council is approval of a Professional Services Agreement with
PARAMETRIX, INC., and an increase in the wastewater fund budget of $955,000.
There were no questions or comments from the public...
05:45:33 Main Motion was made then discussion was held by the Council...
Mike Shepherd express his concerns about the added cost not being the best use of tax
payers money to drill for sewer lines under Highway 16 because two residences in the area
have failed sewer systems. Mr. Williams could understand the concern, but believed it was
best to hook the failed systems to the sewer rather than let affluent discharge into Sinclair Inlet.
He pointed out however that they will be able to hook up more homes to the sewer with the
same funds.
Adam Brockus asked if the funds come from the stimulus package. Mr. Williams answered
yes, and a portion of the funding came through the Department of Ecology in the form of a
State Revolving Loan.
Brad GehrinQ supported this project since there would be a benefit to homeowners and to the
environment by improving the sewer system.
Roy Runyon asked for clarification on the project's timeline. Mr. Williams responded that the
entire project may take from one and half to two years, design must to be done and submitted
to Department of Ecology by September 17, and the money obligated by contract no later than
November 1. MI'. RUflVonalso asked what would the cost to the resident be to hooK-up tea'
sewer line. Mr. Williams stated that the current facilities charge is set at $3,801 per single
family residence. Actual costs may be upwards of over $15,000 due to site work.
Dianne Robinson mentioned that she too sits on the Public Works Committee where she
heard a thorough explanation of this project, and supports it. Will Maupin agreed that this was
a great project.
Mr. Shepherd asked if the scope of work has changed since the amount of funding has
changed since earlier discussion about the project. Mr. Williams emphasized that the scope
of work may be adjusted to reflect the actual level of funding for the project. The amount of
funding changed since the funding source changed.
06:04:25 M/S/C/U (Brockus/Maupin) Move to approve the Professional Services Agreement
with PARAMETRIX, INC., in an amount up to $625,000 for Design and Permitting of the Garst
Sewerage Project; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with
substantially the same terms and conditions as presented; and further move to adjust the
approved 2009 Wastewater Fund Budget to $7,105,000 - an increase of $955,000.
PUBLIC HEARING
7A - ORDINANCE NO. 5081 TO VACATE ROADWAYS WITHIN BAY VISTA (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS WESTPARK); AND RESERVE CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE CITY OF
BREMERTON (#AB09-125): Michael Mecham, City Engineer, explained that the Bremerton
Housing Authority (BHA) wishes to redevelop the World War II vintage housing area known as
Westpark, and therefore has petitioned the City of Bremerton to vacate all of the roadways
within the boundaries as Bay Vista Commons assisted senior housing complex. As phases of
development are completed, BHA will be conveying new roadways to the City. This right-of-way
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, May 20,2009
Page 4 of 5
is Class I, as it is conveyed to the City in fee title by quit claim deed August 10, 1951.
Compensation will be paid in the form of a dedication of like-kind in Bay Vista to the satisfaction
of the City for the relocation of the roadway for the anticipated redevelopment of Bay Vista.
John Thomas asked if the City could delay this action for approximately 6-weeks because he
uses one of the roadways to pick up a student in a wheelchair; and if the Fire Department is
going to close a road, if they could please place signs further up the road because it made it
difficult to get %-mile down a road just to find it closed, forcing him to then have to back out
because there is no other way to turn around. Nancv Austin stated that she met with Kitsap
Transit and the Bremerton School Board and they were to notify all of their drivers.
06: 11 :45 Main Motion was made as discussion by the Council began...
Rov Runvon asked if the School District was working with the Fire Department regarding the
schedule of their drills. Ms. Austin answered yes, and that the next drills will be held on June
26 which is after the school closure.
Dianne Robinson asked if the street names are going to be replaced. Mr. Mecham
responded that streets will be vacated and relocated, and during the plat process with the
Hearing Examiner there will be a discussion about the naming of the streets.
Brad Gehrina believed that there has been sufficient discussion about this issue at the Public
Works Committee and was confident that the developer would make every effort to ensure
accessibility during the project.
06:14:45 M/S/C/U (Runyon/Gehring) Move to pass Ordinance No. 5081 to vacate roadways
\Ali!hin BayYista (f~:>rf"!:l~rly .~nown as WestpC3rk) alld reserving certain easerTlel]ts in the City of
Bremerton.
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Will Maupin reported on a very busy last couple of weeks, including his attendance at the
Grand Opening of the Harper Church Park & Ride; a meeting of the "Bremerton Promise"
program at Olympic College; and the Ribbon Cutting for the PSNS Memorial Plaza.
Dianne Robinson mentioned that last Thursday she attended the Ribbon Cutting for the
Bremerton Farmers Market along with Assistant City Attorney Ken Bagwell and fellow Council
Member Mike Shepherd. Wanted to let everyone know that Council Member Carol Arends is
recovering very well and hoped to see her back to work soon.
Mike Shepherd was pleased with the warm weather and the great turnout for the Armed
Forces Activities this past weekend; and noted that Council Member Dianne Robinson and
Assistant City Attorney Ken Bagwell provided great speeches at the opening of the Bremerton
Farmers Market.
Rov Runvon also attended the opening of the PSNS Memorial Plaza last Saturday; and
reported on the very success of the U.S. Postal Carrier "Stamp Out Hunger Food Drive" held on
May 9.
Adam Brockus offered best wishes to Mayors Cary Bozeman (Bremerton) and Darlene
Kordonowy (Bainbridge Island) as they both leave their respective offices this year.
Brad Gehrina also commented on the success of the Postal Carrier food drive; mentioned that
he participated in the Armed Forces parade, and wished to thank Cris Larsen for all his efforts
in organizing the Armed Forces weekend activities; and he too attended the grand opening of
the PSNS Memorial Plaza
City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes
Wednesday, May 20,2009
Page 5 of 5
With no further business, President McConnell adjourned the Council Meeting at 06:25 PM.
The Council then reconvened back in the Conference Room for a Study Session to discuss
General Council Business, with a focus on several options to consider due to the resignation of
Mayor Bozeman.
L I SMITH
Legislative Assistant
Attest:
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
CECIL McCONNELL, City Council President
CM:CE:ls:cg
DATE SUBMITTED:
BILL 11 _Q q - I d.. 9
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
5G
........................................................................................
Committee Meeting Date: N/ A
COUNCIL MEETING Date: :Jur1e...- 31 ~9
Department: City Council ·
Presenter: Cecil McConnell
Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Meeting held MaA.t ::i- 7, :Lc:> c:> ,
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes
for meeting of
fY\CU( ~7, ~oq
L rN~ Se-SS IrO~)
A TT ACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes for M o..A{ :;).., 7 I :Lo 0 or
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Buqgeted Amount) - N/ A-
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
Council President
N/A
N/A
N/A
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
N/A
~/;;?:',-,>~II
CONSENT AGENDA
GENERAL BUSINESS D
PUBLIC HEARING D
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve D Deny 0 Table
o Continue 0 No Action
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, May 27,2009
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council
Conference Room 603, of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6th Street, Bremerton,
Washington, Wednesday, May 27, 2009, at 5:00 PM, with Council President Cecil McConnell
presiding. Council Members present were Will Maupin, Dianne Robinson, Mike Shepherd, Roy
Runyon, Adam Brockus, and Brad Gehring. Council Members Carol Arends and Nick Wofford were
absent. Legislative Assistant Lori Smith was present to provide staff support.
President McConnell emphasized that the Study Session was open to the public, however there
would be no opportunities for input or participation; that no action will be taken, and the content of
these items is subject to change.
A. NO DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Proposed Resolution temporarily extending Cable Television System Franchise with Wave
Division Holdings, LLC - Carol Etgen, City Clerk Consent
2. Proposed Public Hearing and Ordinance annexing the territory within the South Kitsap Industrial
Area (SKIA) Urban Growth Area known as "SYLVAN PRODUCTS, INC"; establishing Industrial
Zoning; and assigning a City Council District for the annexed territory - Lindsey Sehmel,
Community Development; and Will Maupin, Public Safety, Parks, & Planning Committee Chair
Public Hearing
3. Proposed Public Hearing and Ordinance annexing the territory within the South Kitsap Industrial
.. Area (SI<.I/\)Ur.b..an ~ro.wth ,A.r~a_ kn<;>wfla_s"E~I~~,J)I\LME:B, A~?LN.E, .~uE_{3$.~!1'-J~1::8";~sta.Qli$hing .. .
Industrial zoning; and assigning a City Council District for the annexed territory - Lindsey
Sehmel, Community Development; and Will Maupin, Public Safety, Parks, & Planning
Committee Chair Public Hearing
4. Proposed Ordinance revising and correcting the City Boundaries of streets, roads, or highway
rights-of-way located within the City by approving a new legal description of the boundary of the
City of Bremerton - Michael Mecham, City Engineer; and Brad Gehring, Public Works
Committee Chair Consent (Exhibits A and B were distributed to the Council...)
B. FULL DISCUSSION ITEMS
5. Proposed Public Hearing and Resolution approving the Action Plan Amendments to the 2008
and 2009 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Recommendations - Marie
Vila, Community Development Block Grant Program; and Will Maupin, Public Safety, Parks, &
Planning Committee Chair Public Hearing
6. Proposed Public Hearing and Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan; and amending Section 20.80 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) to activate the Sub Area Plan - Lindsey Sehmel, Community
Development; and Will Maupin, Public Safety, Parks, & Planning Committee Chair Public
Hearing (It was noted that updates were made to their binders Draft Manette Sub-Area Plan
binders; and citizen letters commenting on the plan were distributed...)
7. Presentation on "Preserving Your Community's Heritage through the Certified Local
Government Program" - Megan Duvall, Certified Local Government Coordinator, Washington
State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (Information only - Additional
handouts were provided to the Council...)
Continued on back...
City Council Study Session Minutes
Wednesday, May 27,2009
Page 2 of 2
8. General Council Business - A brief discussion was held regarding proposed Council action in
response to the anticipated vacancy of the Mayor's seat...
President McConnell adjourned the Study Session at 6:50 PM.
pre~~7
LORI SMITH -
Legislative Assistant
Attest:
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
CECIL McCONNELL, City Council President
CM:CE:ls:cg
DATE SUBMITTED: Mav 20,2009
BILL #
oQ-/30
AGKNDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
51)
..............a....................................a.......................................1
SlWJE~T: Adoption of Resolution No.
_2e~~_Temporarily Extending Cable
Television System Franchise with
WavcDivision Holdings, LLC
Committee Meeting Date:
COUNCIL MEETING Date:
Department:
Presenter:
Phone:
May 21-,--~009 ____
June 3, 2009
----~-~------
_City CleIL________
Carol Etgen
360.473.5323
SUMMARY: Falcon Video Communications, L.P_ was issued a franchise to operate a cable
television system in Bremerton by Ordinance No. 4635 on November 4, 1998. Charter
Communications Holding Company, LLC was granted control of Falcon Video Communications,
L.P.'s holdings in the cable franchise by Resolution No. 2724 on August 18, 1999.
Assignment and Conveyance of the cable television system franchise was approved by Resolution No.
2905 on September 24,2003 to Wave Division IV, LLC. This Resolution also authorized the sale and
conveyance of the membership and other ownership interests from Wave Division IV, LLC to
WaveDivision Holdings, LLC. The cable television system franchise with WaveDivision Holdings,
LLC expired on December 8, 2008 and Resolution No. 3074 was adopted on November 19, 2008,
extending the franchise agreement to June 3, 2009.
Additional time is needed to finalize the negotiation process with WaveDivision Holdings, LLC.
Staff requests an additional extension of the contract to December 31,2009, or until such time a new
franchise is negotiated; whichever date comes- first.
3o<OQ
A TT ACHMENTS: Draft Resolution No.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Revenues will continue to come in as budgeted
during the extension period.
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY -;:::~~
FINANCE DIRECTOR: _.'" . '~ ~
MAYOR: ~ C --
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
{~~4 et1"~
______r ,".? // ' > (L
~ 'c~ 7 C -~~ .'
. c..;c:?-:~~Jc!J.l___..;3? .1":.......~2:!-~L {. (; ___
-------~
CONSENT AGENDA ~~'
GENERAL BUSINESS1:J '
__ PU~UC H~ARIN<L___O
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No, __5016Q temporarily
extending the cahle television system franchise with WaveDivision Holdings, LLC until December
31, 2009 or until a new fianchise is negotiated, whichever date comes first.
COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny 0 Table
o Continue 0 No Action
RESOLUTION NO. 308'1
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, temporarily extending the Franchise with
WaveDivision Holdings, LLC.
WHEREAS, Falcon Video Communications, L.P. was issued a franchise to
operate a cable television system in Bremerton, W A by the Bremerton City Council's passage of
Ordinance No. 4635 on November 4, 1998; and
WHEREAS, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC was granted
control of Falcon Video Communications, L.P.'s holdings in the cable franchise by the
Bremerton City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 2724 on August 18, 1999; imd
WHEREAS, Assignment and Conveyance ofthe cable television system franchise
from Charter Communications Holding Company to Wave Division IV, LLC along with the sale
and conveyance ofthe membership and other ownership interests in Wave Division IV, LLC to
WaveDivision Holdings, LLC was approved by the Bremerton City Council with the adoption of
Resolution No. 2905 on September 24,2003; and
WHEREAS, The cable television system franchise with WaveDivision Holdings,
LLC expires on December 8, 2008; and a temporary extension was granted by Resolution No.
3074 to June 8,2D09; and
WHEREAS, WaveDivision Holdings, LLC by letter of March 20;'2006 and
pursuant to Section 626(a) ofthe Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 has requested the
City consider renewing a cable television system franchise and is agreeable to an extension of
the current franchise; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has determined more time is necessary to properly
negotiate a new cable television system franchise. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The cable television system franchise with WaveDivision
Holdings, LLC will be extended under the existing agreement until December 31, 2009 or until a
new franchise agreement is negotiated, whichever comes first.
SECTION 2. 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.
1
WaveDivision Cable Franchise Extension
SECTION 3. 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 _
,2009.
CECIL McCONNELL, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
R:\Legal\Legal\Resolutions\Finance\Wave Cable Franchise Extension 5-20-19.doc
2
WaveDivision Cable Franchise Extension
DATE SUBMITTED: May 20, 2009
BILL #
oCf- lj\
se
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: Ordinance # 5'O'aS reVISIng
and correcting the City boundaries of streets,
roads or highway rights-of-way located
within the City by approving a new legal
description of the boundary of the City of
Bremerton.
Committee Meeting Date: May 27, 2009
COUNCIL MEETING Date: June 3, 2009
Department: PW &U Engineering
Presenter: Michael Mecham
Phone: 473-5288
SUMMARY: The City, in conjunction with Kitsap County, has identified certain streets, roads and
rights-of-way that are county islands located within the City limits that have been missed by the
numerous armexations completed by the City over the last 100 years. The City and County desire to
correct these discrepancies in accordance with RCW 35.21.790 by recording a new legal description
for the City boundary which will encompass all of these omissions.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance # 5005 2. Exhibit A and B.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None.
APPROV ALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR!~
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MA YOR:
~~
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
CONSENT AGENDA
GENERAL BUSINESS 0
PUBLIC HEARING 0
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance # 5oB5for revising and correcting the
City boundaries of streets, roads or highway rights-of-way located within the City by approving a new'
legal description of the boundary of the City of Bremerton.
COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny 0 Table
D Continue 0 No Action
ORDINANCE NO. 5085
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, revising and correcting the City
boundaries of streets, roads or highway rights-of-way located
within the City by approving a new legal description of the
boundary of the City of Bremerton.
WHEREAS, The City of Charleston began annexing areas of Kitsap County in
June of 1904, and the City of Bremerton in September of 1918, with the two cities consolidating
in December of 1927 and annexations continuing to be done to this day;
WHEREAS, previous annexation descriptions, while intending to be .contiguous
to existing City boundaries, have created numerous hiatuses or pockets of county right-of-way
and properties within the City limits;
WHEREAS, previous annexation descriptions have divided roadways and shared
maintenance responsibilities between the City and the County and the City desires to correct
these discrepancies and better define these responsibilities;
WHEREAS, the City has identified certain streets, roads and rights-of-way that
are partially within the City limits and desires to correct these discrepancies as well as others not
specifically identified; and.. . ' . . - - . ..
WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with RCW 35.21.790, makes these
corrections to streets, roads and rights-of-way boundaries and all areas traditionally thought to be
inclusive to the City and further has created a new legal description which encompasses the
entire City limits; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Corrections are hereby made to streets, roads and rights-of-way
boundaries to include such areas within and as part of the City in accordance with RCW
35.21.790 as set forth in Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. The legal description as set forth in Exhibit B is hereby accepted
and approved as the boundary of the City and that all areas, public or private within said legal
description shall be included within and be part of the City of Bremerton.
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
1
City Boundaries
validity of the remaining pOliion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
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
,2009
WILL MAUPIN, Council President
Approved this
day of
,2009
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk ..
ROGER A. LUBQVICH, City Attorney'
PUBLISHED the
EFFECTIVE the
ORDINANCE NO.
day of
day of
,2009
,2009
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Public Works & Utilities\City boundaries.doc
2
City Boundaries
EXHIBIT A
The following is a list of roadway right of ways and portions of properties which have
been inadvertently left out, or the annexation description written with sufficient
ambiguity as to create doubt to whether the parcel is part of the City of Bremerton or a
County island. All of the below have been included into the new City wide legal.
1. Annexation 1564 uses a metes and bounds call which does not include an
approximately 25 foot by 225 foot strip of Magnusson Way on the north side of
the roadway west of Perry Avenue.
2. Annexation 1564 calls to southerly margin of County Road No. 27, while
Annexations 3375 and 2641 reference to the centerline of Sheridan Road. As the
two right of ways are not coincident, this potentially leaves the south half of
Sheridan Road, depending on interpretation on the locations of the County road,
from Sanders Avenue to the Perry Avenue Mall in the County.
3. Annexation 2637 calls to the north margin of Sylvan Road, while Annexation
1959 notes all of Olympic Manor. However, the plat only goes to the centerline
of the roadway leaving the north half of Sylvan from Wheaton Way to the west
end of the plat (1320 feet) in County jurisdiction.
4. Annexation 2747 calls to the line of navigability for Kitsap Lake. Annexation
4629 calls to the shore line of Kit sap Lake, leaving an area of the shoreline
between the two annexations to County jurisdiction.
5. Annexation 4500 (Parcel IV) excludes out the railroad line segregating the parcel
and making it non-contiguous with the City limits.
6. Annexation 4493 calls to the northerly margin of Werner Road. Annexation 4033
calls to the centerline of Werner Road, leaving the northerly half ofthe right of
way in County jurisdiction.
7. Annexation 1346 calls to the westerly margin of Oyster Bay Avenue. Annexation
calls to the easterly margin of Oyster Bay Avenue, leaving the entire roadway in
County jurisdiction.
8. Annexation 4341 calls to the southerly margin of 1 st Street. Annexation 2339
calls to the centerline 1 st Street, leaving the southerly half of the right of way in
County jurisdiction.
9. Annexation 1627 explicitly excludes out Marion Avenue from Arsenal Way to 1 st
Street, and Annexations 4376 and 4327 are to the subdivision line, leaving the
street in County jurisdiction.
10. The original City limits for Charleston and subsequent annexations 2433 and
3951 leave a portion ofSR 304 in County jurisdiction. This is a portion of the
highway beautified with the Gateway project and is now maintained by City
Parks.
11. Annexation 2494 calls to the west line of the plat of United States Navy Yard
Addition to Bremerton. Annexation 1564 calls to the section subdivision line
between Sections 11 and 12, which is not coincident to the same line, leaving a
sliver of property in County jurisdiction.
City of Bremerton List of Rights of Way/Property Missed by the Various Annexations
Page 1 of2
12. Annexation 1959 calls to the south line of the plat of Sylvan Park Addition.
Annexation 1564 calls to the section subdivision line, which is not coincident to
the same line leaving a sliver of property in County jurisdiction.
13. Annexation 1564 calls to the section subdivision line and annexation 3977 to the
west line of the plat ofFemwood. The two lines are not coincident leaving a
sliver of property in County jurisdiction.
14. Ambiguity in annexation 2449 has the annexation on the north side of Kit sap
Way, with annexation 1581 bringing in the adjacent right of way of Kitsap Way.
This leaves a remnant triangular of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter
ofthe southwest quarter of Section 15 in County jurisdiction.
15. Ambiguity in annexation 2449 has the annexation on the north side of Kit sap
Way, with annexation 1581 bringing in the adjacent right of way of Kitsap Way.
This leaves a remnant triangular of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter
of the northwest quarter of Section 15 in County jurisdiction.
City of Bremerton List of Rights of Way/Property Missed by the Various Annexations
Page 2 of2
cxn,bi+ 6
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR CITY
That portion of Government Lots 1 andl, Section 18~ Township'24 North, Range 2 East,
W.M., KitsapCounty Washington lying south of the south line Lot 9 of the Plat of
McTeigh's Garden Tracts, as recorded in Volume 2 of the bookofplats, Page 44, records
of Kit sap County, Washington;
Together With that portion of said Government Lots 1 ai1d 2, Section 18, Township 24
North, Range 2 East, W:M., Kitsap County Washington, lying west of the following
described line:
Be'girriling atthe southwest comer of said Lot 9, also being a point on the section
line of said Section 18; thence along the south line of said Lot 9, easterly 517 feet
to the True Point of Beginning; thence north 354.13 feet; thence west 33 feet;
thence north to the north line of Lot 6 of said plat; thence along said' north line,
easterly 4 feet; , thence north to the north line of Lot 5 of said plat; : thence along
said north line easterly to its intersection with the southerly extension of the
centerline of Giove Avenue; thence northerly along said centerllrieto its
intersection with the centerline of Alder Street; .thence continuing northerly along
said centedine and that portion vacated thereof to 'the nortli line of the Plat of
Alder Park; as recorded in Volume 6 of the book of plats, Page 47, records of
Kitsap County, Washington; thence easterly along said north line and its
extension, to the eastedy right of way of Jacobsen Boulevard;' thence northerly
along said easterly right of way to its intersection with the east line of the
southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 7, ToWnship 24 Nbrth,
Range2:East;W.M;~KitsapCounty, Washington and,the terminus.
The southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 7, Township 24 North; Range 2
East, W.M., Kitsap County Wtishmgtbn; . , . !
Together With"that'portion of Jacobsen Boul'evard.situate within Government Lot
4 of said: Section 7 lying adjacent, as described in right of,way deed recorded
under Kitsap County AFN t 136932, records of Kit saP' County, Washingtbn
Together with that portio~ofHolman Street situate within the northwest quarter
of the southwest quarter ofsai& SeCtion 7 lying adjacent, as defined by the Plat of
Trenton Avenue Small Homes Addition, as recorded in Volume 6'oHhe book of
plats; Page 31, records of Kitsap County, , Washington.
Section'13, ToWnship 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County W~shihgton;
That portion of Section 12; Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap County,
Washington lying west of the following described line:
Bremerton City Legal
MiIy 22, 2009
Page 10118
Beginning at the;intersection of th.e ce:Qterline of TtentpnA venue with the north
line of the south half of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast
quarter of said Section 12; thence westerly along said north line to the west line
of said northea,st quarter of the southeast quarter, also being the centerline of
Perry Av~nue; . thence along said. west line norilierly:39 feet ~o, itsinter~ection
with the northerly right of way of MagnussQlrWay; th~ncewesterlyalong said,
northerly right of way to its intersection with the westerly right of way' for said
Perry Avenue; thence continuing westerly along said northerly right of way for
MagnussQIJ. {Way 2~$ .92 feet to. its intersection with the easterly line, of the .
AmendegPlat of the Fourth AdditiQn toSheridan,):\s,recordedjn Volume 9 of the
book of plats, Pages 1 through 3, records of Kit sap County, Washington; thence
northerly along said east line to its intersection with a line 10.1.42 feet south of the
nonhline ofth,e ,southeast q~er of said Section 12; thence easterly;alpng the
boundaryof~ parcel asdefmed in Kitsap County AFN 8465,15,;records,ofKitsap
. . County W~hington,:saidlinebeing lo.l.,42 feet.south,ofthenorthline,90Jeet;
. thence northerly lOL42 feetto said northliIie; thence we~tedyalong.Baidnorth
line 9() feeiretlJ1:ning to t4e said,easterly line of the sairlFourth;Additionand the
. end of the boundary line; thence continuing,nortP-erlY;'Ye~tyrly and northerly
alongsa.i~leasterly line of the said Fourth Addition tojts intersection with the
centerline,ofShetidan Road {FprmerlyCounty Road NOi27),also beingthe south
line of the southeast quarter of the northwest qu~er of the nort4east quarter of
said Section 12; then,ceeastedy along sl:lid. southline;tothe sQuth,eastcomer of
said s9uthe~t quarter; thence noJ1herly ~OIJ.g the .east lineof~aid.sout4ea.st
quarter to its intersection with a line 97.92 feet south;:ofthellorthJine.ofsaid
southeast quarter, alsp being ,the boundary ofa parceh~sdefmed in Kitsap ,Count
AFN396399, records of Kit sap CoUIlty; thence we~~erly alogg saidbQundary line
150..77 feet; thence northerly 67.~~feet; thence easterly 150..77 to s~d,east line
of the southeast quarter and the end of the boundary line; thence continuing
northerly along said east line to the northeast comer of said southeast quarter;
thence westerly along .the north line of said. southeast quarter to the Il()rJl1west
comer of said southeast quarter; thence south.erlY,alpp.g tpe: west line. ,of said
southeast quarter to the northeast comer of Lot 20. of the plat of Locust Hill
Tract~,SecondAddi~qIl"as recorded in Volume.7,ofthe!~00lc ofp~~ts,)>age 2,
, recordsofKits~p Coun~y,Washingt9n, alSo. being the!,~outhe:rly.rightof\Vay for
Barnett Street; .tJ1ence.westerly'along said southerly right ofwayJo"the:nQrthwest
comer of Lot 18 of said plat; thence leaving said southerly right of way, southerly
, along iQ.e ~e&tlineof sa,idLqtU~and!IA~t J of~aid.pl~t: to: the n()rtherb~lrjght of
wac y of:said,~heridan Ro~d;J4~nce ;we~~erlyaloIJ.g saic;ll}Qrthet:ly:;r;ig!1tofM'ay to
" .,its JAtersectio~ \Vith ~e~a,st.iw.e oithe west h~fof t:h~nRrthe~~t,q~€lftel'of the
northwest quarter of said! S~<::~ion 1,2, ,also ~eing.the. e,~sterly right;;9fwa.y .of
Sanders Avenue; thence northerly along smd east line to its intersection With the
sOl;l$~rlYJight ,()f yvay;t?xtension of E,a~,t Jo.tb Sy-eet,: als9;being i$.e . soutllwest "
comer of Municipal Area No.2, as depicted in Halverson Addition, as recorded in
Y,ollID1e.~? ,of ~~ booJ:c of pl(its,. Page 3?, re9or:dsoKKits'.lp ~ou.Pty"<W a,shin~qn;:
thence" along the south line ()fsai.d Municipal,A{ea,No.f7!S 89~P4,~.5T' W;}55.29.
feet, as per said plat meridian; thence continuing along said south line S 1055'56"
Bremerton CityLega/
May 22, 2009
Page 2'of18
W 81.05 feet; thence continuing alang said sauth line and extensian thereaf, S
88052'07", Eta the westerly right afway afOlympus Drive; thence nartherly
. alang said westerly right af way to. its intersectian with thenarth lineaf said
Sectian 12, alSo. being the centerline afEast 31,st Street and thetenninus.
That partian af Sectian 1, Tawnship 24 Narth, Range 1 East, .W.M., Kitsap Caunty,
Washingtan lying west af the fallawing described line:
Starting at the sauthquarter carner af said Sectian 1; thence west alang the
. sectian line 30.feeuothe True Paint afBeginning; thence ona line parallel to. the
east line 'af the southwest quarter af said Sectian 1, narth 30 feet to. the nartherly
right af way af said East 31 st Street; thence westerly alang said nartherly right af
way to. its intersectian with the east line afFirst Additian to. Sylvan Park as
recardedin Valume 7afthe baak afplats,Page71,recards afKitsap Caunty,
Washingtan; nartherly alang said east line to. its intersectian with the sauth line af
Lat 57 afSylvanParkas recarded inValume 6, afthe baakafplats;Page 45,
recardsofKitsap Caunty, Washington; thence easterly alang said sauth. line to.
the said westerly right afway afOlympus Drive; thence nartherly alangsaid
, westerly right afway to. its intersectian with the sautherly right af way afSylvan
Way; thence westerly alang said sautherly right af way to. its intersectian with the
centeiline extensianaf Petersville Raad, alSo. being'an extensianofthe comman
line ,between Lats 41 and 56. of the said plat af Sylvan Park; thence nartherly
,'a,ldng said centerline af Petersville Raad to. its intersection with the narth ,line af
said plat af Sylvan' Park; thence cantinuing nartherlyalang said centerline af
Petersville Raad to its intersection with the centerline af Riddell Raad and the
narthline'af said SeCtian -1, alSo. being the terminus.
That partian af Riddell Raad lying within the sautheast quarter af the southeast quarter af
Sectian 35, Tawnship 25 Narth, Range lEast, W.M., Kitsap Caunty, Washingtan.
The sauthhalfafSectian 2, Tawnship24Narth, Range 1 East, W.M., Kitsap Caunty,
Washingtan, lying narth af the fallawing described line;
Begjnning at the sauthwest carner af saidSectian 2; thence narthalang the
sectian line 230 feet~ thence east parallel to. the sauth line afsaid sectian 50 feet;
thence sautherly 215 feet to. the narth line af 31 stStreet; thence easterly alang said
narth line to. its intersectian with. the extended west line of ShartPlat #6513, as
recarded in v alume lOaf the baak af shari plats Page 135; thence sauth alang
said extended west line to. the sauth'line af said Sectian 2;
Tagether with the sauthwest quarter afthe narthwest quarter;
Tagether with the east halfafthenartheast quarter;
T agether with the sauthwest quarter af the northeast quarter af said Sectian 2 lying sauth
af the fallawing described line;
Bremerton City Legal
May 22, 2009
Page 30118
Beginning at the,northeast comer of Lot 80 of the Plat ofValle.;.Hi.Addition 3 as
recorded in Volume 10, in,the.,book of plats, Volume 2, iecords ofKi~sap.County,
Washington; thence westerly on said north line to the northwest comer of said
plat, also being the northeast comer of Lot 21 of the Plat of Robeson's One, Two
. and .Five Acre Tracts as recorded in Volume Lof the book of plats, Page 72,' .
records of Kit sap County, Washington; thence westerly 'along the 'north line of
said Lot 21 to its intersection with the east line of the Plat of Brandywine as
recorded in Volume' 32 of the book of plats, Page 36 ,through 38, records 'of Kitsap
County, Washington; thence north and west along: the boundary of said plat and
'. it's extensioritothe-intersection with the west line of the said southwest quarter.
. , -:< i.
That portion of GovemmentLots 2, 3 and 4~ Section 3, Township 24 North, Range 1
East,W.M., Kitsap County, Washington bounded by the' following described line;
; ,>
,;-1"..,",
;,it,
Beginning at the. northeast comer 'of Short Plat No.. 3772R-l, ~~rec6rded under
Kitsap County Auditor File No; 200307180071, being anameridlnentto Kitsap
County Auditor File No. 8501290067,also:being a point on:the.easHine of said
Section 3; thence westerly along the north line of said short plat to the:northwest
comer of said short plat; thence southerly along the west line of said short plat to
the southwest comer of said short plat, also being a pointon.the north line of
Government LoJ 3 'of said Section 3; thence westerly along said northJine to its
. intersection With line 'of high water; thence southerly along said line of high water
to its intersection with the .southlineofLot B of short plat N<;>. 7187R-l, as
recorded under Kitsap'County Auditor File No; 200212180023' and
200212180026 and under Volume 17 of the book of short plats, .Pages 113. and
114, records of Kit sap County, Washington; thence easterly along said south line
to the southeast comer of said.Lot B, also being a point on the east line of said,
Section 3; thence north on said east line to the point of beginning;
Section 11, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, 'W.M., except for that portion described as
follows:
Beginning at the northwest comer of said Section 11; thence east along the north
line of said Section 1 L to the northwest comer of Lot D. of short plat #65:13, as
recorded in Volume. 10, of the book of short plats; Page 135, re'cordsofKitsap
. COunty,1'W ashington,also being a point on the northJine of Govemtnent Lot 1 of
said. section; thence southerly, along the west litieof saidshortcplat to the..
southwest comer of Lot D of said short plat;. thence easterly along the south line
of said short plat to its intersection with the west line of the plat of Sheridan Hills
Estates, as recorded in Volume 23, .0fthe:bookofplats,Pages 15Abrough"1;7,.'
. .
records of Kit sap County, Washington; thence southerly along said west line to
the southwest comer of said plat; thence easterly aldngithe south line of said plat
to its intersection with the east line of said Government Lot 1, also being the west
line of the; Plat .0fSierra TerraceAddition; as recordedjnV 0Iume'8,ofthe ,book
of plats, Page 45, records of Kit sap County, Washington; .thence.southerly along
Bremerton. City Legal
May 22, 2009'
Page'40118
said west line to a point being 120 feet north of the northwest comer of
Government Lot 2, in said Section 11; thence easterly on a line parallel to and
120 feet north of the north lirie of said Government Lot 2 to a point 136.6 feet east
of the said east line of Government Lot 1; thence southe:rly ona line parallel to
and 136.6 feet east of said east line to its intersection With the north line of a
property boundary ,as shown in a survey recorded in VolumeS, of the book of
surveys, Page 92, records of Kit sap County, Washington; thence westerly,
northerly and southwesterly along said north line of the property boundary, and
the extension thereof, to its intersection with the' high water line; thence
, northwesterly along said high water line to its intersection with the'west line of
said Section 11; thence north along said west line to the True Point'ofBeginning.
Sections 9, 13,23 and 24, all of Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W..M., situate in
Kitsap County ~ Washington.
The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 24 North, Range 1
East, W.M., situate in Kitsap County, Washington.
Government Lots 4 and 5, Section 4, Township 24 North, Range 1 East,W~M., situate in
Kitsap County, Washington.
The east half of the east haIf of Section 8, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.,
situate in Kitsap County, Washington; and that portion of said Section 8 lying south of
the following.described line:.
Beginning at the intersection of the west line of the said east half of the east half
of said Section 8 and the south line of the north half of the north half of
Government Lot 1, in said Section 8 ; thence westerlyaloIig said south line to the
east line of a property boundary as shown inasurvey recorded in Volume 43, of
the book of surveys, Page 8, records of Kit sap County, Washington; thence
northerly, westerly and southerly along the property boundary to the southwest
comer of said Government Lot:l, also being the northeast comer of the plat of
Lake Kitsap Summer Homes as recorded in Volume 3 of the book of plats, Page
94, records of Kit sap County, Washington; Thence westerly on the north line of
said plat of Lake Kitsap Sulnmer Homes.to its intersection with the Bortherly right
ofwayofKitsap;Way (Formerly State Route 21);' thence southwesterly to the
intersection of the southerly right of way of said Kitsap Way and the,northerly
right of way for North Lake Way; thence generally westerly along said northerly
right of way for North LakeW ay to a point due east of the intersection of the
southerly right of way for North Lake,Way and the easterly right' of way for Leber
; Road; thence west to the easterly right of way of Leber Road; thence southerly
along the easterly right of way of Leber Road to :its intersection with the west line
of said Section 8 and the terminus.
That portion of Sections 7, 18 and 19, all of Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.,
situate in Kitsap Cotmty; Washington, lying within the following described area;
Bremerton City Legal
May 72, 2009
Page 5 of 18
, ,
,',
Beginning at' the section~corner'cdmmon to Sections 17,J8,19,and20 of said
,TownShip and Range; 'thence alongthe east line of~saidiSection, 18, North ;
, '0293T36"East2650AO feettothe east ,Ytsection,cornerof said Section 18;
thence continuing;a1ong .said east line,of said-Section 18, North:020f3'J7" East
266551 feeUo,the,sectiofi:corner c~)lnmon to Sections/?, 8,J7 arid 18 of said
Township ,and 'Range;::thence along the ,east line ,of said Section 7, North ,"
03014'29" East 273:70Jeet;!thence SoutJr49R06~36"WestJ94~86, feet;, thence
South. 220 IS: 5T' West43S,82 feet; thence South 51 004~,g 9~' West 573.87 feet;
thence.South 720,2 U49" W est281.90 ,feet to the beginning;ofa' 1> 13 foot radius
cu.tVe tothe'right; thence:northwesterly;a1ongsaid curve an arcdistance;of212.28
feet through a central angle of 107038' 11"; then North 208.41 feet to the
,beginning'-ofa 80;foot ra,dius citrveto th~~left;~therice:northwestedYJilongsaid ,j'"
curve an arc distance of 159.10 feet through a central angle of1 13 056'42";
thence South 66003'19" West 372.14 feet; thence South 24007'12" West 254.43
feet; ,thence South' 3 8,~38' IV' West 566.66 feet; thence;South 05P;05' 55'" :West
1897.32 feet; thence South 12050'2l?i-West 833.49 fe~t;i,thence~outh07048"l9?'
West 495.35 feet; thence South 46057'31" West 323.73 feet; thence South
(
33030'41''', West 410;75 feet;! ,thenc~ South 17032'08~'.West860.92 feet;'thence
South 07042'01" West 2094.94 feet to the beginning ofa,5.99:00 foot-radius curve
to the left; thence southeasterly along said curve an arc distance of 1356.06 feet
through a central angle ;of 129042'36"; thence North 57059'25",East 911.61 feet;
, thence; North 61035'44" East 692.67 feetto the beginning ()f a 1239.00 foot radius
curve to the left; thence northeasterly along said curve anarcdistanc~'of946.35 ;
feet through a central angle of 43045'45"; thence North 17049'59" East 1763.31
feet to the beginning.
'" ([ ,i'
The east half of the s01l;theastquarter of Section 19, Township 24 North, Rangeil East,
W;M.,situatein Kitsap County, Washington, lying south of the Navy Railroad right of
way.
Govermrient Lot 4, Section 10, Township 24 North; Range 1 East; W.M.,situate in
Kitsap County, Washington, lying south of the following described line:
, Beginning at the intersection of the-easterly right of way. of Rocky Roint Road and
, the.south line, of said, Section 10; thence northerly along"saidrightofway to its
in,tersection ,wi!b'the ,easterly. extension of the' n()tth;lineofJhe,~south 370.5 ,feet of
,the ,east ~32;fe~tofsaid, Goyernment Lot 4;' \thence westerly on saidext~Jision
"and northline.tojts intersection with the:west'linecof!the.north 50 feet of , the south
,,406' fe~t,ofthe east120 feetoft4e' west \290 feetofthe~east25. .acr€?s' of said
:QovellUIle'nt Lot 4;,\ theIicenortherly, qIisaidw:estline'tojtsintersection,with the
nort.l:1::liile of said tract; ,thellce,westerly on ,said, northtlineofsaid tract;t01the west
line of the east 25 acres of Government Lot4;:thencesoutherlY,OIi"Said.west line
to its intersection with the northerly right of way of Kelly Road; thence westerly
. ., along,said northerly:righto:t:wayofKe1ly.R~ad to its.intersection With the:.. '
easterly right of way .of Marine Drive; .thence northwesterly; along the said
Bremerton .city Legal
May 22, 2009
Page 60f18
easterly right of way of Marine Drive to its intersection with the west line of said
Section 10;
Government Lots 6, 7 and 8, and the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section
10, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., situate inKitsap County, Washington,
lying east of the following described line;
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Corbet Drive (formerly Phinney
Avenue) and the south line of said Section 10; thence northerly along said
centerline and its extension; as per the Plat ,of Phinney Bay Waterfront Tracts, as
recorded in Volume 4 of the book of plats, Page 17, records of Kit sap County,
Washington, to the Government Meander line.
Section 14, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., situate in Kitsap County,
Washington, except the west halfof the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the
northwest quarter of said Section.
Section 15, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., situate in Kitsap County,
Washington except that portion described as follows;
Beginning at the intersection of the north line of said Section 15 and the centerline
ofFord Avenue, also being the west line of the west halfofthe,e~st half of the
northeast quarter of said, Section 15; an~ also being the west line of the plat of
Midway Addition as recorded in Volunie4, of the book of plats, Page 70, records
of Kit sap County, Washington; thence southerly along said west line of the plat
of Midway Addition to its intersection with the north line of Lot 12 of the plat of
C. Jack Jones Addition as recorded in Volume'6, of the book of plats, Page 50,
records of Kit sap County, Washington; thence westerly along said north line to
the northwest comer of said Lot 12; thence southerly along the west line of said
Lot 12 and extension thereof to its intersection with the southerly right of way of
'17th Street; Thence westerly ,along said southerly right of way of 17th Street and
extension thereof, also being the north line of Lots 13 through 24, inclusive, of
said plat of C. Jack Jones Addition, to its intersection with the westerly right of
way of said Corbet Drive; thence southerly along said westerly right of way to its
intersection with the north line of Tract 22 of the Plat of Phinney 2 ~ Acre Tracts
as recorded in Volume 5, of the book of plats Page 1, records of Kit sap County,
Washington; thence westerly along said north line of Tract 22 to a point 150 feet
east of the northwest comer of said Tract 22; thence northerly on a line parallel to
, 'the easterly right of way of Morgan Road a distance of24.45 feet; thence
westerly on a line parallel to the north line of said Tract 22 a distance of150 feet;
thence southerly on a line parallel to the said easterly right of way of Morgan
Road a distance of 24.45 feet to the said northwesticomer of Tract 22, also being
the northeast comer of Tract 23 of said Plat of Phinney 2 Y2 Acre Tracts; thence
westerly along the north line of said Tract 23 and its extension thereof to the
westerly right of way of said Morgan 'Road; thence northerly along said westerly
right of way of Morgan Road to a point 800 feet south of the north line of the
Bremer/on City Legal
May 22, 2009
Page 70118
southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 15; thence westerly on a
line parallel to the said north line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter
190 feet; thence northerly on a line parallel to the said easterly right of way of
Morgan Road toa point 450 feet south of said north line of the .southeast quarter
of the northwest quarter; 'thence westerly,ona line parallel tot-he said north line
of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter to its intersection with the
easterly right of way of Bertha Avenue; thence northerly along thy said easterly
right of way of Bertha Avenue to'a point 300 feet .south of the said north line of
the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter; thence .westerly,on a line parallel
to the said north line ,of the southeastquart~r of the northwest quarter to ,its
intersection with the westerly right of way-of said 'Bertha Avenue, arso ,being the
southeast comer of a property boundaryi'as shownin Volume 8 of surveys, Page
190, records of Kit sap County, Washington for Crown Hill School; thence
generally northerly and westerly along said property bOUndary,to itsilitersection
with the ,easterly right ef way qf Rocky, Point Road;: thence northerly along said
right of way to its intersection with the said north line of said Section 15; thence
east along said north line of section to the point of beginning;
And except that portion of the southeast quarter of.the, southwest quarter
described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection bf the south line of said Section 15 and the east right
of way of National Avenue; thence northerl~along said right of way to its
. intersection with-the north: line ,of the, south half of the said southeast quarter of
the southwest quarter of said Section 15; thence easterly along said north line to
- '
its intersection with the west line of the east 5 acres-of the said south halfofthe
southeast quarter of the southwest quarter; thence southerly along said west line
of the east 5 acres to its intersection with the south line of said Section 15; thence
west'along said south line of Section 15 to the point of beginning;
And except for the east half of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
the southeast quarter of said Section 15;
And except for the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast
quarter of said Section 15 lying outside of the area , bounded by the following line;
Beginning at the northwest comer of the southwest quarter of the southeast
quarterofsaid$ectionJ5;thenceN89043'49"-E, 282 feet; thence,S 0000'10" W
462 feet; ,thence S89041'J7"W 282 feet; thence due north 462 feeHo point of
beginning. -, '
Section 16, Township:24.North, Range 1; East, -W~M.,situatein Kitsap County,
Washington except that portion; lying ,withiilthe following described area;
Beginning at the mtersection of the south of said Section 16 and_the easterly right
i of way of Tweed -Lane as described in AFN 663283; records of Kit sap County,
Bremerton City Legal
May 22, 200~ -
Page 8 of18
Washington; thence northeasterly along said easterly right of way to its
intersection with a line 150 feet south of and parallel to the north line of the
southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said
Section 16; thence westerly along said line to its intersection with the west line of
said Section 16; thence northerly along said west line to its intersection with the
centerline of Price Road; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection
with the centerline of Harlow Road; thence northwesterly along said centerline to
its intersection with the westerly extension of the south line of the north half of
the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 16, also being the
south line of the plat of Brentwood, Being Jas. W. Carr's:Subdivision as recorded
in Volume 4 of the book of plats,' Page 84, records of Kitsap County, Washington;
thence easterly along said south line to the east line of the west half of the
southwest quarter of said Section 16; thence southerly along said east line to its
intersection with the north line of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of
the southwest quarter of said Section 16; thence easterly along said north line to
the west line of the east 166.32 feet of the southwest quarter of the southeast
quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 16; thence southerly along said
west line to the southerly right of way of said Harlow Drive; thence easterly
alorig said southerly right of way to its intersection with the west line of the
southeast quarter of the. southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section
16; thence southerly along said west line to its intersection with the south line of
said Section 16; thence westerly along said south line to the point of beginning.
Section 17, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., situate in Kitsap County,
Washington except Government Lot 3;
And except the south half of the southwest quarter of said'Section 17;
And except the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter .of said Section 17.
Those portions of Section 20, Township 24 North, Range}. East, W.M.,situate in Kitsap
County, Washington lying easterly of the following described line;
Beginning atthe north quarter comer of said Section 20; thence south along the
west line ofthe east half to its intersection with ,the southerly right of way of West
Kitsap Lake, Road (County Road No. 250); thence easterly' along said southerly
right of way to. its intersection with the centerline of a private road (Price Road) as
established by Kitsap County Auditor File Numbers 459867 and 459868; thence
southwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the north line of the
southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 20; thence west along
said north line to a point 330 feet west of the northeast comer ,of said southeast
quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 20; thence south parallel to the
east line of said southeast quarter of the northwest quarter 285 feet; thence west
parallel of the said north line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter a
distance of 10 feet; thence south parallel to the said east line of the sou'Q1east
quarter of the northwest quarter 595 feet; thence east parallel to the south line of
Bremerton City Legal
May 22, 2009
Page 90118
said southeast quarter of the northwest quarter 290 feet; thence south parallel to
the east line of said southeast quarter of the northwest quarter 440 feet to the
south line of said southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 20;
thence east along said south line 50 feet to the said west line of the east half, also
being the center of said Section 20; thence south along said west line of the east
half to the south line of said Sectioi120 and the terminus.
Together with the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 20.
Section 21, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., situate in Kitsap County,
Washington except that portion lying within the following described area;
Beglnning.at the southwest comer. of the Plat of Leibly & Blumer's 1st Addition to
Bremerton. Heights; as recorded in Volume 30f the book of plats, Page 89;
records of Kit sap County, Washington, also being a point on the east-west
. centerline of said Section 21, also being on the westerly right of way of Howe
Street and the True Point of Beginning; thence westerly along said ~enterline to
. the east line .of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 21 ;
. thence northerly along said east line to its intersection with the northerly right of
. way for.Werner Road; thence westerly along said northerly right of way to its
'intersection with the weste:rly right of way ofIda;Street (formerly Maple Street);
thence northerly along said westerly right of way to its intersection with the
southerly right of way for Rogers Street; thence westerly along said southerly
right of way to its' intersection with the westerly right of way of Broad Street;
thence northerly along said westerly right of way to its intersection with the north
line of said Section 21; thence east along the said north line to the northwest
comer of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said
Section 21; thence southerly along the west line of said east half to the southwest
comer of said east half; thence easterly along the south line of said east half to its
intersection with the north-south centerline of said Section 21; thence southerly
along said centerline to its intersection with the south line .of the north half of the
northwest quarter. 6fthe southwest ,quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section
21; thence easterly along said south line to its intersection with the westerly right
of way of Blumer Street as referenced in AFN 342909, records of Kitsap County,
Washington; thence southerly along said westerly right of way to its intersection
with the northerly right of way of said Werner Road; thence easterly. along said
northerly, right of way to its intersection with the extension of westerly right of
. way of Howe Street; thence southerly along said extension and westerly right of
way to the point of beginning.
Section 22, Township 24 North, Range 1 East; W.M.,'situatein Kitsap County,
Washington except that portion lying within the following described area;
Beginning at the intersection of the easterly margin of SR 3 .and the. south line of
said Section 22;' thence northerly along said east right of way to, its intersection
with the west line of Block 16 of the plat of Bremerton Heights, as recorded in
Bremerton City Legal
May 22, 2009
Page 10 of 18
Volume 3 of the book of plats, Page 41, records of Kit sap County, Washington;
thence north along said west line and continuing north along the west line of
Block 12 to its intersection with the easterly margin of SR 3; thence northerly
along said easterly margin to its intersection with the east line of the west 20 feet
of the east half of vacated Oyster Bay Avenue; thence northerly along said east
line to the south margin of Arsenal Way; thence easterly along said south margin
to a point that is 30 feetand parallel with the west line of said Section 22; thence
northerly along said parallel line to the south margin for vacated 0 Street; thence
. easterly along said south margin to the east margin of Bremerton Boulevard;
thence northerly along said east margin to the south margin of 1 st Street; thence
easterly along said margin to its intersection with the east margin of National
Avenue; thence northerly along said east margin to its intersection with the north
line of said Section 22; thence east along said north line. to its intersection with a
line parallel to the east line of the northwest quarter of said Section 22 and 462
feet westerly thereof; thence southerly along said parallel line to the north line of
the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said
Section 22; thence easterly along said north line to its intersection with the west
line of the east 458 feet of said southeast quartet of the northeast quarter of the
northwest quarter of said Section 22; thence southerly along said west line to the
south line of the north 132 feet of said southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of
the northwest qUarter; thence westerly along said south line to its intersection
with the west line of the east 487.12 feet of said southeast quarter of the northeast
quarter of the northwest quarter; thence southerly along said west line to the
north margin of Arsenal Way; thence northeasterly along said north margin to its
intersection with the northerly extension of the east margin of Loxie Egans
Boulevard; thence southerly along said extension and east margin of Loxie Egans
Boulevard to the south line of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of
said Section 22; thence east along said south line to its intersection with the west
line of the northeast quarter of said Section 22; thence south along said west line
to its intersection with the south'line of said northeast quarter; thence east along
said south line to its intersection with the northerly extension of the west line of
Block 3 of the plat of Anderson's Bay View Addition to Port Orchard as recorded
in Volume 2, of the book of plats, Page 43, records of Kit sap County,
Washington, also being the east margin of McCollom Avenue;. thence southerly
along said northerly extension and the east margin of McCollom Avenue to the
southwesterly comer of Lot 11, of said Block 3 of the plat of Anderson's Bay
View Addition, also being an angle point in the said east margin of McCollom
Avenue; thence continuing along said east margin of McCollom Avenue and the
extension thereof, 'southeasterly to its intersection with the Government Meander
line; thence southwesterly along said Government Meander Line to its
intersection with the south line of said Section 22; thence west along said south
line to the point of beginning.'
The north half of the north half of Section 28, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.,
situate in Kitsap County, Washington, lying north of the following described line:
Bremerton City Legal
May 22, 2009
Page 11 of18
Beginning at the intersection of the south line of the said north half of the north
halfof Section 28 :and the east right of way of 3 rd Street; thence northeasterly
along said eastright of way to its intersection with a line parallel to and 716. 70
feet north of the said southline'ofthe nqrth half of the north half; Thence easterly
along said line to the west line,of Govemmen~ 'LotI inSection 28, also being the
east line of the northwest quarter oithe northeaSt'quarter of said Section28;
thence north along said west line ofGovemmentL.ot'1 to its intersection with a
line parallel to and 375.6 feet south of the north line of said Government Lot 1 of
said Section 28; thence easterly along said parallel. line to its intersection with the
east line of said Section 28.
That portion of Section 27, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., situate in Kitsap
County, Washington lying north ofSR 3.
The west half of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., situate in Kitsap
County, Washington;
Together with the west halfof the northeast quarter of said Section 29;
Together-with the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 29,
except for the south half of the east half of the south half of the south half of said
northeast quarter of the northeast quarter;
Together with the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast
quarter of said Section 29;
T ogetherwith the north half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of
the southeast quarter of said Section 29;
Together with the west 396 feet 'of the south half of the southwest quarter of the
northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of saidSectiOIi 29
Section 31, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., situate in Kitsap COmity,
Washington, except for that portion described as follows;
Beginning at the intersection of the south line of said Section 31 and the west
margin ofSR 3; thence northeasterly along said west margin to its intersection
. with the' east lineiofa natural gas pipelint';. easeIlJ.oent as' conveyed to. Cascade Gas
. Company under Kitsap County. Auditor' s File Number 801686;thence southerly
along said east line toitsintersectiott with the west line of the southeast .quarter of
, , the southeast quarter of said Section 31; thence southerly along said west line to
the south line of said Section 31; thence west along said south line to the point of
beginning.
That portion of Section 32, Township 24 North, Range I East;W.M., situate in Kitsap
County, Washington, lying west of the following described line;
Bremerton City Legal
May 22; 2009 -
Page 12 of 18
Beginning at the intersection of the south line of said Section 32 and the east line
of the west quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 32; thence northerly
along said east line to its intersection with the north line of saidSR 3; thence
westerly ,along said north line of SR 3 to the southwest comer of the Plat of
Bremerton Waterworks Tracts No.2 as recorded in Volume 6, of the book of plats
Page 13, records of Kit sap County, Washington; thence generally northeasterly
along the west line of said plat to the northwest comer of Lot 22 of said plat;
thence North 11053'00" East 142.21 feet; thence South 88016'45" East 111.49
feet to a point on the westerly boundary of Tract 39 of said plat; thence northerly
along said westerly boundary to the southwest comer of Tract 38 of said plat;
thence easterly along the south line of said Tract 38, and Tracts 36 and 37 of said
plat to its intersection with the west margin of Division Street; thence northerly
along said west margin and its northerly extension thereof to its intersection with
the north margin of Belfair Valley Road; thence easterly along said north margin
to its intersection with the east line of the west half of the east half of the
. northwestq1iarter of said Section 32; thence north along said ea$t line to the north
. line of said Section 32.
Together with the east half of the ,southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said
Section 32.
Section 30, Township 24 North, Range 1 East,W.:M., Kitsap County, Washington.
Section26, Township 24 North, Range 1 West, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington.
Section 36, Township 24 North, Range 1 West"W.M.,Kitsap County, Washington.
The ,southwest quarter of the southwest 'quarter of Section 14; Township. 24 North, Range
1 West, W.M., situate in Kitsap County, Washington;
Together with the south half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of
said Section 14;
Together with the south half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of
said; Section 14.
The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 24 North, Range 1
West, W.M., situate in Kitsap County, Washington.
Section 23, Township 24'North, Range 1 West, W.M., situate in KitsapCounty,
Washington, except for the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter.
Section 24,' Township' 24 North"Range 1 West, W.M.~ situate in Kitsap County,
Washington; except the east quarter.
Bremerton City Legal
May 22, 2009
Page 13 of 18
Section 25, Township 24 North, Range 1 West, W.M., situate in Kitsap County,
Washington, except for the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 25.
Section 27, Township24 North, Range 1 West, W.M., situate in Kitsap County,
Washington, except for the northwest quarter of the northwest quart~r and the northwest
quarter of the northeast quarter.
Section 34, Township 24 North, Range 1 West; W.M., situate in Kitsap County,
Washington, except the south quarter.
Section.35, Township 24 North, Range 1 West, W.M., situate in Kitsap County,
Washington, except for the southwest quarter.
Section 1, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M., situate in Kitsap County,
Washington lying north of SR 3 except for the following. described parcel;
Beginning at the southwest comer of Said Section 1; thence along the south line
of said Section 1, South 8YOO'44" East 270.34 feet; thence leaving said south
line, North 4059'16" East 175.74 feet; thence North 44053'00" East 746.50 feet;
thence South 45007'00" East 325.00 feet to a boundary line established under
Kitsap County Auditor's File Number 8501250060 and delineated on survey
recorded under Kitsap County Auditor's File Number 8608040097; thence North
44~53'00" Eastto the east line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
said Section 1; thence northerly along said east line to the northwest comer of the
southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 1; "thence easterly along
the north line of said southeast quarter of the southwest quarter to its intersection
with the west line.oftheeast 330 feet of the said southeast quarter. of the
southwest quarter; thence southerly along said west line to its intersection with
the west margin of State Route 3 (SR3); thence southerly along said west margin
to its intersection with the south line of said Section 1; thence west along said line
to the point of beginning.
Together with that portion of said Section 1 described as follows;
Beginning at the southeast comer of said Section 1; thence westerly along the
south line of said Section N 84051 '41" W 1976.03 feet to its. intersection with a
line delineated by survey in Volume 8, of the book of surveys, Page 125, records
of Kit sap County; Washington; thence N43058.'23" W along said lineto its
intersection with the easterly margin for SR.3 ;thenc~ perpendjcular to"said
easterly margin, northwesterly to the westerly margin; thence generally
northeasterly along said westerly margin line to a point perpendicular to: its
intersection with tJ;J.e east line. of the northwest.quarter of thesQutheast qua,rter of
said section; thence southeasterly to the said easterly margin for SR 3 and its
intersection with'said east line.ofthe northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of
said Section 1; thence southerly along said east line to the, center of the: s01ltheast
quarter of said section; thence along the north line of the southeast quarter of the
Bremerton City Legal
May 22, 2009
Page 14 of18
southeast quarter of said section, S 85048'24" E to a point 732.73 feet west of the
northeast comer of said southeast quarter of the southeast quarter; ,thence S
8011'30" E 110.79. feet; thence S 36015'46" E 94.25 feet; thence S 25016'38" E
106.42 feet; thence S .60039'06" E 73.25 feet; thence S 24059'37" E 101.49 feet;
thence S59032'22" E 64.82feet; thence S 41019'10" E 49.91 feet; thence S
14902'30".E 49.04 feet; thence S 22017'19" W 285.52 feet; thence S 61006'30"
E 108.47 feet; thence S 84041'14" E 71.12 feet; thence N 67027'10" E. 79.96
feet; thence S 84054'57" E 51.37 feet; thence S 57048'37'.' E 47.01 feet; thence
N87059.'38" E 130.06 feet; thence S 47051 '41" E 62.14 feet to a point on the
east line of said Section 1; thence southerly along said east line to the point of
Beginning.
The east half of Section 2, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M., situate in Kitsap
County, Washington;
.Together with the east half of the southwest quarter of said Section 2;
Together with the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 2;
Together with the east three quarters of the southwest quarter of the southwest
quarter of said Section 2;
Together with the east half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter lying
east of the 'railroad right of way.
Section 11, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap
County, Washington;
Except for that portion of the north half of the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of said Section 11 lying westerly of the railroad right of way;
Except for that portion of the east 165 feet of the north east quarter of the
northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 11.
The north half of the northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 23 North, Range 1 West,
Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap County, Washington;
Together with that portion of said Section 12 lying west of the following
described line;
Beginning at the intersection of the south line of said Section 12 and the westerly
right of way line of Old ,Clifton Road; thence northerly along said westerly right
of way as defined in BoundaryLine Adjustmentrecorded.under Auditor's File
No. 200509130253, records of Kit sap County, Washington, N42044'53" E
204.94 feet; thence leaving said westerly right of way N 73005'04" W 187.69 to
the east line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 12;
Bremer/on City Legal
May 22, 2009
Page 15 of18
thence rtortherlyalong said east litie to the ,southwest comer oithe northwest
"quarter of thes~mtheast quarter of saidSection-12; thence 'easterly along.the south
liIitfofsaid~northwestquarter\tothe southeast ,cotner; . thence:1ioitherly along the
i east line' of said'northwest quarter N 1028' 48'} B 60; 14feet;'thence'N 84033"02
,W 12.15 feet; thence N14007'21" W134.61feet; tlienceN O?4T48"E, 427.73
feet; thence-N 30051 '32" Ero8.90 feet to.thesaideast)lineofthe~noithwest
quarter; 'thencenorthedy along saia eastlme,tcHtsintersection With the south line
:. onhe north half'ofsaid Section 12; thence westedyalong-said south line'to its
intersection with the east liheofthe west quarter of said Section- 12; thence
northerly alon-gisaid eastJine.to the northwest comerofthe southeast quarter of
the northwest quarter of said Section 12; thence easterly along the north,line of
said southeast quarter to its intersection with the northeasterly line of the property
conveyed to H;H; Lake'underdeedrecordedbyAuditor's FileNo. 39900J, '"
records of Kitsap County , Washington; thence northwesterly'alo;ngsaidV ,',~ ,
northeasterly line to its intersection with the said easterly right of way line for SR
3; thence northwesterly to' the intersection of the' sotithline of the 'north :half of
the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 12 and the westerly
right of way line for SR 3; thence westerly along.said.south line to the'west line
of said Section 12
The west half of the west half of Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 1 West,.
Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap County, Washington;
Together with the east half of the southwest quarter of said Section 13;
Together with the west half of the southeast quarter of said Section 13.
Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap
County, Washington.
The south half of Section 15 , Township 23 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian,
situate in KitsapCounty, Washington~ lying southeasterly ofSR 3;
Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap
County, Washington, lyingfsouth ofSR 3;
Except for that portion of said Section 22 lying southwesterly of the southerly
right of way line of Lake Hora Roaddescribe'd as fonows: '
Beginning at a point on the north line of the northeast quarter of the northwest
. quarter of said Section 22, which said line is intersectedtbythecenterline;6f SR 3;
thence southwesterly along said centerline 200:feetto the TniePointof:
'; Beginning; thence . southeasterly ari&atright angles to saidcenterlin~ 1010 feet;
thence southwesterly and parallel. to sai& centerline, ,1400feet;' :thertce. ...,.
northwesterly m' a straight line 1.0 10- feet to a point on ;the said centerline of SR 3
Bremerton City Legal
May 22; 2009 i
Page 16 of18
being 1400 feet southwesterly of the True Point of Beginning; .thence
northeasterly along said centerline to the True Point of Beginning; ,
Except for that portion of said Section 22 described as follows:
Beginning at a point on: the north line of the northeast quarter of the northwest
quarter of said Section 22, which said line is intersected by the centerline of SR 3;
thence southwesterly along said centerline 2400 feet to the True Point of
Beginning; thence southeasterly and at right angles to said centerline 1010 feet;
thence southwesterly and parallel to said centerline, 1000 feet;. thence
northwesterly in a straight line 1010 feet to a point on the said,centerline of SR 3
being 1000 feet'southwesterly of the True Point of Beginning; thence
northeasterly along said centerline to the True Point of Beginning;
Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, WillametteMeridian, situate in Kitsap
County, Washington, lying north of Lake Flora Road and lying north of the 'northwesterly
line of the Bonneville Power Administration'(BPA}transmissionline'as recorded under
Auditor"s:File No. 368223, records of Kit sap County, Washington;
Except for any portion of the west half of the southwest 'quarter of the southwest,
quarter,of said Section 23;
Except for any portion of the east half of the southwest quarter of said Section 23.
That portion of the west three quarters of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 1 West,
Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap County, Washington, lying north of the
northwesterly line of the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) transmission line as
recorded under Auditor's File No. 368223, records of Kitsap CoUnty, Washington;
Together with that portion of Government Lot 2 of said Section 32 described as
follows;
Beginning at the southeast comer of said Government Lot 2; thence along the
south line of said Government Lot 2, N 88017'22" W 330.0'1 feet; thence N
01056'36" E 401.06 feet more or less to the south margin of SR 16; thence
easterly along said south margin to its intersection with 'the east line of said
Government Lot 2; thence SOl 050' 16" W along said east line to the point of
beginning.
The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 5,
Township 23 North, Range 1 East, W.M., situate in Kitsap County, Washington.
Together with the north half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the
northeast quarter of said Section 5
Bremerton City Legal
May22, 2()09
Page 17 of 18
The north half of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 1 East; ;W.M., an situate in Kitsap
County, Washington; lying west of the; following described line; ,
Beginning at the southeast ,comer of the west half of the east halfofsaid.Section
4; thence northerly along the east line of the said west half of the east half to its
intersection with a line-parallelto the southline.of the northwest quarter;()f the
- 'northeast.quarterof. said Section 4 and 330Jeet north thereof; '. thence westerly
along; said line: parallel to'the south line; of the, northwest quarter of the-northeast
quarter to its infersectionwith, a line parallel to the' west line of the northwest
quarter 'of the northeast quarter of said Section.4, and 184.8 feet east thereof;
thence-northerly along said line parallel to-the'westline ofth~_ northwest quarter
of the northeast quarter to- its"intersection With a.lineparallel,to the. sai,G south line
of the northwest, quarter of the northeastquarter.ofsaid ,Section 4' and. 660'feet
. ~
north thereof; thence easterly along said line parallel to the said south line of the
northwest guarterof'the northeast quaIterto its i.lltersectiori with.a-line patalleLto:
and 73227 ,feet west of the east line .of the said northwest quarter':of>thenortheast
,quarter ofSection4;thence;llorthetlyalongsaidHne parallelto .-the eastline ,of
the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the north line of said Section.4.:.
The south half of the southwest quarter and the southwest'quarter-ofthe southeast quarter
of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., all situate in Kitsap County,
Washington;
Together with the south half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of
said Section 33;
. Together with Government Lot 4 of said Section 33-
Together with Government Lot 3 lying south ofSR 16 of said Section 33;
Together with the west 100 feet of the south 350 feet of the north half of the
northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 33
Together with all tidelands abutting;
(, ~
And togetherwithjurisdictioh over adjacent waters as conveyed by Revise9.Codeof
Washington (RCW}J5:2L160. " _, .
Bremer/on City Legal
May 22; 2009
Page 18 0118
,/
,/,/
/'
/
- /
]
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
/
.,,,,'
/'
/'
Jfr----------.--- __u_______ -- .-_____u______
f#
,
"",,,....
,,,,,,..,,
",/"
"..",...'
/
",1'/ ?,'
@
N
PRO,P;ERTY TH:Q:U'G.HT
TO BE I:NCLUSlVE TO
CITY LI;M:ITS-B~UTN:OT
FO~RMALL Y AN;N;EXE;D
NTS
NW 1/4 SE 1/4
,
SEC. 22 T 24N.,R1E,
W.M.
CITY O'F B;REMiERT01N,
KITSAP COiUiNTY
5/20/09
G;F lMW
ET
N
NTS
@
P'ROiP;ERTY TH'OtJ:G!HT
TO BE IN'CLU'SIV'E TO
CITY Lt:MiITS-B;UTNiOT
FO'RMALL Y AN~N:EXED
N'E 1/4 N~E 1/4
,
SEC. 21 T 24N.,R1 E,
W.M.
CITY O,F BREM:ERT01N.,
KITSAP CO~U;NTY
5/20109
GFIMW
I
I
- --- ./
I - -; I ~
, :
1
- - I
I , - .: I'; .
. .
" -
: .
, '
. J I ~
ill
j ,;
. I
'I :
; lw
; :-...
. .-.)
; :""'>
~ ~:c::....
, '!,:ij
': I is
:/ ~~
I i<
I to
:-
;0::
I "~
I ;~
, '
'/ '.
I:
1 ~
~ I "
I~"-'
:7
'2 -----
....~_.._--.........
,.. ---........ ......
I ,.. ......... ........
" ,1' ......................
" ...., ............
, " ................
" ,"'--""-..
. I
\ ,
0'
0'
. ,
, ,
, ,
, I
, ,
\ ,
, ,
~ ~
0'
~ \
\ \
\ \
\,
, '
, '
FOREST \ \
RIDGE \\
PARK \.:::
M
P"ROPERTY TH'QiU'G:HT
TO B'E rNCLU~S:IVE TO
CITY LIM'ITS-B:UT NOT
FO'RM:ALL Y AN'N:EXED
NTS
SW 1./4,S'E 1/4
SEC. 15 T 24N.,R1.E,
W.M.
CITY O:F B,REMiERTON,
KITSAP CO:U.NTY
5120/09
GF/MW
, I J I "1'" . .-
I i I I' . ! ,
, - -. ~ . - .. . - __: . I . ! I; .;, ~ '
'. \ /
S TI-I " I H~ ~ T .'"
~J
~
~ 0~
J e; ~
0~ ~(Q
,~~ ~0 Ilk
~ cJlJ ;~
~ .~
~ ~
...'" 'l:
r-
S
~
lu I I':;'
~ I
I
~ I
~..,~ - ~~~-
,.~ l ' .t&
0"'- ,~ ~.,r -.\. ~ '
~ n..r);. ~ ... " . .. 'VT
~: o...~ t.. ~~ l'r' o..."~ ,\"
'( - t\.. \J .., )' "C t\.. "'U ... t\.. fo \
r, N r-." 1AJnj)'7f.
~ \~ ~'
e '- ~
-
~ Q
~ ~
~ -J
C) C)
-.J
0:::1.
/ II ftl SIREE. ~"
I I I I I I I I I I -',' -. 'u._ . -, / ""
PROPERTY TH'O~U:G:Hl
TO BE lN1CLUS1V:E TO
CITY LrM:ITS-BUT NiOl
N FO'RMALL Y AN;N:EX;ED
NTS
SW 1/4 NW 1/4
,
SEC. 14 T 24N.,R1;E
W.M.
CITY QIF B'REMIE'RTO'N,
KITSAP COUNTY
512010~9
G',F IM:W
DATE SUBMITTED: 5/20/09
BILL # _ 0 _q~~_3 J-
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
7A
...............O;J~.~;~5.;~~...........................................................
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Annexation Committee Meeting Date: 5/20/09
and designating Zoning for territory in the COUNCIL MEETING Date: 6/3/09
South Kitsap Industrial Area Urban Growth Department: DCD
Area known as "Sylvan Products INC." Presenter: Lindsey Sehmel
Phone: 360-473-5845
SUMMARY: Property Owners within the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Urban Growth Area
(UGA) have requested that the City Council consider annexing their property to the City of
Bremerton. The City has received an annexation petition that have been referred to as "Sylvan
Products INC". After careful deliberation and consideration of the tinancial impacts, the Council
took action on April 15th, 2009 to accept the 10% Petition for this area. By accepting this petition,
the Council allowed the annexation to proceed to the second phase of the petition annexation process,
gathering of signatures for the 75% Petitions.
The 75% Petition for Sylvan Products INC was submitted to the City on April 16, 2009, and the
purpose of the meeting on June 3, 2009 is to hold a public hearing and determine if the Council will
pass the proposed ordinance and approve the Sylvan Products annexation. In addition to accepting
the annexation, the ordinance also adopts the Industrial zoning designation, assigns a Council District
for the territory and establishes an effective date for the annexation following the Boundary Review
Board process.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Proposed Ordinance rJ 0 . 5"0 2J 3
2)75% Petition for annexation of territory.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None Known.
APPROV ALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MA YOR:
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
CONSENT AGENDA 0
GENERAL BUSINESS 0
PUBLIC HEARING [8J
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No.So8,3 annexing the territory within the
South Kitsap Industrial Area Urban Growth Area known as Sylvan Products INC, establishing
Industrial zoning, and assigning a City Council District for the annexed territory.
COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny 0 Table
o Continue 0 No Action
ORDINANCE NO. 50a3
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, approving the annexation of certain
contiguous lands comprising of approximately 7 acres in the South
Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Urban Growth Area (UGA) known
as the Sylvan Products INC., annexation; requiring the assumption
of all of the City's existing indebtedness by the area to be annexed;
designating Industrial zoning pursuant to BMC 20.94; establishing
an effective date of the annexation; and designating a Council
District for the annexed area.
WHEREAS, on March 2,2009, the City received an initiation petition for
annexation of territory to the City Bremerton from Sylvan Products INC.; and
WHEREAS, the initiating parties are the owners of one hundred percent (100%)
of the property according to the assessed'valuation for which annexation is petitioned, which is
well in excess of the ten percent (10%) in value of the property required to initiate an annexation
into the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, the proposed area for annexation is located within an Urban Growth
Area (UGA); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.130 on October- 15, 2008 the SKIA UGA
was designated at a Manufacturing and Industrial Center during the 2008 Comprehensive Plan
amendment process, Ordinance No. 5062; and
WHEREAS, Manufacturing and Industrial Centers are subject to zoning of
Industrial, therefore Industrial zoning is designated for the annexed area and properties so
designated are required to meet the development requirements of Chapter 20.94 BMC; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2009, the City Council met with the initiating parties to
consider the petition at which time the City Council I) accepted the petition as presented, 2)
required the assumption of all existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed, and 3)
authorized the circulation of a seventy-five percent (75%) annexation petition as required by law
to proceed with the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2009, the City received a seventy-five percent (75%)
annexation petition for annexation of Sylvan Products INC. to the City of Bremerton from the
owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the property, excluding public rights-of-way,
according to the assessed valuation for which annexation is petitioned; and
WHEREAS, the area proposed for annexation is legally described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and as further identified in the map
attached as Exhibit B incorporated herein by this reference; and
Annexation - SKlA
Sylvan Products INC Annexation
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.13.140, residents and property owners in the
area proposed for annexation and other interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to
be heard during a public hearing held before the City Council on June 3, 2009, and all statutory
notice requirements for said hearing, including publish in a newspaper of local circulation, and
postings of site, have been provided; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2009, the City of Bremerton filed a copy of the seventy-
five percent (75%) annexation petition with the Kitsap County Assessor's Office requesting
sufficiency review and on April 20, 2009, the City received a Certificate of Sufficiency affirming
consent of properties totaling more than seventy-five percent (75%) of assessed property
valuation; and
WHEREAS, City of Bremerton filed a Notice of Intention with the Boundary
Review Board on April 24, 2009 pursuant to RCW 36.93.090; and
WHEREAS, City of Bremerton has prepared an analysis of the costs and benefits
and the anticipated fiscal impacts to the City of annexing the SKIA UGA and this analysis is
contained in the report called "Financial Assessment of SKIA Area Annexation" dated June 16,
2008; and
WHEREAS, City Council seeks to annex territories that contribute to the overall
economic and social health and well being of the City and lead to an orderly and logical pattern
of development; and
WHEREAS, City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to approve
the proposed annexation as presented and require the assumption of all or any portion of City
indebtedness by the area to be annexed; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. There shall be annexed to the City of Bremerton, Washington,
certain property situated in Kitsap County, Washington, commonly known as Sylvan Products
INC. annexation, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, and as further identified in the map attached as Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The property hereby annexed shall assume and be subject to its
proportionate share of the City's existing indebtedness and shall be assessed and taxed at the
same rate and on the same basis that other property with in the City of Bremerton is assessed and
taxed to pay for any outstanding general indebtedness of the City, if that indebtedness has been
approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to, or existing at the effective date of this
annexation.
2
Annexation - SKIA
Sylvan Prottuets INC Annexation
SECTION 3. Comprehensive planning for the SKIA UGA was included in the
City's annual comprehensive plan amendment process for 2008, the area to be annexed has been
designated as a Manufacturing and Industrial Center.
SECTION 4. Zoning for the annexed area is designated Industrial pursuant to
Chapter 20.94 BMe.
SECTION 5. This annexation will become effective August 1, 2009 if Boundary
Review Board jurisdiction is not invoked. If Boundary Review Board jurisdiction is invoked
pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(4), then this annexation will become effective on the first day of the
second month immediately following the expiration of the BO'fndary Review Board's review.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to RCW 35.13.260, within thirty (30) days from the
effective date of this annexation as provided by law, the City Department of Community
Development (DCD) of the City of Bremerton shall, under the direction of the Mayor of the City
of Bremerton, determine the resident population of the annexed territory, which population
determination shall consist of an actual enumeration of the population that shall be made in
accordance with the practices and policies and subject to approval of the State of Washington's
Office of Financial Management and which population shall be determined as of the effective
date of this annexation as specified in this ordinance. DCD shall prepare a certificate signed by
the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk in such form and containing such information as shall
be prescribed by the State Office of Financial Management and the City Clerk shall thereafter
submit that certificate in triplicate to the Office of Financial Management together with the
population determination of the annexed territory.
SECTION 7. Pursuant to RCW 35.13.270, the DCD shall provide notification,
by certified mail, that includes a list of annexed parcel numbers, to the Kitsap County Treasurer
and Kitsap County Assessor at least thirty days before the effective date of the annexation. DCD
shall also provide such notification to the fire district and library district, as appropriate,
simultaneously when notice of the proposed annexation is provided by the City to the Kitsap
County Boundary Review Board pursuant to RCW 36.93.090.
SECTION 8. Following passage of this annexation ordinance, the City Clerk of
the City of Bremerton, pursuant to RCW 35.13.150, shall send to the Office of the Clerk of the
Kitsap County Board of Commissioners a certified copy of this ordinance.
SECTION 9. City Council District. Upon the effective date of annexation, the
property annexed by this ordinance shall be assigned to Bremerton City Council District 8.
SECTION 10. Legal Descriptions. In the event of a conflict in the description
of the area proposed for annexation as legally described in Exhibit A and that as identified in the
map attached as Exhibit 13, Exhibit A shall govern as the area to be annexed into the City.
Exhibit B is attached hereto for illustrative purposes. Staff is authorized to make minor technical
corrections as necessary to the descriptions set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B due to incorrect
data identified during Kitsap County review of the annexation petition.
3
Annexation - SKIA
Sylvan Products INC Annexation
SECTION 11. 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 12. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take efIect and be in force
10 days after the date of publication.
day of
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this_
,2009.
CECIL McCONNEL, Council President
Approved this
day of
,2009.
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
PUBLISHED the H - - .
EFFECTIVE the
ORDINANCE NO.
day of.
day of
, 2009 -
,2009
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\Sylvan Products INC Annexation.doc
4
Annexation - SKIA
Sylvan Products INC Annexation
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON
(SYLVAN PRODUCTS INC.)
That portion of the South half of the South half of Section 1, Township 23 North, Range
1 West, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the South line of said Section 1 with the southeasterly
line of State Highway No. 14; thence Northeasterly along said Highway 500 feet, more or
less, to the southwesterly line ofa tract conveyed March 27,1941 to Edna C. Cook by
deed recorded October 6, 1945 under Auditor's File No. 414543; thence Southeasterly
along said Cook tract to the south line of said Section 1; thence West along said south
line to the point of beginning;
Except SR 3;
And that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 12,
Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M., Kitsap County, Washington described as
follows:
Commencing at the northeast comer of said subdivision; thence South along the east line
of said Northeast quarter 700 feet, more or less, to the northeast comer of a tract
conveyed October 2, 1942 to Harry Earl by deed recorded under Auditor's File No.
367446; thence Northwesterly along said Earl tract 1040 feet, more or less, to the
intersection of the easterly line of State Highway No. 14 with the north line of the
subdivision; thence East along said north line to the point of beginning;
Except SR 3.
EXHIBIT B
PARCEL MAP
OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON
(SYLVAN PRODUCTS INC.)
- -- -
Sylvan Products
Annexation
Exhibit B
~,/
/",/
..o~
, e' (':
, ,! '!I)
f~e>~<c-~/
, ,/,,- ~~,/
, . /' ~/
" 0"/ "
,~..i; />/ . /)
v / <
.X:",~<\'\\..
'\" )'^-
/
/
Vicinity Map C)
/
'-'012~q1,.3-0o._10
: \.\ / .-.~--.
':.0...
-'<
"
", 'I,
.", :
, i
'-I
., ';
>/
" ~_ _~'\"- i
.22301.2-001.1001:---," --"- .___ __,
" , ',< !
" '
, I
"-
/
,;
/
/
-.................,,~.
- 1
~.~::._------l
~SYIVanproductJAnil6'XQI.Ot1I
$KIA UGA
'" CIty Um'" I
l. . :30 ."... C) I
'RECEIVED ClTV COUNCil DfFiCP
\n.:~_ ____..LJIL~ /..9.'J_ ..... .'._" .
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO CITY OF BREMERTON
RECEIVED
City ofBremerton
APR 1 6 2009
April 15, 2009
Department of
Community Development
City Council
City of Bremerton
345 6th S1. Suite 600
Bremerton, WA 98337
Re: Property located at 4729 St. HWY 3 SW
Dear City Councilmembers,
We the undersigned, who are the owners of not less than 75% of the value of
property I according. to the assessed valuation records. for: general taxation- ..
purposes of the Assessor of Kitsap County, of the following described real
property situated in Kitsap County, Washington, respectfully file this Petition for
Annexation of Territory to the City of Bremerton ("Petition") requesting that said
real property be annexed to the City of Bremerton, Washington and we
respectfully state as follows:
1. The area proposed to be annexed to the City is more particularly described as
per the legal description attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and made part of this
Petition.
2. A plat map outlining the boundaries of the real property described is attached
hereto as EXHIBIT B and is made a part of this Petition.
3. The said area adjoins the existing boundaries of the City of Breme.rton and is
in Kitsap County, and is within the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Urban
Growth Area.
4. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the City Council of the
City of Bremerton entertain this Petition and fix a date for a public hearing as per
RCW 35.13.140. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the City
Council take formal action to accept and approve the proposed annexation and
to authorize a filing with the Boundary Review Board of a Notice of Intent to
Annex the described property.
SYLVAN PRODUCTS, INC.
Tax Parcel No. 122301~2~001-1001
,4 rJ
:C,' ,~~
r" President I
SYLVAN PRODUCTS, INC.
Tax Parcel No. 012301~3-009-1004
~1~~~ 11/-a~(.
'By: Kenneth M. Haines Sf., President
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
FOR
4729 STATE HIGHWAY 3 SW
. The south half of the south half of Section 1, Township 23 North, Range 1 West,
Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap County, Washington more particularly
described as follows;
Beginning at the intersection of the south line of said Section 1 with the
southeasterly line of SR 3 (formerly State Highway No. 14); thence
northeasterly along said route 500 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly
line of a tract conveyed March 27, 1941 to Edna C. Cook, by deed
recorded October 6, 1945, under Kitsap County Auditor's File No. 414543;
thence southeasterly along said Cook tract to the south line of said
Section 1; thence west along said south line to the point of beginning;
~_. " .. ~.-, ~__. _ _' ___ .~__. "____"_.~ "_" .n__'_ _.._ . __ r~ _ ... ___ __".._~_ .
The northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 24 North,
Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap County, Washington more
particularly described as follows;
Beginning at the northeast corner of said subdivision; thence south 700
feet, more or less to the northeast corner of a tract conveyed October 2,
1942 to Harry Earl by deed recorded under Kitsap County Auditor's File
No. 367446; thence northwesterly along said Earl tract 1040 feet, more or
less, to the intersection of the easterly line of SR 3 (formerly State
Highway No.14) with the north line of the subdivision; thence east along
said north line to point of beginning;
I
~
. ,of-
: 4(
~V
~il
o
iJ\\~
.
.
Vicinity Mapl ()
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
\
I
i
I
I
I
I
IAtPERIAL
.......
I ~ ~'
!- t -
i
"/.H........J..........J.
: .......H.....
, I
I I
I
i Sylvan Products
! 750k Petition
Legend
Ifill Sylvan Products Annexation
CJ SKIA UGA
.....,
.....r City Limits
850
I Feet n
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
BILL# _ 0 q -- L3_3
DATE SUBMITTED: 5/20/09
1&
........................................................................................
Qro.^Jo.509{
SUB.fECT: Public Heanng on Annexation ..
and designating Zoning for territory in the .
South Kitsap Industrial Area Urban Growth
Area known as "Paije, Palmer, Alpine, and
Essl inger."
Committee Meeting Date:
COUNCIL MEETING Date:
Department:
Presenter:
Phone:
5/20/09
6/3/09
DCD
Lindsey Sehmel
360-473-5845
SUMMARY: Property Owners within the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Urban Growth Area
(UGA) have requested that the City Council consider annexing their property to the City of
Bremerton. The City has received an annexation petition that have been referred to as "Paije, Palmer,
Alpine, and Esslinger". After careful deliberation and consideration of the financial impacts, the
Council took action on April 15th, 2009 to accept the 10% Petition for this area. By accepting this
petition, the Council allowed the annexation to proceed to the second phase of the petition annexation
process, gathering of signatures for the 75% Petitions.
The 75% Petition for Paije, Palmer, Alpine, and Esslinger was submitted to the City on April 16,
2009, and the purpose of the meeting on June 3, 2009 is to hold a public hearing and determine if the
Council will pass the proposed ordinance and approve the Paije, Palmer, Alpine, and Esslinger
annexation. In addition to accepting the annexation, the ordinance also adopts the Industrial zoning
designation, assigns a Council District for the territory and establishes an effective date for the
annexation following the Boundary Review Board process.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Proposed Ordinance tJo, 50 ~ 4
2) 75% Petition for annexation of territory.
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None Known.
APPROV ALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MA YOR:
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
CONSENT AGENDA D
GENERAL BUSINESS D
PUBLIC HEARING ~
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 50B1annexing the territory within the
South Kitsap Industrial Area Urban Growth Area known as Paije, Palmer, Alpine, and Esslinger,
establishing Industrial zoning, and assigning a City Council District for the annexed territory.
COUNCIL ACTION: D Approve 0 Deny D Table
D Continue D No Action
ORDINANCE NO. 508f
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, approving the annexation of certain
contiguous lands comprising of approximately 87 acres in the
South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Urban Growth Area (UGA)
known as the Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger annexation; requiring
the assumption of all of the City's existing indebtedness by the area
to be annexed; designating Industrial zoning pursuant to BMC
20.94; establishing an effective date of the annexation; and
designating a Council District for the annexed area.
WHEREAS, on March 16,2009, the City received an initiation petition for
annexation of territory to the City Bremerton from Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger; and
WHEREAS, the initiating parties are the owners of more than Seventy-Five
percent (75%) of the property according to the assessed valuation for which annexation is
petitioned, which is well in excess ofthe ten percent (10%) in value of the property required to
initiate an annexation into the City of Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, the proposed area for annexation is located within an Urban Growth
Area (UGA); and
- WHEREAS, pursuanUo RCW 36.70A.l30 onOctober-15, 2008 the SKIAUGA-
was designated at a Manufacturing and Industrial Center during the 2008 Comprehensive Plan
amendment process, Ordinance No. 5062; and
WHEREAS, Manufacturing and Industrial Centers are subject to zoning of
Industrial, therefore Industrial zoning is designated for the annexed area and properties so
designated are required to meet the development requirements of Chapter 20.94 BMC; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2009, the City Council met with the initiating parties to
consider the petition at which time the City Council 1) accepted the petition as presented, 2)
required the assumption of all existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed, and 3)
authorized the circulation of a seventy-five percent (75%) annexation petition as required by law
to proceed with the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2009, the City received a seventy-five percent (75%)
annexation petition for annexation of Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger to the City of Bremerton
from the owners of more than Seventy-Five percent (75%) of the property, excluding public
rights-of-way, according to the assessed valuation for which annexation is petitioned; and
WHEREAS, the area proposed for annexation is legally described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and as further identified in the map
attached as Exhibit B incorporated herein by this reference; and
Annexation - SKJA
Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger Annexation
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.13.140, residents and property owners in the
area proposed for annexation and other interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to
be heard during a public hearing held before the City Council on June 3, 2009, and all statutory
notice requirements for said hearing, including publish in a newspaper of local circulation, and
postings of site, have been provided; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2009, the City of Bremerton filed a copy of the seventy-
five percent (75%) annexation petition with the Kitsap County Assessor's Otlice requesting
sutliciency review and on April 20, 2009, the City received a Certificate of Sutliciency atlirming
consent of properties totaling more than seventy-five percent (75%) of assessed property
valuation; and
WHEREAS, City of Bremerton filed a Notice of Intention with the Boundary
Review Board on April 22, 2009 pursuant to RCW 36.93.090; and
WHEREAS, City of Bremerton has prepared an analysis of the costs and benefits
and the anticipated fiscal impacts to the City of annexing the SKIA UGA and this analysis is
contained in the report called "Financial Assessment of SKIA Area Annexation" dated June 16,
2008; and
~ WHEREAS, City Council seeks to annex territories that contribute to the overall
economic and social health and well being of the City and lead to an orderly and logical pattern
of development; and
WHEREAS, City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to approve
the proposed annexation as presented and require the assumption of all or any portion of City
indebtedness by the area to be annexed; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. There shall be annexed to the City of Bremerton, Washington,
certain property situated in Kitsap County, Washington, commonly known as Paije, Palmer,
Alpine Esslinger annexation, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, and as further identified in the map attached as Exhibit B attached
\
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The property hereby annexed shall assume and be subject to its
proportionate share of the City's existing indebtedness and shall be assessed and taxed at the
same rate and on the same basis that other property with in the City of Bremerton is assessed and
taxed to pay for any outstanding general indebtedness of the City, if that indebtedness has been
approved by t!J.e voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to, or existing at the effective date of this
annexation.
2
Annexation - SKIA
Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger Annexation
SECTION 3. Comprehensive planning for the SKIA UGA was included in the
City's annual comprehensive plan amendment process for 2008, the area to be annexed has been
designated as a Manufacturing and Industrial Center.
SECTION 4. Zoning for the annexed area is designated Industrial pursuant to
Chapter 20.94 BMC.
SECTION 5. This annexation will become eflective August 1, 2009 if Boundary
Review Board jurisdiction is not invoked. If Boundary Review Board jurisdiction is invoked
pursuant to RCW 36. 93.100( 4), then this annexation will become effective on the first day of the
second month immediately following the expiration of the Boundary Review Board's review.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to RCW 35.13.260, within thirty (30) days from the
effective date of this annexation as provided by law, the City Department of Community
Development (DCD) of the City of Bremerton shall, under the direction of the Mayor of the City
of Bremerton, determine the resident population of the annexed territory, which population
determination shall consist of an actual enumeration of the population that shall be made in
accordance with the practices and policies and subject to approval of the State of Washington's
Office of Financial Management and which population shall be determined as of the effective
date of this annexation as specified in this ordinance. DCD shall prepare a certificate signed by
the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk in such form and containing such information as shall
be prescribed by the State Office of Financial Management and the City Clerk shall thereafter
submit that certificate in triplicate to the Office of Financial Management together with the
population determination of the annexed territory.
SECTION 7. Pursuant to RCW 35.13.270, the DCD shall provide notification,
by certified mail, that includes a list of annexed parcel numbers, to the Kitsap County Treasurer
and Kitsap County Assessor at least thirty days before the effective date of the annexation. DCD
shall also provide such notification to the fire district and library district, as appropriate,
simultaneously when notice of the proposed annexation is provided by the City to the Kitsap
County Boundary Review Board pursuant to RCW 36.93.090.
SECTION 8. Following passage of this annexation ordinance, the City Clerk of
the City ofBremerton, pursuant to RCW 35.13.150, shall send to the Office of the Clerk of the
Kitsap County Board of Commissioners a certified copy of this ordinance.
SECTION 9. City Council District. Upon the effective date of annexation, the
property annexed by this ordinance shall be assigned to Bremerton City Council District 8.
SECTION J O. Legal Descriptions. In the event of a conflict in the description
of the area proposed for annexation as legally described in Exhibit A and that as identified in the
map attached as Exhibit B, Exhibit A shall govern as the area to be annexed into the City.
Exhibit B is attached hereto for illustrative purposes. Staff is authorized to make minor technical
corrections as necessary to the descriptions set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B due to incorrect
data identified during Kitsap County review of the annexation petition.
3
Annexation - SKIA
Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger Annexation
SECTION 11. Severabilitv. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the valiqity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 12. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take etfect and be in force
10 days after the date of publication.
day of
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this_
,2009.
CECIL McCONNEL, Council President
Approved this
day of
,2009.
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
EUBLISHED the
EFFECTIVE the
ORDINANCE NO.
. - day of. -- .-
day of
,2009- p-
,2009
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger Annexation.doc
4
Annexation - SKlA
Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger Annexation
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON
(Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger)
The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 24 North, Range 1 West,
Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap County, Washington;
Together with that portion of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 12
described as follows;
Beginning at a point 330 feet west of the northeast comer of the southeast quarter of the
northwest quarter of said Section 12; thence northwesterly approximately 1110 feet to a
point on the south edge of SR 3 (formerly State Highway No. 14), corresponding to
Station 170+ 175 on said route; thence southwest 225 feet along the south edge of said
highway to Station 173+00; thence southeast approximately 920 feet to a point on the
north line of said southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, 330 feet west of the point of
beginning;
EXHIBIT B
PARCEL MAP
OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON
(Paije, Palmer, Alpine Esslinger)
Paije, palmer1
Alpine, Esslinge '
,'0 Annexation
'----'~-~f-;~" Exhibit B
, ... ,\0 ..... " ,.<~ /
A' , ,~// c' <'~,
~.. f4.0; \
Vl~inity Map' 01 t(" ~y )
,/,/
I / -.::_ ---_-1
. i ." / -- - -.- --1
! I -.:;~__.]- -I -- - --- --
.:~',:= =~=;:':::=~:I~~"~'--;:A:':._vj":>:'~';";:':'~I'.' 'c;it{'J::,~~=L~ElrQ~
" . < } 1"\ ,;/' '\-",~ \"'>' .- '____1 t-~~LLJ..__i f r( I t~lt:
'-L'.:~~ .' "'s'/j' / '\:,";~~._j~~lA%!~
''''PER,IA, I. .' ' ", I / . . I' '\\=:f::~~THVr~Wj
I . i .///'('/ " ._.,~.,:"':',~:c'-"--1 . iF:T.::r.!,..::':')I-:!:jj
. . . I j--",l"''''1 --,.... ,I 1-"
''f .' ",-- ,. I ,/\-,;1 ~j--j1--[:~t:=J'H~::
::..:::-.'~...'...'~.. ..', . ;"'~I' ,':", , ^;.'.~?~.:~~, /< '1/ . I - li-~:iLtUL-I! '~'1~LL;
.. "'~ . . r :'(]:L"I'i" 'FO-::Ll' 'I"~
: "'8~... .,. ') /. _...., " j I
. "'.e-.-. i / /' . I,,,.~bo..':~:,r~' ',' ",,~: '.~.;~-'l,I"
, //'~' i..~/ , ,,' ~
L,' ./ ~~~/ V/. 10' I ,~,.,'
~,' /:>. .~<ct/ 'I~\\'i,<i~~ ;"~'~l."
~~../ o'~"~ . ': ~'! I" '1,1,,)1 "
/'&.p . "'// i ~' ,', '
/// ,//(/ / ., '1 <-;1"'~11 '~~,' !~ri-:"-!.i~''''~- -
/j/;></ I, .'~ .1 Leg.n~ -I~
r- ..); .i l1li Requested Parcels j
1, ,'~1--:~I: I I
' - v )'1' 0' SKJA UGA I
- oll;;' 'I .....J
'_,/ - -, ,I I i.n City Limits
. /' :
..-......... /. --- - _: 970
~ i T~' - I I Feet 0
,'/ ! -"~'-"~;-':--( ---;-~;--i-=~~
----~-..._-----~..
.., - --'--- -- ..:.... - --
'RECEIVED (llY COUNCIL OFFI(f1
lA I E ._-_.l.j.-tJJ'i1.J-Q..(i_.___~_<.,"___
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO CITY OF BREMERTON
April 15, 2009
RECEIVED
CIt)' of Bremerton
APR 162009
City Council
City of Bremerton
345 6th St. Suite 600
Bremerton, WA 98337
Depanment of
CollUl1W1ity Development
Re: SKIA Annexation (Paije, Palmer & Alpine Properties)
Dear City Councilmembers,
We the undersigned, who are the owners of not less than 75% of the value of property,
according to the assessed valuation records for general taxation purposes of the
Assessor of Kitsap County, of the following described real property situated in Kitsap
County; Washington, respectfully file this Petition for Annexation of TerritofytcHne City.n
of Bremerton ("Petition") requesting that said real property be annexed to the City of
Bremerton, Washington and we respectfully state as follows: .
1. The area proposed to be annexed to the City is more particularly described as per the
legal description attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and made part of this Petition.
2. A plat map outlining the boundaries of the real property described is attached hereto
as EXHI BIT B and is made a part of this Petition.
3. The said area adjoins the existing boundaries of the City of Bremerton and is in
Kitsap County, and is within the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Urban Growth Area.
4. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the City Council of the City of
Bremerton entertain this Petition and fix a date for a public hearing as per RCW
35.13.140. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the City Council take
formal action to accept and approve the proposed annexation and to authorize a filing
with the Boundary Review Board of a Notice of Intent to annex the described property.
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO CITY OF BREMERTON
(Paije, Palmer, Alpine Request)
Warning
Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or
who knowingly signs more that one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking
an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she
is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement. shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
1)
Paije Properties LLC
Tax Parcel Number(s):
122301-2-006-1006, 122301-2-025-1003,
122301-2-027-1001, 122301-2-022-1006,
122301-2-026-1002, 122301-2-021-1007,
122301-2-019-1001 t 122301-2-028-1000,
122301-2-018-1002, 122301-2-017-1003
~m~~/
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO CITY OF BREMERTON
(Paije, Palmer, Alpine Request)
Warning
Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name. or
who knowingly signs more that one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking
an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she
is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
2) Palmer Properties LLC
Tax Parcel Number(s): 122301-2-020~1008
~~.
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO CITY OF BREMERTON
(Paije, Palmer, Alpine Request)
Warning
Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or
who knowingly signs more that one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking
an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she
is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shalf
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
3) Alpine Evergreen Co., INC
Tax Parcel Number(s): 122301-1-011-1001
~\q
Rod Reid
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON
The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 24 North, Range
I West, Willamette Meridian, situate in Kitsap County, Washington;
AND the southwest qualter of the northeast quarter of said Section 12;
AND that portion of the nOltheast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 12
described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of the of the northeast quarter of the nOlihwest
quarter of said Section 12; thence northwesterly approximately 1300 feet to a
point on the southeasterly margin of State Highway No. 14, corresponding to
Station 168+50 on said State Highway No. 14; thence southwest along the south
edge of said State Highway No. 14 to Station 173+00 being the nOltheasterly line
of that certain property deeded to H.H. Lake under AF 399001; thence southeast
along said northeasterly line approximately 920 feet to a point on the south line of
said northeast qumter"ofthenorthwest quarter; saidpoihtbeing 660 feetWesf of.
the Point of Beginning; thence 660 feet east to the point of beginning;
Except SR3.
.
.
Vicinity Map' n
,Of
i'
~e
4,(e
~v .
o
~\d
j Paije, Palmer,
! Alpine
75% Petition
Exhibit B
IAfPE~IAL
I
I
i
I
I
I
I I
I I
L......l..
I
I
Legend
_ Requested Parcels
D SKIA UGA
........
-,- ..I City Limits
.......
840
'Feet
o
DATE SUBMITTED:
BILL #
oC{ - 131-
AGENDA HILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
1C
........................................................................................
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and adoption of
Resolution No. 30,\0 approving
amendments to the 2008 and 2009
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding recommendations.
Committee Meeting Date: 5/20/2009
COUNCIL MEETING Date: 6/312009
Depm1ment: DCD - Block Grant
Presenter: M. Vila 1 P. Elliott
Phone: 360-473-5375
SUMMARY: The City of Bremerton Community Development Block Grant program has received $147,993
in additional CDBG-Recovery (CDBG-R) funding through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
Block grant has also received a 5% increase ($28,076) in funding for the 2009 allocation, raising the 2009
award to $573,461. Block Grant has also allocated additional Program Income to the 2009 plan year, an
increase of$15,000. Because of the size and nature of this infusion offunds, the City is required to submit to
HUD a Substantial Amendment to our 2008 Action Plan (to outline use of CDBG-R funding) and 2009 Action
Plan (to outline the use of additional 2009 funding). Block Grant is required to engage citizen participation as
outlined in the CDBG/HOME Policy Plan, therefore staff has formulated an amended funding plan based on
the 2009 Citizens Advisory Committee's contingency recommendations, and presents these for Council
consideration and approval. If approved, these amendments must be sent to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) no later than June 5, 2009. If a plan is not submitted by that date the City will not
be able to accept the additional ARRA funding, and we will proceed with the original Action Plan approved
by Council November, 2008.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Staff Memo
NO. 3oqo
FISCAL IMP ACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Pass through HUD funding of an estimated
additional funding of $28,076.00 (C G) and $147,993.00 (CDBG-R), and $15,000 (CDBG PI)
APPROV ALS:
DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MA YOR:
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
~~.
~" fA . C-'-=. ~V
...~. "~2' >> /J ~
,::"-(. t!~r. .-(/;7 ,y".". 7-(.-1';[.(" .
CONSENT AGENDA 0
GENERAL BUSINESS 0
PUBLIC HEARING k8J
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 3o~O approving the 2008 and 2009
Action Plan Amendments and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the contracts with
substantially the same terms and conditions as presented once all funding has been secured and HUD
has approved the Annual Action Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION: 0 Approve 0 Deny 0 Table
o Continue 0 No Action
RESOLUTION NO. 30'10
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Sremerton, cWashington, amending the 2008 and 2009 CDSG
Action Plans for submission to HUD.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is an entitlement community which receives a
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) each year from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton's 2009 CDBG entitlement award increased by
5% ($28,076) over last year's award, plus additional program income ($15,000); and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton received an additional award 01'$147,993 in
CDBG-Recovery (CDBG-R) funds through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act,
which requires an amendment to the City's 2008 Action Plan to HUD; and
WHEREAS, due to the CDBG-R program's tight timelines, certain projects
funded through the 2009 competitive cycle will instead be funded through CDBG-R and
forwarded to HUD in an amendment to the 2008 Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, 2009 CDBG funds freed up by funding projects with CDBG-R shall
be reallocated based on 2009 Citizen Advisory Committee recommendations and; forwarded to
HUD in an amendment to the 2009 Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, due to the size and nature of these funding increases the City of
Bremerton must submit to HUD Substantial Amendments to its 2008 and 2009 Action Plans no
later than June 5, 2009; and
WHEREAS, Bremerton City Council originally approved funding
recommendations for the 2008 Action Plan on November 7,2007, and for the 2009 Action Plan
on November 5, 2008; and
WHEREAS, because both CDBG and CDBG-R funding allocations require
public participation in accordance with the CDBG Policy Plan guidelines, the 2008 and 2009
Action Plans shall be amended to reflect the Citizen Advisory Committee contingency funding
recommendations for 2009; and
WHEREAS; Block Grant staff advertised the proposed amendment in a legal ad
published in the Kitsap Sun on May 25, 2009, and conducted the required abbreviated seven-day
1
2009 CDBG/HOME Funding Recommendation
comment period commencing May 25, 2009 and has forwarded all comments to City Council for
review; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development CDBG/HOME staff
presents to City Council for adoption the amended funding recommendations, which, if approved
will be forwarded to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in amended 2008 and
2009 Action Plans; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2009 the City Council conducted a public hearing and
considered all testimony prior to their decision; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The recitals and tindings of fact set forth in this resolution are
hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. The 2008 CDBG Amended Action Plan funding recommendation
attached in Exhibits A and B is hereby adopted, and will be incorporated into the Substantial
Amendment to the 2009 Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development on June 5, 2009 for approval.
SECTION 3. The 2008 CDBG-R funding recommendation attached in Exhibits
A and B is hereby adopted, and will be incorporated into the Substantial Amendment to the 2008
Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development on June 5,
2009 for approvat -
SECTION 4. Severabilitv. 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_
,2009.
CECIL MC CONNELL, Council President
APPRQVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
2
2009 CDBG/HOME Funding Recommendation
2009/2009 COBG-R I COBG New Funding
Funding Sources Estimate Confirmed Ine/Dee
r
COBG Award $545,385.00 $573,;461.00 $28,076.00
COBG-R (ARRA) Award $0.00 $147,993.00 $147,993.00
2009 PI Estimate $20,000.00 $35,pOO.00 $15,000.00
GF $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $0.00
$600,385.00 $791,454.00 $191,069.00
Notes
award increase
award confirmed
m
><
I
[D
=i
)>
2008/2009 COBG-R / COBG Proposed Action Plan Changes
Proi Tvpe
Admin
Capital
Capital
Capital __
Public Svc
Public Svc
Public Svc
Public Svc
Public Svc
AWARDS AWARD I FUNDING SOURCES
CDBG EN +PI I I I2!!!
i
Proiect Name CDBG-nroiected CDBG-Actual CDBG - R General Fund Fundina
_~'- Grant Admjnistration $113,077:00 $155,999.00 $113,077.00 $14,799:30 $35,000.00 $162,876]
I
J.s~HS N.ew Facility $60,000:00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 I .-!.!OOJ)OO.O
I
i ------~-
I
StVdeP New Women's Shelter $100,000.00 $155,346.55 $155,346.55 I $155,346.5
-r------- ---
Boys & Girls Club New Teen Center $100,000;00 $155,346.55 $34,152.85 $121,193.~, _ $155,346.5
COB Parks Playground Program $0.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 1--.!.12,000.00 1_____ ___112,000.0
,
KSAC - Child Abuse Intervention $5,000:00 $6,240.35 ___$6,24Q_.3
$6,240.35 i ._._
j $6,740.35 I I
Kitsap Literacy Council- Hispanic Fam $5,500,00 $6,740.35 ___~~,99Q}
I --------
YWCA Bilinaual Leaal Advocate $7,308.100 $8,548.35 $8,548.35 I ____ __~~, 54.~~_
I
1 --
j
tlolly Ri9~ Center - Autism Svcs Project $5,500.00 $6,740.35 $6,740.35 i $6,740.3
o
o
5
5
o
5
5
5
5
m
X
I
OJ
=i
OJ
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To:
Bremertoli City Council
From:
Date:
Marie Vila, COBG/HOME Administrator
June 3, 2009
2008 and 2009 COBG Action Plan Amendments
Re:
On February 17, 2009, HUD announced CDBG-Recovery awards under the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act. The City of Bremerton received an award of $147,993. On May 6,2009, guidance was
made available regarding the use of these funds. Block Grant staff is now presenting to Council the
recommendation for the expenditure of these new funds.
CDBG-R funds may be used like CDBG funds, but with some additional regulations. For example, CDBG-
R strongly favors construction projects, and these projects must create jobs. Priority shall be given to
shovel ready projects that may commence within 120 days of the City's CDBG-R contract date with HUD.
Finally, Projects funded with C.~BG-R must,use American-made iron, steel, and ..rna~~~C1~tur~dEr()d.uct~'n
In order to make use of the CDBG-R funding, the City must develop a funding allocation plan, advertise
and hold a 7-day public comment period, present the plan to City Council for approval and submit to HUD
a Substantial Amendment to its 2008 Action Plan no later than June 5th, 2009-a very tight timeline.
Block Grant is required to engage a citizen participation process as outlined in the CDBG/HOME Policy
Plan. Therefore, staff worked with the projects that had been vetted through the full 2009 competitive
application process, and formulated the amended funding plan based on the 2009 Citizens Advisory
Committee's (CAG) contingency funding recommendations. Through this strategy, staff was able to
identify-in a short period of time-high quality, ready-to-go projects that meet the community's need and
CDBG-R requirements.
Two projects from the the 2009 Action Plan or CAC contingency funding recommendations that fit CDBG-
R requirements were shifted to CDBG-R, and will be forwarded to HUD in an Amended 2008 Action Plan:
Boys & Girls Teen Center (Capital)
City of Bremerton Playground Program (Pub Svc)
2009 CDBG funds freed up by this action will be allocated per the CAC contingency funding
recommendations. These changes will be forwarded to HUD be in an Amended 2009 Action Plan:
Boys & Girls Teen Center (Capital)
Kitsap Mental Health Keller House (Capital)
St Vincent de Paul Women's Shelter (Cap)
YWCA Alive Program (Pub Svc)
Holly Ridge Center Autism Services Project (PS)
Literacy Council of Kitsap (Pub Svc)
KSAC - Child Abuse Intervention Program (PS)
City of Bremerton Block grant also received a 5% increase ($28,076) in funding to its 2009 allocation,
raising the 2009 award to $573,461. Additionaliy, Block Grant allocated more Program Income to the 2009
plan year to support its operations, an increase of $15,000. Normally, funding increases of this size would
not require Councilor HUD action but because a Substantial Amendment to the Action Plan is required for
CDBG-R, staff is including these funding increases in the amendments as well. The allocation plan is the
same as for CDBG-R, described above.
A 7 -day publiC comment period, commencing May 22, 2009, was advertised in the Kitsap Sun.
Recommendations were also posted to the City's website at that time. Additionally, a public announcement
was made at the May 20, 2009 council meeting, to inform the public of the funding and their opportunity to
comment. All comments received from the public will be provided to City Council for consideration. The
amendments to the 2008 and 2009 Action Plans will be presented to City Council for adoption in a public
hearing scheduled for June 5, 2009. If adopted, it will be forwarded to HUD for approval.
Staff now presents these for Council consideration and approval. If approved, these amendments must be
sent to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) no later than June 5, 2009. If a plan is
not submitted by that date the City will not be able to accept the additional ARRA funding, and we will
proceed with the original Action Plan approved by Council November, 2008.
If you have any questions about the program or recommended ,funding, please do not hesitate to contact me at
473-5375.
Staff Memo CDBG-R Funding Recs 20090527; page 2
DATE SUBMITTED: May 20, 2009
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Ordinance
No. 5082 adopting the Manette
Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan and
amending BMC Section 20.80
SUMMARY: The action before the Council is to conduct a public hearing and consider
amendments to the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and Bremerton Municipal Code 20.80 to
incorporate the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A) Staff Memo
B) Proposed Ordinance NO. SO gos_
Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Exhibit B: Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan
Exhibit C: Changes to Comprehensive Plan page 49
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
MAYOR:
COMMITTEE CHAIR
COUNCIL PRESIDENT:
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
Committee Meeting Date:
COUNCIL MEETING Date:
Department:
Presenter:
Phone:
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table
BILL# 0 ? — /3 s
7D
May 27. 2009
June 3, 2009
DCD
Lindsey Sehmel
360.473.5845
CONSENT AGENDA ❑
GENERAL BUSINESS ❑
PUBLIC HEARING El
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5082 to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to include the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan and amend BMC Section 20.80 to
activate the Sub Area Plan.
❑ Continue ❑ No Action
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Lindsey Sehmel, City Planner
Date: May 20, 2009
Re: Manette Sub Area Plan'
City Council will hold a Public Hearing on the Manette Sub Area Plan on June 3, 2009. This
memo is to help understand the historical context of the planning process, and provide
organization of the facts.
In 2008 City Council funded the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan to ensure that
future development of the neighborhood is coordinated and well designed.
In October of 2008, city staff began an aggressive outreach program to work on the
development of the Sub Area Plan. It began with city staff contacting interested citizens from a
wide variety of backgrounds to help on the outreach and coordination efforts of the planning
process. Through this process the City was able to develop the Manette "Key Communicator's
Meeting in a Binder" which provided the Key Communicators with all of the background
information that was needed to share the process of how to develop a sub area plan with the
community. In addition, DCD sent out the scheduling of future meetings regarding the plan,
save the date cards to all properties within the boundary and surrounding neighbors within 200'
of the area, and provided public notice throughout the neighborhood for these meetings. All of
this was provided in best efforts to engage the majority of the community into the development
of this plan.
Key Communicators utilized their Meetings in a Binder for community outreach with their
neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens during November and December of 2008. City staff held
and conducted five (5) open house meetings with the community to develop the 'Citizen's' plan.
These were held through January - March of 2009.
Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the Plan on April 21, 2009 and recommended to
City Council that the Plan presented be regulated by Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) instead
of the development regulations originally presented in the Draft Plan. Additionally, the
Commission recommended that the Council allocate DCD with design consultant contract
dollars to write development regulations that better implement the Plan Visions, Goals, and
Expectations of the community found within Part II of the proposed plan.
City Council has received a notebook of documents regarding the Manette Neighborhood
Center Sub Area Plan. This memo briefly describes all of the documents found within the
notebook and their relevancy to the topic. Each notebook contains the proposed Ordinance
along with eight (8) tabs which provide ease in organization for the exhibits of the Ordinance
along with providing relevant additional documents.
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AND EXHIBITS
The Council is the decision making authority for the adoption of sub-area plans. In the case of the
Manette Plan, there are two versions that will be presented for your public hearing: 1) The plan as
recommended by the Planning Commission (Commission) after their public hearing and deliberation, and
2) The plan as it existed prior to Commission's recommendation, referred to as-the "Citizen Plan."
The primary way the two plans differ is as follows:
Citizen Recommended Plan contains
development regulations:
. MCC Allows:
o Maximum building sizes of
15,000 gross SF
o Requires additional setbacks
when adjacent to residential
properties
o Lot coverage bonuses for
green building
. MTR Allows (in addition to R-10*
allowed uses):
o LivelWork Units
o Additional sign standards
o Townhomes
I:l Cottaqe Housinq
The ordinance that is before the Council contains the Commission's recommended plan and findings, and
the motion on the agenda bill will adopt the plan in this form.
Planning Commission Recommended Plan
refers to current BMC Chapters for
~evelopment regulations:
. NCC Allows:
D Up to 20,000 SF per floor
D No additional setback
requirements
. R-10* Requires:
o Minimum lot size of 3,000 SF
D Doesn't allow for live/work units
However, should the Council decide to revert to the Citizen Plan an amending motion will need to be
made to replace Exhibits A & B of the ordinance to reflect specific findings of the Council and the revised
plan. An amending motion for your consideration is:
Move to amend Ordinance No. 5082 to include Alternate Exhibit A and Alternate Exhibit B.
T AS 1 - Exhibit A - Planning Commission Findings of Facts and Conclusions
This document is Planning Commission's findings to support their recommended version of the
Manette Center Sub Area Plan, found under tab 3.
T AS 2 - Alternate Exhibit A - City Council Findings of Facts and Conclusions
This document makes findings to support the Citizens Plan as presented to Planning Commission
on April 21, 2009.
T AS 3 - Exhibit B - Planning Commission Recommended Plan with Staff Additions
Planning Commission recommends that City Council moves forward with sections I & /I of the
Citizens Plan and removes the development guidelines replacing them with the development
guidelines of BMC code for NCC and R-1 0*. By removing Part III, the Commission removed the
Streetscape sections of the Citizen Plan. Staff recommends including an abbreviated public
amenities section that was previously included in the Streetscape section of the Citizens plan.
. Page 2
T AS 4 - Alternate Exhibit B - Citizen's Recommended Plan
This plan was originally presented plan to Planning Commission on April 21, 2009. This plan was
developed through the efforts of the community and city staff provided technical support.
T AS 5 - Exhibit C - Changes to Page 49 of Comprehensive Plan
The City of Bremerton's 2004 Comprehensive Plan requires minor amendments to page .49, with
adoption of the Manette neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan, removing the previously depicted
boundary of the Manette Sub Area and changing text to meet the visions and desires of the plan.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This information is for historical context and Council consideration, it is not a part of the final
Ordinance packet. However, the information provided is important for final determination and
deliberation on the Manette Sub Area Plan.
T AS 6 - Public Comments received to date
All comments received to date regarding the Manette Sub Area Plan.
Comment # 1 - Angela Kissler-Strauss
Comment # 2 - Ryan Malane
Comment # 3 - Jane Rebelowski
Comment # 4 - Richard Bruskrud
Comment # 5 - Jeffery Hecker
Comment # 6 - Jordy Andrew
Comment # 7 - John Cockburn
Comment # 8 - Cary Hodges
Comment # 9 - Laurie Skola
T AS 7 - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Meeting minutes from the April 21, 2009 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Public
Hearing for the Manette Neighborhood Sub Area Plan, this document outlines the reasons for
Planning Commission changes to the Citizen's Plan and what they would like to see in the future.
T AS 8 - Planning Commission Staff Memo
Staff memo originally presented to Planning Commission for the April 21, 2009 Public Hearing.
This memo depicts the history of the process along with how the plan meets consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, and other planning documents.
. Page 3
ORDINANCE NO. 5082
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Comprehensive Plan by
adding the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan as
detailed in this ordinance and amending the Zoning Code Section
20.80.080(a) to activate the development standards contained
within the plan.
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act authorizes the
preparation of sub area plans and allows amendments to local Comprehensive Plans to
incorporate sub area plans not limited in number during a year, and not limited to the annual
Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has adopted a comprehensive plan under the
provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW that includes policies for the creation of sub area plans, and
specifically for the area known as the Manette Neighborhood Center; and
WHEREAS, at the time of the 2005 zoning code update the City of Bremerton
zoned the Manette Neighborhood Center with a combination of zoning districts, and included a
dotted outline on the City zoning map indicating the express intention of revisiting development
standards for the area in conjunction with the preparation of a Sub Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, in the 2008 budget the Bremerton City Council authorized funding
for the preparation of a Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development developed an outreach
tool for the community in the form of 'The Manette Key Communicators Meeting in a Binder' ,
this tool was widely utilized to educate and inform the public about the development of a Sub
Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development widely advertised and
sponsored five public open houses on the Plan on January 12, 2009, January 26,2009, February
23,2009, March 16,2009 and March 30,2009 and solicited citizen input by utilizing citizen
"Key Communicator's" to conduct meetings with a range of neighborhood groups; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan vision statement calls for
Bremerton to be the metropolitan center of the West Sound, and includes numerous goals and
policies for distinctive growth, enticing new development, and vibrant centers, and the Sub Area
Plan is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Manette Sub Area Plan is fully consistent with the goals outlined
in the Countywide Planning Policies as adopted on November 19, 2007 by Kitsap County
Ordinance 403-2007 and ratified by City of Bremerton Resolution No. 3043; and
1
ManeUe Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2009 the City of Bremerton issued a Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS) finding the environmental impacts of the Sub Area Plan and associated
development standards to not have significant adverse impacts with an administrative appeal
deadline of April 18, 2009 and no appeals were filed; and
WHEREAS, on March 30,2009 the first draft of the Plan have been made
available to the general public and interested parties for review and comment at City offices and
on the City's web page; and
WHEREAS, the draft Plan was received by the State of Washington Office of
Community Trade and Economic Development on March 31, 2009 and no adverse comments
were received; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the Sub Area Plan, concluded deliberations and made modifications to the proposed plan to
recommend adoption of Parts I & II of the draft Plan and other related changes for City
Council's consideration; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2009 the City Council conducted a public hearing so that
the public had a further opportunity to comment on the Sub Area Plan and development
regulations; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council adopts the Findings and Conclusions as
presented in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full
herein.
SECTION 2. The Comprehensive Plan is amended by the addition of the
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan as presented in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full herein.
SECTION 3. The adoption of the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan
consequently amends Page 49 of the 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, removing the map
and making changes to the text as depicted in Exhibit C.
SECTION 4. Section 20.80 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Sub-
Area Plans" is amended as presented below.
20.80.080 SUBAREA PLANS.
The following are subarea planning areas where subarea plans and unique development
regulations may be created for each:
(a) Bay Vista Subarea Plan (adopted by Ordinance No. 5077);
(b) East Park Subarea Plan (adopted by Ordinance No. 4962);
(c) Wheaton-Riddell Subarea Plan (adopted by Ordinance No. 5025);
2
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan
(d)
(e)
5082);
(f)
(g)
W
Downtown Regional Center Subarea Plan (adopted by Ordinance No. 5034);
Austin Dri~.'c Subarea Plan Manette Subarea Plan (adopted bv Ordinance No.
Harrison Employment Center;
Northwest Corpor~te Campus Employm.ent Center;
Port Blakely Employment Center.
The sub-area planning areas listed above having adopted sub-area plans are identified
with the corresponding adopting ordinance number. This ordinance will contain the unique
regulations and standards that guide development for that sub-area planning area. Subsequent
amendment to adopted sub-area plans need not be identified in this section by the amending
ordinance number.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision ofthis ordinance is held invalid or
unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of the remainder of this ordinance. Provided however, that if any provision of
this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional, then the provision in effect prior to the
effective date ofthis ordinance shall be in full force and effect for that individual provision as if
this ordinance had never been adopted.
SECTION 6. 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
, 2009
Cecil McConnell, Council President
Approved this
day of
, 2009
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CAROL ETGEN, City Clerk
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the
EFFECTIVE the
ORDINANCE NO. 5082
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan. doc
day of
day of
, 2009
,2009
3
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan
Exhibit A
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Project Description
The Manette Sub Area Plan covers 28 acres on the Manette Peninsula. The Sub
Area Plan includes two primary components: 1) an amendment to the 2004 Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan adding the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan and, 2)
assigning Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) development regulations for the Manette
Neighborhood Center that will function as zoning upon Plan adoption.
The Manette Neighborhood Center was designated in the City's 2004 Comprehensive
Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan calls for Manette to become a neighborhood
center, an urban design strategy for the neighborhood had not been developed at the
time of the 2005 zoning code adoption, in the interim a 'stopgap' zoning scenario was
put in place for the neighborhood. City Council funded work on a. Manette Sub Area
Plan in the 2008 budget to ensure that future redevelopment of the neighborhood is
coordinated and well designed.
The Manette Sub Area Plan is a detailed planning document that fits within the
framework of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. This is the most established and already-
developed of neighborhoods designated as a "Neighborhood Center" in the
Comprehensive Plan and expected to have a Sub-Area plan developed for it. The Sub
Area Plan meets many goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and implements
the vision laid out within it.
2. Procedural History
A public participation process for the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area
Plan has been ongoing since late summer of 2008. The Sub Area Plan includes
documentatiC;j" of the public participation process (Part II). In summary, five public
open houses were held and a wide range of community meetings were held. Key
Communicators were utilized to help present the needs and goals of the Sub Area Plan.
Additionally, the Plan was presented and discussed at Planning Commission. Extensive
Community input is integrated throughout the plan, meeting and exceeding state
requirements.
Public Meetings:
2a.1 January 12, 2009 - General Open House
2a.2 January 26, 2009 - Needs Assessment Charrette
2a.3 February 23,2009 - Geographic Application Charrette
2a.4 March 16,2009 - Development Standards & Street Charrette
2a.5 March 30, 2009 - Draft Plan Review
Procedural Notices:
2b.1 On March 31, 2009 staff notified the Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development of the intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Exhibit A
2b.2 On April 3, 2009 Staff notified the Department of Ecology of the issuance of a
Determination of Non Significance for the Manette Sub Area Plan.
2b.3 On April 11, 2009 a notice of Planning Commission public hearing was
published in the Kitsap Sun and the public was invited to comment.
2bA On April 21, 2009 Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan.
3. Public Comment
3.1 Individuals submitting written comments:
a. John Strauss & Angie Kissler - 2317 E 1th ST, Bremerton WA 98310
b. Ryan Malane - 1149 Scott Avenue, Bremerton WA 98310
c. Jane Rebelowski -1153 Scott Avenue, Bremerton WA 98310
d. Richard Bruskrud -1102 Shore Drive, Bremerton WA 98310
e. Jeffery A. Hecker - 225 Shore Drive, Bremerton WA 98310
f.. Carolyn J. Maxon -1142 Scott Avenue, Bremerton Wa 98310
3.2 Individuals providing verbal testimony at Planning Commission public hearing:
a. Adam Brockus -1146 Perry Avenue
b. Dick Bruskrud - 1102 Shore Drive
c. Jordy Andrew - 1328 Hayward Avenue
4. SEPA Determination
A Determination of Non Significance (DNS) was issued on April 3, 2009 with an appeal
deadline of April 18, 2009.
5. Consistency
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall meet the decision criteria outlined in
BMC 20.10. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may
adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the comprehensive plan if the
criteria outlined below are met. The proposal is to add the Manette Neighborhood Center
Sub Area Plan to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan as an amendment, providing more
specific and detailed planning for the region. And, additionally amending the zoning code
to activate the development standards contained within the plan.
5.1 BMC 20.10.080(a) allows amendments to the Comprehensive Plan if there is
an obvious technical error in the pertinent comprehensive plan provisions. -
Not applicable to this project.
5.2 BMC 20.18.020 (d) (1) allows amendments to the Comprehensive Plan if it is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The adoption of the Manette Sub Area Plan makes minor changes to the
comprehensive plan, by changing the boundaries of the plan area. The Plan is
consistent with the goals and visions of the Comprehensive Plan, as described
below and described in detail in the Sub Area Plan document itself.
. Community Character: CC1 B, CC2, CC2B, CC2C, CC2E, CC3 CC3A,
CC3B, CC3C,. CC4.
. land Use Policies: LU1F, LU1K, LU1L, LU4, LU4A, LU4B, LU9E.
. Housing Policies: H3, H3C, H4, H7, H7D, H8, H8C, H8D.
. Transportation Element: T2B, T2C, T3D, T4, T4A, T4C, T12, T12B.
. Environmental Element: E8B, E10B, E11C, E11D.
. Economic Development Element: EC1J, EC2, EC2C.
Exhibit A
· City Services Element: CS8, CS15A, CS17B.
6. Amendment to the Zoning Code
An amendment to the Zoning Code, BMC 20~80.080 Master Development, is proposed
to accompany adoption of the Manette Sub Area Plan. This amendment adds a
reference to the Manette Sub Area Plan, thereby activating the development standards
contained in the Plan as the zoning for the Manette Neighborhood.
Zoning code text amendments shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020
(d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or
adopt with modifications, an amendment to the zoning code text if the criteria outlined
below are met.
5.3 (1) 20.18.020 allows amendments to the Zoning Code if it is consistent with the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
See discussion in 5.2 above for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and Part
II of the Sub Area Plan. The Manette Sub Area Plan is fully consistent with the
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
5.3 (2) 20.18.020 allows amendments to the Zoning Code if it does not conflict with
other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances.
The Manette Sub Area plan does not conflict with any other regulations.
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings above, Planning Commission concludes that the Manette
Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan has met the criteria for amendments to the plan as
detailed in BMC 20.10.080 and therefore recommends adoption by the City Council.
. itted by:
Approved by:
lAJ~
heeler, Chair
Alternate Exhibit A
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Project Description
The Manette Sub Area Plan covers 34 acres on the Manette Peninsula. The Sub
Area Plan includes two primary components: 1) an amendment to the 2004 Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan adding the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan and, 2)
development regulations for the Manette Neighborhood Center that will function as
zoning upon Plan adoption.
The Manette Neighborhood Center was designated in the City's 2004 Comprehensive
Plan.' While the Comprehensive Plan calls for Manette to become a neighborhood
center, an urban design strategy for the neighborhood had not been developed at the
time of the 2005 zoning code adoption, in the interim a 'stopgap' zoning scenario was
put in place for the neighborhood. City Council funded work on a Manette Sub Area
Plan in the 2008 budget to ensure that future redevelopment of the neighborhood is
coordinated and well designed.
The Manette Sub Area Plan is a detailed planning document that fits within the
framework of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. This is the most established and already-
developed neighborhoods designated as a "Neighborhood Center" in the
Comprehensive Plan and expected to have a Sub-Area plan developed for it. The Sub
Area Plan meets many goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and implements
the vision laid out within it.
2. Procedural History
A public participation process for the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area
Plan has been ongoing since late summer of 2008. The Sub Area Plan includes
documentation of the public participation process (Part II). In summary, four public
open houses were held and a wide range of community meetings were held. Key
Communicators were utilized to help present the needs and goals of the Sub Area Plan.
Additionally, the Plan was presented and discussed at Planning Commission. Extensive
Community input is integrated throughout the plan, meeting and exceeding state
requirements.
Public Meetings:
2a.1 January 12, 2009 - General Open House
2a.2 January 26, 2009 - Needs Assessment Charrette
2a.3 February 23, 2009 - Geographic Application Charrette
2a.4 March 16, 2009 - Development Standards & Street Charrette
2a.5 March 30, 2009 - Draft Plan Review
Procedural Notices:
2b.1 On March 31, 2009 staff notified the Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development of the intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Alternate Exhibit A
2b.2 On April 3, 2009 Staff notified the Department of Ecology of the issuance of a
Determination of Non Significance for the Manette Sub Area Plan.
2b.3 On April 11, 2009 a notice of Planning Commission public hearing was
published in the Kitsap Sun and the public was invited to comment.
2bA On April 21, 2009 Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan.
3. Public Comment
3.1 Individuals submitting written comments:
a. John Strauss & Angie Kissler - 2317 E 17th ST, Bremerton WA 98310
b. Ryan Malane - 1149 Scott Avenue, Bremerton WA 98310
c. Jane Rebelowski - 1153 Scott Avenue, Bremerton WA 98310
d. Richard Bruskrud -1102 Shore Drive, Bremerton WA 98310
e. Jeffery A. Hecker- 225 Shore Drive, Bremerton WA 98310
f. Carolyn J. Maxon -1142 Scott Avenue, Bremerton Wa 98310
3.2 Individuals providing verbal testimony at Planning Commission public hearing:
a. Adam Brockus - 1146 Perry Avenue
b. Dick Bruskrud - 1102 Shore Drive
c. Jordy Andrew - 1328 Hayward Avenue
4. SEPA Determination
A Determination of Non Significance (DNS) was issued on April 3, 2009 with an appeal
deadline of April 18, 2009.
5. Consistency
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall meet the decision criteria outlined in
BMC 20.10. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may
adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the comprehensive plan if the
criteria outlined below are met. The proposal is to add the Manette Neighborhood Center
Sub Area Plan to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan as an amendment, providing more
specific and detailed planning for the region. And, additionally amending the zoning code
to activate the development standards contained within the plan.
5.1 BMC 20.10.080(a) allows amendments to the Comprehensive Plan if there is
an obvious technical error in the pertinent comprehensive plan provisions. -
Not applicable to this project.
5.2 BMC 20.18.020 (d) (1) allows amendments to the Comprehensive Plan if it is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The adoption of the Manette Sub Area Plan makes minor changes to the
comprehensive plan. Changing the boundaries of the plan area and
designating new zones within the boundary. The Plan is consistent with the
goals and visions of the Comprehensive Plan, as described below and
described in detail in the Sub Area Plan document itself.
. Community Character: CC1 B, CC2, CC2B, CC2C, CC2E, CC3 CC3A,
CC3B, CC3C, CC4.
. land Use Policies: LU1 F, LU1 K, LU1 L, LU4, LU4A, LU4B, LU9E.
. Housing Policies: H3, H3C, H4, H7, H7D, H8, H8C, H8D.
. Transportatic:m Element: T2B, T2C, T3D, T4, T4A, T4C, T12, T12B.
. Environmental Element: E8B, E10B, E11C, E11D.
Alternate Exhibit A
. Economic Development Element: EC1J, EC2, EC2C.
. City Services Element: CS8, CS15A, CS17B.
6. Amendment to the Zoning Code
An amendment to the Zoning Code, BMC 20~80.080 Master Development, is proposed
to accompany adoption of the Manette Sub Area Plan. This amendment adds a
reference to the Manette Sub Area Plan, thereby activating the development standards
contained in the Plan as the zoning for the Manette Neighborhood.
Zoning code text amendments shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020
(d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or
adopt with modifications, an amendment to the zoning code text if the criteria outlined
below are met.
5.3 (1) 20.18.020 allows amendments to the Zoning Code if it is consistent with the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
See discussion in 5.2 above for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and Part
II of the Sub Area Plan. The Manette Sub Area Plan is fully consistent with the
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
5.3 (2) 20.18.020 allows amendments to the Zoning Code if it does not conflict with
other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances.
The Manette Sub Area plan does not conflict with any other regulations.
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA liON
Based on the findings above, City Council concludes that the Manette Citizen's
Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan has met the criteria for amendments to the plan as
detailed in BMC 20.10.080 and therefore recommends adoption.
<()llJIlJJJJJlar,~Chlil,q~le, .
P~,*fWtJ'RRuJ~"
V~BflJI1}J'lll~~Cot~f.'
";"~ A'I\U,~;!),l\,!!"" '?""~'\,iH: r}~
/15 -f ~~ ~\~f. /~ il~~ ;if ~ ~ ~;-~:"" ~~~t-"
~< ~..;.1 ~ ~\~f i#~ :tp~."~~1 ~~~/j'~,!,'.:"~ :_~
':Yl".
:t~:J,"v,
~::~[,;;, -
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
MAYOR CARY BOZEMAN
CITY COUNCIL
Cecil McConnell, District 2, President
Nick Wofford, District 9, Vice-President
Brad Gehring, District 1
Adam C. Brockus, District 3
Roy Runyon, District 4
Mike Shepherd, District 5
Dianne Robinson, District 6
Carol Arends, District 7
Will Maupin, District 8
PLANNING COMMISSION
Greg Wheeler, Chairman
Jessica Kennedy, Vice-Chairman
John W. Cockburn
Lois E. Hoell
Andy Kosusko
Bill Mosiman
Linda Streissguth, AICP
MANETTE KEY COMMUNICATORS
John Ales
Jordy Andrew
Richard Bruskrud
Councilman Adam Brockus
Jeff Hecker
Ken Hills
Holly James
Ruth Reese
Jane Rebelowski
Commissioner Greg Wheeler
Mauntrece Zamzow
CITY OF BREMERTON
Andrea L. Spencer, AICP, Director of Community Development
Lindsey Sehmel, Planner I, Community Development
Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Recommended Draft - April 29,2009
PART I: INTRODUCTION
A. Site Location..................................................... .... .......................................5
B. Comprehensive Plan Context...................................................................... 5
PART II: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
A. A Citizen-Developed Plan............................................ ..... ..........................6
B. Plan visions, goals, and expectations......................................................... 7
i. Community Character .. ...... .... ..... ......... .... ....... ........... ......... .............7
ii. Places for People ............................. ..... ............ ..... ......... .............. ... 8
iii. Vibrant Community Core. ..... ...... .... ........ .................... ......................8
C. Plan Consistency with Bremerton Comprehensive Plan ............................ 9
i. Community Character...................................................................... 9
ii. Land Use........................................................................................ 10
iii. Housing.......................................................................................... 11
iv. Transportation................................................................................ 12
v. Environment................................................................................... 13
vi. Economic Development................................................................. 13
vii. City Services.................................................................................. 14
D. Plan Land Use Map & Designations ......................................................... 16
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
A. SITE LOCATION
Manette is a Bremerton neighborhood east of the Port Washington Narrows. The Manette
peninsula is characterized by single-family residential neighborhoods with a distinct small-
scale commercial district that enjoy spectacular views to the Narrows, Sinclair Inlet, downtown
Bremerton and other scenic points. The plan boundary area encompasses approximately 34
acres
B. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN CONTEXT
Bremerton's 2004 Comprehensive Plan
established the "Centers Concept" for the
future growth of the city, and designated
an area of the Manette community as a
"Neighborhood Center." It is envisioned
that this area will include mixed-use
structures, pedestrian-oriented design,
varied housing types, and neighborhood
scale commercial, professional, and
community services. The services that
are provided in a center of this type are
intended to serve the territory within
approximately 1/2 mile radius surrounding
the center. Neighborhood centers have
an identifiable central (or "core") area with
building heights of two or three stories
with retail or office uses at ground level
VICINITY MAP and residential above. The density of
housing is lower as distance from the core
area increases. Away from the core area,
residential uses will predominate.
SUB-AREA PLAN BOUNDARY MAP
Manette's citizens worked cooperatively
with the City in the development of this
sub-area plan. The purpose of this plan
is to establish the overall plan vision
for the center, demonstrate the plan's
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
and establish the design and development
standards for the center. This plan has
been developed to show how the area can
provide living environments attractive to a
growing segment of society that desires a
more active, stimulating setting, offering
the ability to access key amenities and
conveniences without driving.
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
A. A CITIZEN DEVELOPED PLAN
The Manette neighborhood has a well-
established group of community leaders
and actively engaged citizens. The process
for this plan's development included utilizing
citizens for outreach communication efforts
within their neighborhood and to develop
the plan principles and goals that shaped
the regulations that are contained within
this document. This approach proved very
successful, and without the considerable
time and effort that this community put into
public participation the development of this
plan would have not been a success.
The plan was developed through the use
of two very important public outreach
tools: "Key Communicators," and open
public meetings where participants worked
through many exercises that shaped the
plan elements.
KEY COMMUNICATORS
The City worked with a group of Manette
residents who were willing to commit
additional time to the sub-area planning
effort - this group was called the "Key
Communicators." The purpose ofthis group
was to work closely with staff to develop
materials to share important information
with the public about the sub-area planning
effort and to communicate the importance
of public participation. The ideas behind
the Key Communicators were that Manette
residents would likely be more willing to talk
with their neighbors about neighborhood
planning than they would be with city staff,
and that the Key Communicators would
serve as an excellent conduit for sharing
information that wouldn't otherwise exist
without their participation.
City staff developed a "Meeting in a
Binder" for use by the Key Communicators.
This "meeting" was created to help the
Communicators share information about
the Growth Management Act, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, how the sub area
planning process works, details of existing
conditions within the Manette neighborhood,
and what the area's growth expectations are.
During November & December 2008, the Key
Communicators took these "meetings" out to
the public and held informal information-sharing
sessions within the plan area at local businesses,
dinner parties, and their own homes. The
outcome of these community meetings helped
define the goals, visions, and expectations of
the plan.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
A series of open public meetings were held at the
Norm Dicks Government Center to gather input
from the citizens regarding the sub-area plan.
The meetings are summarized as follows:
· January 12, 2009
General open house
· January 26, 2009
Needs assessment charrette
· February 23, 2009
Geographic application charrette
· March 16, 2009
Development standards & streets charrette
· March 30, 2009
Draft plan review
· April 21, 2009
Planning Commission
Hearing & Recommendation
· May 2009 to June 2009
Anticipated City Council adoption
Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Recommended Draft - April 29,2009
B. PLAN VISIONS, GOALS & EXPECTATIONS
Community outreach efforts focused on information-sharing and collaborative steps towards
defining the 20-year vision for Manette. Surveys, questionnaires and roundtable discussions were
the primary methods used to gather information regarding the citizen's goals and expectations for
growth.
In the development of this plan, the citizens developed a number of key principles to follow. The
principles were categorized into three groups - "Community Character," "Places for People," and
"Vibrant Community Core." The following describes in detail the goals and policies that will guide
growth within the Manette Neighborhood Center:
i. COMMUNITY CHARACTER (CC)
GUIDING PRINCIPLE
AND OVERALL GOAL:
Preservation of a unique and charming neighborhood
where significant consideration should be given to
the scale, size, quality, and compatibility of future
development.
OBJECTIVES:
CC1: Encourage development to compliment the
scale of the surrounding neighborhood.
CC2: Promote view preservation by limiting building
heights to 3 stories (Maximum 35' height).
CC3: Encourage high quality architecture through
the use of:
· Large windows along any ground t1oorcommercial
facade facing the public sidewalk or sidewalks
providing circulation within a site.
· Bulk reduction. Building modulation shall be
used to reduce the appearance of mass and bulk
of the structure.
· Easily identifiable building entrances from the
street and sidewalks.
CC4: In-fill development should provide a variety of
housing options.
· Encourage Mixed-Use development within the
commercial core
· Encourage single family homes, cottage style
homes, single family attached, and accessory
dwelling units (ADU's) in the area surrounding
the commercial district where appropriate.
CC5: Encourage the use of sustainable development
practices such as green roofs, green buildings, and
LEED certification throughout the plan area.
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft - April 29,2009
B. PLAN VISIONS, GOALS & EXPECTATIONS CONT....
ii. PLACES FOR PEOPLE (PFP)
GUIDING PRINCIPLE
AND OVERAll GOAL:
Establish an eclectic and active community
space that provides opportunities for
social gatherings within a walkable
environment.
OBJECTIVES:
PFP1: Improve the public right of way to
be pedestrian 'and bicycle friendly:
· Encourage the widening of sidewalks.
· Encourage the development of bicycle
lanes.
PFP2: Encourage the creation of public
spaces with redevelopment.
PFP3: Promote undergrounding of utilities
to enhance the pedestrian environment
and overall community aesthetics.
PFP4: Encourage the addition of public
amenities such as, art, neighborhood
identity signs, benches, planters,
streetlights, etc. to the public right of way.
iii.
VIBRANT COMMUNITY CORE (VCC)
GUIDING PRINCIPLE
AND OVERAll GOAL:
Promote a compact, walkable commercial
core that will provide diverse services for the
surrounding neighborhood in a sustainable
fashion.
OBJECTIVES:
VCC1: Allow an eclectic mix of uses in the
, commercial core that are appropriate for a
neighborhood center.
VCC2: Promote redevelopment in the
commercial core that is in scale with its
surroundings by limiting building heights to 3
stories (Maximum 35' height).
VCC3: Consider ways to make street
improvements that support local businesses.
· Reconfigure on-street parking to make
user-friendly and increase supply.
· Encourage the placement of public
amenities in the right-of-way.
VCC4: Reduce the predominance of motor
vehicles within the commercial core.
· Consider use of traffic-calming measures.
· Screen parking areas to improve visual
aesthetics.
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The purpose of this sub-area plan is to demonstrate that the principles and goals are in compliance
with and further the goals of the City's overall Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
is organized into chapters (formally referred to as "Elements") and this section follows the same
organization. Specific goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been reproduced in this
document for reference with the information regarding how the specific sub-area plan goals meet
the intent of the Comprehensive Plan policies.
i. COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT
The Manette Sub-Area Plan addresses the needs and goals of the Community Character element
of the comprehensive plan clearly through the following measures:
· The Manette community has addressed the desire for a unique and charming neighborhood
that keeps with the scale and compatibility of the current developments. Sub-area Plan Goals:
CC1, CC3, CC4
· A variety of housing types should be available within the community, striving to keep living
options open for a wide array of age groups and income levels. This is accomplished by allowing
for cottage-style homes, attached single family homes, and additional dwelling units on single
family lots. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC1, CC3, CC4
· The orientation of buildings and structures should cater the pedestrian atmosphere to provide
a safer environment, enhancing the 'eyes on the street' and encouraging interaction within the
community. Sub-area Plan Goals: VCC3, VCC4, PFP1, PFP4
· The streetscape along 11th Street shall include attractive landscaping, neighborhood identity
signs, wider sidewalks, lighting fixtures, and a separation between the pedestrian pathway and
traffic lanes. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1, PFP2, PFP4, VCC3, VCC4
· Redevelopment efforts should focus on increasing open space, providing attractive pedestrian
environments, and adding to the sense of community. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP2, PFP4,
PFP5
,City,Of BremertonZ004' Comprehensive Plan ;.. C~tnl11uniWC~arac.terpOlici~S " ,
,CCfB Ensure"t11at hEliNdevel6pmentisof.a type, scal~, orientatio':l, and'designthatimproves'uponthE;l
neighQorhooq:s desir~d ana~~fined~haract~r,'aesth~~iCS, and,qu~lities. , " ':' ,,' " ", ,
~C2 A$.s_ut~ that 'neW eevelopmant relates to surr<;nJ"nding. ~ses "and prQvtdes~for {~r.pa~-liva'bHity~ ~ > : .
, c,c;:,~~ insu'r~ .th~t 'h1fi,rconstr~ttion:and arec:Jn3developm~nt are, do~eina rriahrl~'r .fhat:r~in{orce~ "t~~,
,'neighborhoOd's de~irE!qand definedcharacter andthatarchitecturally complinients'the surrotin'di,n'g cqrrllne[(~ial'
an~:r~si9~~tial areCls:,', ' ;'>' :: ' ,,',', ,:,',:' - ".<:", ,;:" 'c;' '. "~
\CC~~Encourage 'quilding anq site de~ign that allows a variety of I1d~'sirigforrnsand also,s,c6IT)p~tibte witht6e.
chcira~ter pfthe :imrtfedlqte ~urrO!1fldii1garea, thereby gi:lherating' commllnity ,supporHo(new typ~sof housing.
':deV~I?~,me~t "" :~. ," ;, '" " , ' " '",.. " ' .... "~:""'.'" " ,',:':;, "" ':,~.::' ,
. ,CC2E: Btlilailig$ shoulddem'orlsfrateefforts to accommodate a human'scaleand urbarl]ivability.' , ,,'
,~_t~"P~OVide;f~rasaf~, plel:ISa~(aridrich ped~st~ianexperience:.' ;.,,'. ',: ,.," .' ":,,,!,'.;'
_ - J'; l' _ ,..' < ." "- . ': ' . - -, . . ' .. " ~ " . . ~. , -'
CC3A 'E;ncourage asense of neigh,borliness and Gorimiunity by oriElAting one or :l11ore;'blIi1ding entrances to
,~,l?mme~Gial'buj'l~ilJgs towa~dstbe:p_edestrign'Side,^,alks a!:ld pathway~ that:lead~? adjOiiiingheighborhpO?s. ':~
, . f _ > , -' - . ~ ,- - . ',~
,C~~I;J 'Prom~te"p~destr:ic:il}-oriEmted;el")vironmentsin Ceritersthrough the creationot's~reefsc,apesand b~iJding'
:desig~~:tt:icitl11~~e~alkif;lg~~n, att~active and corive'nient, transportation" mode~' , ':,' ',~: '~::': '
,":,._ ..... ': -., "'," ;' -,.' '~.' " ....,. _.'~'_ " - . A', ');_ ~-'-r" ,.~~,,-
, 0(;30 ErlCourag~;att~actiye,pedes~rian-.orierited deveIQPr:nen.t. ~ ,. ; ,
CC4 ,Promot~ ,thedev~i~pmerif,bf 'areas QrSpe~ialcharacter,encou'1"?I9ilJg :adive'rsity of: cq!llrt,tihities_*itlii'ri ,
,'t,t}~ ?l~y\: : ~ ,"
~ . ,;.~..>.. ,,,,,_~,;.:l";;';'
................-.". ,~""i"_";:~"'~"'_',,,"';li",-,;~,,::;-, '....4<0:.: ~.,..:>;.~,,~". ;.......,.1;r-.-. -<,<:),-;~...",-J;...."';:."",-"",l>",._ ~~""';">."";"':'~:"'J'- _~.'i,..,;:>.~"~-""",~,..,..->,~".o<;.",,...-~~, ~.-..;. .-,...t~'~~";'(i:.);.i!~, f~,"',~,,~-
Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Recommended Draft - April 29,2009
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPo PLAN CONT...
ii. LAND USE ELEMENT
The Manette neighborhood is a well established historical neighborhood center. The sub-
area plan addresses the need for future commercial and residential growth in a manner that
does not disrupt the nature of the neighborhood.
· Through planning efforts residents expressed a desire for future commercial services to
include local eclectic shops such as a high quality grocery store, local retail, pharmacy/
drug store, post office, and dry cleaning services, in addition to coffee houses, book
stores, community gathering spaces, and 'third places'. Sub-area Plan Goals: VCC1,
VCC3, VCC4.
· There should be an increas~ in open and green space (such as parks), streetscape
improvements (benches, planters, wider sidewalks) and communal gathering spaces
throughout the neighborhood. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP2, PFP3, PFP4.
· The commercial core should work towards providing the daily services that the
surrounding community needs, further reducing the impact and requirement for motorized
transportation, and enhancing the pedestrian environment. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1,
PFP2, PFP4, VCC1, VCC3, VCC4.
_ ~. .' .. ~::,", _ '_' ~ 't: , , > " . " , " " _ . . ' . ~- . . ...' ~ ~ ".,\ ......
,', ..", , ;, qityOf,B~tnerton 2004 Comprehensive ~ian'~ laodU~e_Policie$. .;,"','
;- ..r".....,'. . ".... " .", '"~" ~ ,,-;," ." , . .,.' ~;.,' ~ ;.' T '" '-'.~ .'"' ..'.',' . . ~
~Ij)j F: Id~n~tifYf ari9 pi'om9t~ ,the .axchitectural.and scale ch~rac;teristics of surrotlnding neigtlbbrhoods" ...
iJQr:th~,ciev!3IQPQ:ierit'bf.Ceriters ~eNing a n~igh6orhoo(l oracbnimu.nity,. ':' "" '0 . , ','> ,','
k; ':" ,'_'<,_~ " ';" " ,",'"' ',",... c' - . " .,.' '., " ' ~_",~'_' -,A
; ,LU1'K Rro~ote n~igh~orho'6d~. Whichfosterintera~ti(:m 'among residents, contribute to ~ell:beiRg of ~ '
,.citi:zenry,aOd cre,ate and. sustajn'asense of community atld'per.sOl'~1 safetY" · . " > " ,- , , '
, '_""':'". .', '" '._', _ ~' , _ c . '. .-1: . . ", '_ , ~' _. >' _ '.\'~ _,.; , " _~,'" -.;, r '.
"bU1l: '~lt~ategically focat~ arpenities such as parks, sidewalks, ,community cE!nters, and gathering:, . ,
pla'~~,s :to~'support '[esideriti~1 areas.' ' " .:. '. ',' " . '., ' , ' .. ',:; -'"" ,. ,
--:'" .:..c_;, ",y. ',~: \ .c ,,' _', ~." '-. '_" . ....., " -, ~ .,., ., .~. '. _ . ~,\ 'i',r',,:;r.i"
'. '~';',>'. 1?~6iidEdor sodann~erc:lction.through $treet, design elements: . : ,. ,'..' , ..... '
',_~ " _"" ,_ . ,'" . .,_'. 1 _ . ,.'..... '~, - _ '. '_.' ",. > _' ,',.
:,', ' ''; .- ~ 'E~cbu'r~'ge residential d~signs witt:l an orientation towards'sociai interaction,' ~S.oRPosed .
-i,. ',',' to theautomobiie..;'; ,,'. , . ' .. .' ' , , , ", ..,' "
1>./ ~_.,.~'_ ,.~.>_~: ""'~{l"is,,,,,r-i'i_'."'~'~>';' - :~.":, -.... ,>~. ~ '. .~. ."\. _':'~ '<;'.:".'~-~' ".,-'
,ll1~:~'ro,,:id,~J~r~~I.k~l;>ility't~ro~~tlo!Jt..Ceptersand n~ighbo~~?od,~::,',::,';, ,:,,' .', "'"
tq4Almpf6y~,p~~~~trl~n'accc;l9s to commetcial and comlim:!.Ii!tYservic~~'within,Ce;,t~'rs, ar,Jd::,
f~ri"e,igh6.5)~'1Q?d~r ,;c':':,'.:',;: >::~ i. ,,:;, :".'<: :,: ':",':':;;':, ,~:-/ . , _''',.: '::.', '::; '~} : l'
~1;.,U4~'DeveJpp ped~stri~n connection~ b~~ee(l residential ~reas and ~ ,,', ';: ~" ,~': '",' "',
',~eiQ~6~rhb~{~~~i~~~:<;;"""';"",;,>' . ,:,' .','" ','.':,<:"':~~~' ',.: ~,,:'~.~:.'.~,""'-"'. ".
'I;.U9E.II1'gen~r~i,j ~he :(nten,sjty of.Jan(j U~l;l~~houldbevarjed'; wltR mor~;,inten$e ~use$'riearel\th~r9bre
pf'tti'e ';geflt~.t,'aria I~ss int~Qseaqhe edge,' . " . .,' ;'4':' ',.
~,. . '. .' . ""'''. -. ~,~' - ..'" .' ~ - . .'.-,
","';-X ""....',.
,)....>>;,.~,-...... .,.-."-".,, ,'''_ ~..-"-.,;"..'JI..,- A.~"
- -.- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -
~ ~ ~ ~ - <
;..'" ~1"<''iIi''::'~ ,".;or.. ~;11"'" .~ ~>""'"'-'
~.~
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPo PLAN CONT...
iii. HOUSING ELEMENT
The housing element of the Manette sub-area plan addresses the future needs of the
community and expected growth targets within the historically concentrated neighborhood.
· By allowing creative infill through cottage style homes, attached and detached single
family homes, townhomes, and ADU's, the neighborhood will be able to address the
needs of aging citizens, young families, and singles with a variety of reasonably priced
housing options. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC4, VCC1
· In addition to addressing the housing needs the community will increase the walkability
within the neighborhood, provide a safer pedestrian environment, and activate the
streetscape. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1, PFP3, PFP4
· The allowed density in the R-10* zone will accommodate the need for future growth
allocated to the Manette neighborhood. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC4
, , ,:,~ ,< ^'~ ;:CitY;()f:B~~riteiton',2Q'04 Comp~ehe~~i~~'P!an ~'t10~~ri~p;iit'i~s' "~". ~." . "
. " ,. ~. , _. ' , ~, ,', _ _ .' 1- ~ _. .~. _ ~ " ,.,,," ' ,. ',' :. . ': . ' . . '," - f .' _ "
113.Pro.\lide 'a ,yar;l~tY'(jf ,housing types and. densities to' meetchangipg. need~ ,6fBr,emerton .
re.si9.e~ts.:~~;,~;,:>, : :':'" ", ,,' ',<, ': "'~";,.,..' ,:*, ': ':<:. ',,' ,',c,:;:,," ,
'H3C '~\iniula!,eAtie productionaf .n'evi hpusingfor all incomes;. ages~: aM far:nllytype~.: ~,.;,;;, . '
.... ,. _,~ _:" ' -, . '.' . _ . _ ."" '. _ ~:' '. '.: < -'.' . ' ._ ." - . '. .' _ -. "." " .>C". < ~ ", . .' . _ . c' .
~HetPf9vide hQusihg in mixed~u'se:cElriters'foravc:u'ietY of iriGomes,'ag~grpups>al1~'t:ioul5ehotd -,:
',ty,p~f'>\" :":)"';~:"'~' :':" .,' ", '0:':' '>.>\,',."'\:":">""::c~"
Hl:PromotEf saf~"attractive; 'Iivabl~ neighborho9c1s, that wiHattta'ctho!11eoWr:fer~:',
'H7[)-l~p~~,,~. tl:i~,.~t~U?1 'q~ali~'of res;de~tial areas ~here rie~ded: : ' -,,'>',''', ':., "
, . '" , '", ' , _ ~ .. _ ~. ~" ' v " . .. ~... .. I ~. 'I \ . -, ,."
,1 ' ,e', ''Accenfviewshedsin'tMdesign,of resideriltial areas.". . ,-,'
,0"_' , "_: ....... _ " ,:"-, " ~ ._r\ - * ~ '-. _^ '. ,.' ~ ';'," " . . .. . , . :_ _ "d, . .'
. ;:<<':,f'.ldeNify'~ri(f~st,al:llish vi,eW'Cbrridorsal,ong:resideri1ial'streefs;.,:,' . ,',;
-, ~,... ,- - - - '. . - ~~~ .. - ";. - - ,-." -' - - ~ -; - - - '" " . < ." "
"..: ,,'.' :/~dvoc~tefor t~e utldergroundingofi:Jtilitie$: ,.,., ':";" :.: ft'., '" .
~,~8 ~romot~, ~O.Ci~!., ~nteta~tiO[l as, ..vell,a~ ,neig~~~rhOod identit~ and initi~tiV~S,~' ,'" ,:," ". ;. :'.... .,; ~
;~e~'.~r:lCO~rag~'walk.,abi!ity,withinnejghbqrJ1~6,ds., : .. "'::;' ,."',\"'. I'
)~~[rus.~ 'n~i~hbbrhood('P!ans t<;> gtltline pUblic_ani:l.p~tvate projects f~r ea~h':n.~ighbOrhqo~:'-' ',.' ,
-\ ~,
.- -- . -- --- - ~ . ~ --
.';!, "'" ':1... ~ ............. .~." 'ti.....,~_<ilI' ~....,.II.............""'~'t'w.1"',~.A.;., 't>,.'!""",~ ~~M " -"'....r:.,:.....?;~-,..,;., -;;- . '" ,..-.--~,.<
. '~".. .>:..,.*'- <
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH CaMP. PLAN CaNT...
iv. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The Manette neighborhood is within walking distance of the regional transit terminal in
downtown Bremerton. With well established bus services, sidewalks, and high traffic volumes,
Manette residents expressed desire for traffic calming measures through the neighborhood
streets and E 11th St., making a better connection to parks, and addressing parking issues
along the arterial streets.
· The visions of the sub-area plan include use of traffic calming measures such as curb
bulbs, landscaping improvements, and mid-block crosswalks. These goals seeks to
create a safer pedestrian and motor vehicle environment. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1,
PFP4, VCC3, VCC4
· The sub-area plan encourages alternatives to the automobile by sustaining the development
of transit supportive densities. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC4, VCC1, VCC2.
*,,_~"~'i'. ~1-~.,-"; ".'r .~'." ..... t, ,~' , ~ ~ " -< " .' ~ ': ~.'
, ,'.City pf,Br~m'~rton 2004 Comprehensive p;lan 7 Transportation.Policie's ': -' """
\- '>.' .;>. ~. '. . , ~.. . , , "'-',.i: <.. " . . "
.'T'2B Reflect.the urban 'nature ofroadw~ys within Bremerton oy ~ncouraging, where'appr:op'riate:' '
<:; .';:~',' Streettr~es:andlan'dsqapin'g.,' c.,', ',., "", ','
. .' " - .!ra'ffic;cqlrning strategies an~ devices ,. . ';; !
",:,.,' ..' ,o.n':s,reet publi.qparking' :" " , . ' ". "
.,' ,"'(.Streeflignting: "".." ." ." 'c,..., ~ c..
,: ,>', ."<<Atco~mbdi3fiqriS fbrtr~risitstops .' , ,
'",,:,,' :;' \, 9ro~s'tJalk,~'andSid~walks.'. ' .,."..: ; . ,', "'~" .... ,
,.T2C':F~~$toreicreaie: ur:i,Q4e i1~ighb6rhood aesthetiGs.via'.toimation of aistirictlv~ $treets<;:aRes ,al:fd"'~
'trpffic,contr6I1ingdevlce$:~, . >,:" ::" . >, ) ,".", . , .
~ , .'-, .' .', . q.; .".~ , f "" , " ,~ . ~." ,,".
T3D:Where possible,.the.'City shall'r,equire the under-grounding 0f overbead utilities to'reduce the'
~ ~ '. I <' ) ., . ' , ~ . ~.. ., , << r'" .
Meed for rem'oval arid maintenance of roadside vegetation. " . '~ . , ;, .
':'.,"..'. ~, _ . ~_. ," ~ "',': _r.. ,". _.' _ '. . ".'," " .0'" ',' ~, . " ~ '
,'i'~'Pfotedtr~$!dJ~nti~1 heighbe<~hOod5frori1ne~~tiye tr~lJsPQrtatio~, im.pads.~. ,': " ,,' . .
. ".. "..,', . " ,.' .- . _ - "_' . - _'. . c,. j.'" ."">-~
'T4~M![.iimi~~:the'imp~'cts'of tr~ffi~.ori r~sidenti~:1I'heighbot~6Qd!:)by. discoJJragirtg: tne us~:o(iocal,. :~
: atcessstreets'"t:jy ,non.,locartraffic. :,' ~":, ,.... ,r. .,' ' . ' ""',' J
1 ~'-:. "'" ~-, ,,~;~~"__'~'-_<" ,', ~ __~ .".,. '" " .'. '" ,,:r~, '.,," _ ,": '-..-=c.::-" ' J
, T~C.'Reduce :s'peed on' qeighbprhOod$treets throlJgMhe ,use of str,~etdesignaevices ~ui;:,h:~s.ci:irt/ ~
~bi:ilbs,' ~~median Qbstacles\:~.6r chier 'measur~s proven to, be .safe and-effe'ctiveat redl!cingjtavei' ' " g
'~~e'ed~.<',,<:.'~.",:,",~; >,':::,.:.. ' ','.....'."..>'.'..,:;,. ";;'>.~~~'.""~l" ~
)r1 ~Pmvide,"a .tr~i)~portationsy~teni t~at'ElffE!ciivelyserVes ,the needs of ancl'ef1c6.ur~g~s': ,'<' .'.'
;;p~~~~tr:ia~;"blcycl~a-ridothern6:n;n:ioto~ized traveL ,',>" :; ':'.' ",:' ., ""
',~' ,",;'~-<_._"-l~ _."', -,~'_::>" ~ _"" ". - ',e....':.,. . _ .' _:.'._-'" ",'j P'''':
,'T1~B ~h$Ur~',tl18't qesignateq Cenlersare'kijll<able, ,and '~!1bburage :6Qrinectiviw':- ;/", .
':~~_.' '<'f:;-:'';:-~O ".~<~<.-,,\.,~ .:.'i.:'.:. ,',' : ;.'~",.' "~". _,~- ,.,..; ._-"~ ,. -I_~;.'.-, ~"'.' ,,-.,
- - - -- -. - - - - - -
. , -
- - -- - - . -- - -
:M; ;~....
",'A.~.~"~_""~";'-%...>"P-,l'lL
~~-
Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPo PLAN CONT...
v. ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
The Manette Sub-Area Plan shall be sustainable in design and implementation.
· It is encouraged to enact sustainable development standards with concern of the
environment, increase the amount of public open space, and provide physical and visual
access to the shorelines through access improvements within the plan boundary. Sub-
area Plan Goals: CC5, PFP1, PFP2, PFP3.
· Streetscapes will be inviting, accessible, and functional for the neighborhood. Sub-area
Plan Goals: PFP1, PFP3, PFP4, VCC3, VCC4.
~4i">''':-i':<~~' ;'_~ ,-} -.',:". ,"' . _.-',"',.:" >', - ,.- . ~ . >:' _. "- "':',' :1. T -~ '_' ,::'_: '-.,< ~ '; '~_' <-"<:,.,,t''''
" ., . ,,' :Clty<Of'~i"~m~rton.2094 Comprehensive:Plan';!=nYironi11~ntP~licies c.;, ,', ..
,'. '.,:" ,---~>.. _I.<-<.;;.-~.: ....' .' '<' ,.,:,., :',':. _-~ : "_ " ~'_,' '.~'-,'-:~-'-
E8B:P.rovidebotfLphysical arid'vlsualaccesMo'shor:ellries. ; ," '.,' , ,
..~!,.,\...:...,. "_.__' < ~"." _,: "., "-"-".", . ',_~ ~__" . -. _ -.' t" ;., ",i. ': .L . ,',~ ~_'.... ,""~'~""';'
"E:10B~~~tp~r~g~c;jerise'd~veI6pl1)~,6't~round de.sigf!at~d c.enter~,' ~fiich.j~COrp9~at~' qpen '
:~~~~~::' ,,' '~',"':'>', \' ,::;-, "-<;":.-;, . ,:.::': >, "<.::; ',,' ":~':" ~>, ','.
~E;1,~~ :Er)co1Jrage~tr~~tscapes t~,~t:'~re huin5.u:i-~C9Ie, e~abl~ w~l~ing, arid.~icyclirig;j:!nd are
:.t~~t,~e~i~~,UY..~!~<t~i~9:,:::;",'.~~;'::.:'<:'>""".., . <.:, ',.'". <:"':~~""',:: , :.':,'::_':~, ,;' ','.
E,11Q :Crea(e :?i9~waiRs:~~dill)pro?ed shoulder~along right-Qf:W8YS ,tq ~nabJe,walking.,
-- - -- - - - - - ~ - - - - -
. ~
. . - - -, -< - - - - - -- - - - - -
"'c~""'.:-',"':-r'.Ii1i.~....A: "-O/l
vi. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
The community developed the commercial components of the Manette Sub-Area Plan to
align neatly with the comprehensive goals of the city. They focused on preserving the current
commercial uses while incorporating new uses that would better serve the community.
· Future economic growth should support the function, charm and eclectic nature of the
commercial core as it is today. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC1, CC3, VCC1, VCC2, VCC3.
· Locating mixed use developments within the NCC zone will generate more supportive
functions of commerce by increasing the serving population. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC4,
VCC1, VCC2.
· Maintaining the consistency of the neighborhood by restricting development to 35' in
height. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC2, VCC2.
· Parking must be accommodative and attractive. Sub-area Plan Goals: VCC3, VCC4.
,.." 1'.. '_'. 1 - -. - , - . ~ ~ .,
,,' 'City' 9t~.Brerri~rtoh 'Z004 (:ompreh~n~ive lPia~ '- Econ~l1Jic 'OeveioplJ1ent P9Iic1es:, . 'i
':"~ -,,,,,.~,.: ,'-~. .)'.,-~" ", " > .~~. < '. ',. ,~"". -' - '," "., ..,< " >
:J~C1~r Eiiscit~busiAess'ioningdesignati6ns are in;app'ropri,i!elocstiOri'S; ~,.,;'. '. .~ ,,':' ,
".".<,",'~,"'_., ,_"~_"'__'";""''':.-:>>--~-.'..-'~' H. ~,.'_ _ ~'~..,\- ';;.,,_,>; _.,: >'>. ,'. >,....r. ~\~. ~' ....';_'~:':._":,-'/'._~. ;.""
~J~C2dv1aintain ttle,~Xls~ing.,a~se~of be,ing -a ~l'!Ialicityw,th c()nv~nie'nc.e,and.qu<ii;iy~, ' :. ., .,' .::" ~ ./'
j~F~C,'~mc:O'~fa~~:n;j~e~::4~e ,d~V~lop~eqt~(re~i~e~JI~i"c~njblned:~with;,c~~r!1e(~ial~~~t~i~ie~) :l.ri:ri
~d~~i9.?~~~~,;~e~ters..::'\~/,' ~i, ',' " "', ,': ' '",: .: ." J. .
.,'. _ ~__,.,,"" """" N"'~_~~':;"I.I'4:~J;.. 'to;rl..._.... ". _,~ _-t............f._~~~.'.~",;...-I',... ;'-,';:~."1",,::"--,*, ,>'1. ~~'" .-t....~o;tc:~..::j(j~
Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPo PLAN CONT...
vii. CITY SERVICES ELEMENT
The Manette Sub-Area Plan is the product of a community-based planning effort. To create
the plan the Key Communicators led the early information-sharing efforts, and the community-
at-large actively participated in public meetings. Both helped shape the visions and goals of
this plan.
. The sub-area plan for Manette calls for infill development that will keep with the scale,
nature, and charm of the neighborhood, further contributing the efficiency of services
within the City of Bremerton. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC2, CC4, PFP 1, PFP 2, PFP 4.
. Pedestrian centralized improvements will increase the safety and movement of people.
Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1, PFP3, PFP4, VCC1, VCC3, VCC4.
I'~' ~ -.. . -- - -"_ '. ,- 0;' . _,.- '..~! -f - ."~ ) .< --'~
. .'..' ..'>'city'.'Of.Breijl~rton 20Q4;c:o"mprehensive,pici," ",:~Gi~Y S~r,vi~e~1?6IiCjes<"
C~8 Provfde - meaningful opportunities fQ.r 'communi!}' ,jnvolver.nen~. .' . . . " " . :. " "
c.S:f~A.'EmRh~Si:?:e'_9.onforrriityof designwithin sl.!b-Cireas.6f the . City; esj:>e9ially;nefgh~o~h069Si:
,,' ;,.-: ,1~prO~eSic:le~~lk~t~r~Ughout theCity"esp,eciaIlY acc~SSibii{tyf~atu~~s~.'~ ," ..'. ','
GS 1 is VY6~k. ~fth' appropriate city depi'lrtr.nents to produ~~ an!'! implerh~nt devel~pment. ,'.. ,.'
.st~ri~~rdsfor.Aeighborliood'development. " ' , :.', ' . ..,.,... .... ' < :".' ': ' .
. .',' - " -, .' . -. . - - - - -, - ",
'i'f' :'.:,:f;,'~S~re~s.sa!!3ty;.a~ce~s,r~c~~atiori,. ~nd ,pedestricim. !ri~;~~!iri~SS...,. '..'. " " '" ," '. ,'. .'"
, '.' ~." Aadi:ess s,licbtopiCl:ras'iighting, si.dewalks, a'nd street',design-in a manner that assures
- '~"':consistericy with this Comprehensive Plan.' :. ...... . .',:" ~', ; "
'-,' r '. ~~'
- - - - - - -- - - - -. - - . - ~ . - - -- - - --- ~.--
'" ".. .' . .". ... - " _ ~ ~ ~ ,t. - - - .......
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft - April 29,2009
D. PLAN LAND USE MAP & DESIGNATIONS
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft ~ April 29,2009
D. PLAN LAND USE MAP & DESIGNATIONS
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CORE (NCC)
The Neighborhood Center Core is centralized around the commercial areas of E 11 th and
is a total of 14 acres. The zone is constrained to the north mid-block between E 11th and
13th streets, to the south by 10th Street, to the east mid-block between Scott and Perry
Avenues, and to the West by Port Washington Narrows.
The development regulations that apply to this district are contained within Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) 20.66
CENTER LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-10*)
The Low Density Residential, R-10* is centralized around the center core totaling 14 acres.
The zone is constrained to the north by the Wheaton-Winfield triangle, to the west by the
Port Washington Narrows, and to the east by Pitt Avenue.
The development regulations that apply to this district are contained within Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) 20.60, with the allowable density in the center permitted by
20.60.066
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft STAFF ADDITION ~ April 29,2009
E. STREET EXPECTATIONS
Street Expectations
The street expectations section of the sub-area
plan describes the community's desire for the future
streetscapes of Manette.
Existing Conditions
The plan area currently experiences a high traffic
volume that crosses the bridge and passes through
Manette via E 11 th Street. Residents have expressed
; the desire for right-of-way improvements that will
calm the traffic and ease pedestrian movement
throughout the neighborhood. The center's current
amenities include 2 way traffic, 5-foot sidewalks and
parallel parking throughout the neighborhood.
~
.1 I
_'. Currently Washington State Department of
l Transportation (WSDOT) is in the process of
: developing plans for a replacement bridge, and
. it is uncertain what the final configuration of the
'intersection will be for the new bridge landing.
, Further assessment of needs should be addressed
; once the final decisions have been made about this
j intersection design. The text below describes what
, the desired amenities are for this neighborhood.
:;.:>f~1z...~~'.:;~~7!h2~d.Wt ;;~
- -
,.,.,. ~ ~.:r - ..., -~ . .' ~
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft STAFF ADDITION ~ April 29,2009
E. STREET EXPECTATIONS
Urban Collector
Classification
Intent & Purpose
Urban Collector streets serve the streets
within the neighborhood center outside of
the higher intensity urban local designations.
These are expected to be low-speed streets
not intended to serve large volumes of traffic
arriving off of the Manette Bridge. The design
goal for these streets is to allow pedestrians
to feel comfortable walking and using the
streetscape.
Design Expectations
The existing right-of-way widths for these
streets vary from 40 feet to 54 feet. The
desired sidewalk width is at minimum of 5
feet. These streets should have amenities
to encourage safe pedestrian circulation.
Desired Amenities
As these streets serve the residential areas
of Manette, improvements should not give
the impression of a major commercial area.
A~~i1able right-of-ways should be fully
~tlhzed where appropriate. Encouraged are
Improvements such as:
· Street tress planted at the back of
sidewalk.
· Use of low impact development
(LID) techniques such as pervious
pavement.
· Sidewalk widths up to 7 feet
· Hanging Baskets
· Planters
· Pavers or decorative paving
· Street furnishings
· Sharrows (bike lanes)
Urban Local Classification
Intent & Purpose
Urban Local streets serve the core commercial
area and are intended to be the pedestrian
primary streets, yet they are also the primary
streets that move vehicles through the area.
The streets should be designed in a manner
encouraging safe pedestrian movement, ease
of vehicular use, and also serve the local
businesses with additional parking.
Design Expectations
The street widths within the Manette
neighborhood are consistent for a neighborhood
center and are sufficient for the improvements
envisioned for the plan, there is currently no
need to obtain additional right-of-way for the
roadway visions. Improvements should be
considered to re-configure on-street parking
from parallel to angled spaces and the sidewalk
widths should be increased to at least 10 feet.
Any street reconfigurations should take into
account pedestrian safety. The expectations
should align with the landing of the new Manette
Bridge and work to meet the needs of the
community while not expecting a decrease in
traffic but creating a safer streetscape.
Desired Amenities
· Decorative Pedestrian-scale streetlights
placed at 25' intervals
· Street trees planted at the back of
sidewalk if ample width is not available
to accommodate ADA accessibility.
· Hanging baskets
· Pavers or decorative paving
· Planters
· Street furnishings
· Information kiosks & wayfinding signage
· Public art
· Utilization of sidewalks for local
businesses for uses such as outdoor
dining.
· Use of low impact development (LID)
techniques such as pervious pavement.
Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Recommended Draft STAFF ADDITION - April 29,2009
E. STREET EXPECTATIONS
TRAFFIC CALMING
MEASURES
Some areas of Manette may require the
use of traffic calming features. The intent
of this section is to identify the measures
that are supported by the neighborhood.
Corner bulb-out; either a partial or full
extension of the line of the curb into the
vehicular right of way or parking lane. The
bulb-out can be placed on one side or both
sides of the intersection. This feature is
primarily used to reduce the width of street
at pedestrian crossings and to improve
the visibility between pedestrians and
drivers. Bulb-outs should be implemented
generously on pedestrian primary streets
such as E 11 th Street, and Harkins.
Traffic calming landscape islands in the
middle of neighborhood intersections to
reduce traffic speeds.
A mid-block crossing combined with a
bulb-out can reduce jaywalking activities
and pedestrian contact with traffic by
having a narrowed street width at the
crossing. They also slow oncoming
traffic through the crosswalk, increasing
pedestrian and driver visibility.
Corner Bulb-Out
Lanscape Island
Mid-Block Crossing
Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Recommended Draft STAFF ADDITION ~ April 29,2009
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
CO/JJI1JJJIJity tChc;g;g,~,t~r
P~~~eilqJ;~P'ellt~~
Vihr,!nt.>r:PllJllJ!/lJi~ty';cCor,~~
,~~~j;",l~'t"'-" <
/JF""ft"1"'''''' ~.
'<' :~ l ~ ~ :~,.; ;?~~
i-r:~~~ u
~)\;i,~!~N"0 2~~:c; ~:;:;;:i,;:~!.~J,UCt~~~ ~0~';: i{:tfc'.,
: ~~ ~~~~ ~~i' L~~j ~,:. : ~:~
./\. ~.'!:~:?~': 'r
~--) ~
IS .~~ f
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
MAYOR CARY BOZEMAN
CITY COUNCIL
Cecil McConnell, District 2, President
Nick Wofford, District 9, Vice-Presi.dent
Brad Gehring, District 1
Adam C. Brockus, District 3
Roy Runyon, District 4
Mike Shepherd, District 5
Dianne Robinson, District 6
Carol Arends, District 7
Will Maupin, District 8
MANETTE KEY COMMUNICATORS
John Ales
Jordy Andrew
Richard Bruskrud
Councilman Adam Brockus
Jeff Hecker
Ken Hills
Holly James
Ruth Reese
Jane Rebelowski
Planning Commissioner Greg Wheeler
Mauntrece Zamzow
CITY OF BREMERTON
Andrea L. Spencer, AICP, Director of Community Development
Lindsey Sehmel, Planner I, Community Development
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 2t 2009
Alternate Exhibit B
PART I: INTRODUCTION
A. Site Location................................................................................................ 5
B. Comprehensive Plan Context. ..... ........ ...... .......... ... ....... ....... .... ..... ..... .........5
PART II: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
A. A Citizen-Developed Plan........................................................................... 6
B. Plan visions, goals, and expectations......................................................... 7
i. Community Character...................................................................... 7
ii. Places for People............................................................................. 8
iii. Vibrant Community Core.................................................................. 8
C. Plan Consistency with Bremerton Comprehensive Plan ............................9
i. Community Character...................................................................... 9
ii. Land Use. .................. ........ ............ ................. ............ ....... ............. 10
iii. Housing.......................................................................................... 11
iv. Transportation................................................................................ 12
v. Environment................................................................................... 13
vi. Economic Development................................................................. 13
vii. City Services.................................................................................. 14
D. Plan Land Use Map & Designations......................................................... 16
PART III: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Manette Center Core (MCC).....................................................................18
B. Manette Transitional Residential (MTR).................................................... 22
C. Manette Low Density Residential (LOR)................................... ~............... 25
D. Street Standards....................................................................................... 26
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 2',2009
Alternate Exhibit B
A. SITE LOCATION
Manette is a Bremerton neighborhood east of the Port Washington Narrows. The Manette
peninsula is characterized by single-family residential neighborhoods with a distinct small-
scale commercial district that enjoy spectacular views to the Narrows, Sinclair Inlet, downtown
Bremerton and other scenic points. The plan boundary area encompasses approximately 34
acres
B. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN CONTEXT
Bremerton's 2004 Comprehensive Plan
established the "Centers Concept" for the
future growth of the city, and designated
an area of the Manette community as a
"Neighborhood Center." It is envisioned
that this area will include mixed-use
structures, pedestrian-oriented design,
varied housing types, and neighborhood
scale commercial, professional, and
community services. The services that
are provided in a center of this type are
intended to serve the territory within
approximately 1/2 mile radius surrounding
the center. Neighborhood centers have
an identifiable central (or "core") area with
building heights of two or three stories
with retail or office uses at ground level
VICINITY MAP and residential above. The density of
housing is lower as distance from the core
area increases. Away from the core area,
residential uses will predominate.
SUB-AREA PLAN BOUNDARY MAP
Manette's citizens worked cooperatively
with the City in the development of this
sub-area plan. The purpose of this plan
is to establish the overall plan vision
for the center, demonstrate the plan's
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
and establish the design and development
standards for the center. This plan has
been developed to show how the area can
provide living environments attractive to a
growing segment of society that desires a
more active, stimulating setting, offering
the ability to access key amenities and
conveniences without driving.
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
A. A CITIZEN DEVELOPED PLAN
The Manette neighborhood has a well-
established group of community leaders
and actively engaged citizens. The process
forthis plan's development included utilizing
citizens for outreach communication efforts
within their neighborhood and to develop
the plan principles and goals that shaped
the regulations that are contained within
this document. This approach proved very
successful, and without the considerable
time and effort that this community put into
public participation the development of this
plan would have not been a success.
The plan was developed through the use
of two very important public outreach
tools: "Key Communicators," and open
public meetings where participants worked
through many exercises that shaped the
plan elements.
KEY COMMUNICATORS
The City worked with a group of Manette
residents who were willing to commit
additional time to the sub-area planning
effort - this group was called the "Key
Communicators." The purpose ofthis group
was to work closely with staff to develop
materials to share important information
with the public about the sub-area planning
effort and to communicate the importance
of public participation. The ideas behind
the Key Communicators were that Manette
residents would likely be more willing to talk
with their neighbors about neighborhood
planning than they would be with city staff,
and that the Key Communicators would
serve as an excellent conduit for sharing
information that wouldn't otherwise exist
without their participation.
City staff developed a "Meeting in a
Binder" for use by the Key Communicators.
This "meeting" was created to help the
Communicators share information about
the Growth Management Act, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, how the sub area
planning process works, details of existing
conditions within the Manette neighborhood,
Alternate Exhibit B
and what the area's growth expectations are.
During November & December 2008, the Key
Communicators took these "meetings" out to
the public and held informal information-sharing
sessions within the plan area at local businesses,
dinner parties, and their own homes. The
outcome of these community meetings helped
define the goals, visions, and expectations of
the plan.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
A series of open public meetings were held at the
Norm Dicks Government Center to gather input
from the citizens regarding the sub-area plan.
The meetings are summarized as follows:
· January 12, 2009
General open house
· January 26, 2009
Needs assessment charrette
· February 23, 2009
Geographic application charrette
· March 16, 2009
Development standards & streets charrette
· March 30,2009
Draft plan review
· April 21,2009
Planning Commission
Hearing & Recommendation
· May 2009 to June 2009
Anticipated City Council adoption
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
B. PLAN VISIONS, GOALS & EXPECTATIONllternate Exhibit B
Community outreach efforts focused on information-sharing and collaborative steps towards
defining the 20-year vision for Manette. Surveys, questionnaires and roundtable discussions were
the primary methods used to gather information regarding the citizen's goals and expectations for
growth.
In the development of this plan, the citizens developed a number of key principles to follow. The
principles were categorized into three groups - "Community Character," "Places for People," and
"Vibrant Community Core." The following describes in detail the goals and policies that will guide
growth within the Manette Neighborhood Center:
i. COMMUNITY CHARACTER (CC)
GUIDING PRINCIPLE
AND OVERALL GOAL:
Preservation of a unique and charming neighborhood
where significant consideration should be given to
the scale, size, quality, and compatibility of future
development.
OBJECTIVES:
CC1: Encourage development to compliment the
scale of the surrounding neighborhood.
CC2: Promote view preservation by limiting building
heights to 3 stories (Maximum 35' height).
CC3: Encourage high quality architecture through
the use of:
· Largewindowsalonganygroundfloorcommercial
facade facing the public sidewalk or sidewalks
providing circulation within a site.
· Bulk reduction. Building modulation shall be
used to reduce the appearance of mass and bulk
of the structure.
· Easily identifiable building entrances from the
street and sidewalks.
CC4: In-fill development should provide a variety of
housing options.
· Encourage Mixed-Use development within the
. commercial core
· Encourage single family homes, cottage style
homes, single family attached, and accessory
dwelling units (ADU's) in the area surrounding
the commercial district where appropriate.
CC5: Encourage the use of sustainable development
practices such as green roofs, green buildings, and
LEED certification throughout the plan area.
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
B. PLAN VISIONS, GOALS & EXPECTATIG*SlaoNillbil B
ii. PLACES FOR PEOPLE (PFP)
GUIDING PRINCIPLE
AND OVERALL GOAL:
Establish an eclectic and active community
space that provides opportunities for
social gatherings within a walkable
environment.
OBJECTIVES:
PFP1: Improve the public right of way to
be pedestrian and bicycle friendly:
· Encourage the widening of sidewalks.
· Encourage the development of bicycle
lanes.
PFP2: Encourage the creation of public
spaces with redevelopment.
PFP3: Promote undergrounding of utilities
to enhance the pedestrian environment
and overall community aesthetics.
PFP4: Encourage the addition of public
amenities such as, art, neighborhood
identity signs, benches, planters,
streetlights, etc. to the public right of way.
iii.
VIBRANT COMMUNITY CORE (VCC)
GUIDING PRINCIPLE
AND OVERALL GOAL:
Promote a compact, walkable commercial
core that will provide diverse services for the
surrounding neighborhood in a sustainable
fashion.
OBJECTIVES:
VCC1: Allow an eclectic mix of uses in the
commercial core that are appropriate for a
neighborhood center.
VCC2: Promote redevelopment in the
commercial core that is in scale with its
surroundings by limiting building heights to 3
stories (Maximum 35' height).
VCC3: Consider ways to make street
improvements that support local businesses.
· Reconfigure on-street parking to make
user-friendly and increase supply.
· Encourage the placement of public
amenities in the right-of-way.
VCC4: Reduce the predominance of motor
vehicles within the commercial core.
· Consider use of traffic-calming measures.
· Screen parking areas to improve visual
aesthetics.
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHE~lMIitPl:.AMitB
The purpose of this section of the sub-area plan is to demonstrate that the principles, goals,
and ultimately the zoning regulations presented in the plan are in compliance with and further
the goals of the City's overall Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is organized into
chapters (formally referred to as "Elements") and this section follows the same organization.
Specific goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been reproduced in this document
for reference with the information regarding how the specific sub-area plan goals meet the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan policies.
i. COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT
The Manette Sub-Area Plan addresses the needs and goals of the Community Character element
of the comprehensive plan clearly through the following measures:
. The Manette community has addressed the desire for a unique and charming neighborhood
that keeps with the scale and compatibility of the current developments. Sub-area Plan Goals:
CC1, CC3, CC4
. A variety of housing types should be available within the community, striving to keep living
options open for a wide array of age groups and income levels. This is accomplished by allowing
for cottage-style homes, attached single family homes, and additional dwelling units on single
family lots. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC1, CC3, CC4
· The orientation of buildings and structures should cater the pedestrian atmosphere to provide
a safer environment, enhancing the 'eyes on the street' and encouraging interaction within the
community. Sub-area Plan Goals: VCC3, VCC4, PFP1, PFP4
. The streetscape along 11th Street shall include attractive landscaping, neighborhood identity
signs, wider sidewalks, lighting fixtures, and a separation between the pedestrian pathway and
traffic lanes. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1, PFP2, PFP4, VCC3, VCC4
· Redevelopment efforts should focus on increasing open space, providing attractive pedestrian
environments, and adding to the sense of community, Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP2, PFP4,
PFP5
:', .. '.' . CitY"Pf Breh;erlQn2'004 Compr~hensive Plan - Comrri~nity Ch~ractir P()licies' , ' ,,'
~ . . I' ' ',~' ~ . \ ' . " '
CC1 B' Ensure that' n,ew development is of a type, scale, orientation, and desigR that improves upon the'
. 'rie!~hbOrh,09q'sde.si~~9 ;3nd,defin~d ~harapter, aesthetics, and,qualities,' .' :'. "..'., , '
F,C~As~~re,:hid!iew 'deveIOPr:nentre!at~~ to surrounding us~s:arid p.rovide~ fcir,.urbariliVa6ili~.:~ ,', ,
~CC2a' EdslJre-Jllat: infillconstfuction:andafearedevelopm~nt ,are done in' a maruierthat:r~inforces 'the' ,
neigl:lbor,tiood'sdesireq~rld <;Ieflned.character andt~C3t architectural.!y compliments. the.~utrounaing comme'rcial', ,
'ar;id'fesideRtialare~s: ,'" I 'c. . . ',," " .. ':;
:"", '. ~C-'",', -" ~,.f'.' ""'.' '. ".', <,'. ", '-,' 4,' '. _iI, ,'~,' '. .'-.
;' CC2'C 'El1courag13' building and;,site. design that allows a varietY.6fhol:JSiIl9 forms' and <::i,!S9 iS~(;:bmpaii~le~it~ tt:lE;i
:ctaara9ter,of the irTlniediat~ s!!rrciLinoing;area; thf3rebyg~neratirig9orrimunity s,~pj:lotffor newtyPEls ,of housing',
:'~~V~I?P~~~~~~;',:::""'. , > . ,~ ;'," '" ::; ',.: ,',:" ~'" ,: ',': ,', ,~,
CC2E Buih:tings>sh<?\.J1ci'~emori5tfateefforts'tb accomrrlodCiteahumiurscale cmd'urbar:irfiv~biliW.' :.:. ,.'"
;~~~~r?~d~:i~r~ i~fe'8IEia~~nt>~~~rtchPedestn~~ eXP~~ieQge;' . '. ' '.' .~:: ,:,' ,,:r' ,
'CC~A~ntoljr~ge a $eh~e. of neighborlin~ss and ,community by oi"ienting one or rJior~,buildii'\g~hfta6ces to,
cbn1n,ere~al bi:Jildi.rigs,tc5w.~tds t.hep~destnan sidewalks, and pathways tI1~t lead ,to .adjdinin,g 'l~fghborhoods. ,..' '
. ',. .,' , " .', " _"", "<' . . ,. ..' J.... _ '.. "!.. ~ ~ - ,', ,. '. .
lCc.3B, Pr6mo~.epedEls~riari-()rientedenvirohri1ehtsin Qenters through the creation 'of ~tr~elsGape$"and<blJild~rig .
, ~esigns that rria~ewalkihg :an.attractive an~ 90rlvenient tr'an~pprtation,mpde:, ' ' "', ,:',
:C6~~Erl~X)u:r~gea.ttra~t!ve:p~~estrian-:6rien'te~~evel~pment ~". g;",.. .",;' -",. ' " <,
; CP4,:promote,tii~"d~~elopment 6farea~ of sp~ci~Ic;:~aracter, ~nc;oura~inga .diversity:~f 'c;:b~niuni~i~~ 'withi'n,'
~th~,~itY. ,,',' .:': :','. }~. ,': '. ,<,' '~'. ': ' " >" " , ." .,' ....:.,:. .,:: ""'; ""',' ~< '~'"
";;' .:,i.-,;t.,':-... ':,_..-;,..'klfU.......; _.1'~~..;;t;.J--~,~~ :-~".~.~....,.....~!V,.."~,,'~.,,...,.,..~,....r;,,<;~, i',"';':;;.;1.'-:~,>Vl.~< ,'''''''--~..__. "~.'1""'~~ , #......J :'lo~-<<- t;.- ~;'''':r-4.! ~'3. ~,~~. 4';:"~~" . f"....~..~...,,<;-:O' .~ ::::~4~"""""
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 2',2009
Alternate Exhibit B
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPo PLAN CONT...
ii. LAND USE ELEMENT
The Manette neighborhood is a well established historical neighborhood center. The sub-
area plan addresses the need for future commercial and residential growth in a manner that
does not disrupt the nature of the neighborhood.
· Through planning efforts residents expressed a desire for future commercial services to
include local eclectic shops such as a high quality grocery store, local retail, pharmacy/
drug store, post office, and dry cleaning services, in addition to coffee houses, book
stores, community gathering spaces, and 'third places'. Sub-area Plan Goals: VCC1,
VCC3, VCC4.
· There should be an increase in open and green space (such as parks), streetscape
improvements (benches, planters, wider sidewalks) and communal gathering spaces
throughout the neighborhood. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP2, PFP3, PFP4.
· The commercial core should work towards providing the daily services that the
surrounding community needs, further reducing the impact and requirement for motorized
transportation, and enhancing the pedestrian environment. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1,
PFP2, PFP4, VCC1, VCC3, VCC4.
., .',: "'~~ ._"'_ '._..,.,~' : _..',,'" ; ::,' '" ( , . _ " __" ~_f ,-- ,',-' _ ~ _", _ _,.;.
:.l.' ~ ':',:. ~~;City;Qf Bremertc:m 200~:Coltlprehensive.~lan';'l,:and,"lJ~eP,C)lici~s.,;.' .. ,
~ - ~ -,' "", " ~ ~ . -, ~ .- ,',-.~. .. . ~ -
lU1F Iden'tify an~,promote.ttle architectural and scale characteristics of surrqunding neighborhoods.
for the aeveloPlJlent Qf Centers serving a neighborhood or a community. '. '. ." , '
,- --,>_~'?_.>>_:' ~,~__'~,_~,,:_-< ,~'_,e.' . .'."'. . '. ~,"_~..,c~'~<., :_~. -.' _ ,..'~'
LU1)<Prorriote neighbOrhoods which foster'interaction'.among 'r~sidents, contribLit~ to :vjell~be'ing.df, ~
" ~ ",'_ . _ . <' ' _ , '" . ~,.,. , , " . " . _ - _. c, _ '_.
:ci,tizenry; a~dcre.ate:~",d ~ustain-'as~nseof comrn.!Jnity arid-perS9r;jaIS~fetY,,:'cc _.' <, " _'
--,~.- ~ - " -' , . , ' . '. -,' <. . -
Lln~ Strategically iocate amenities such as par.ks, sidewalks; community:centers/and'gatnerin'g , '
pl~ces to sURPoi1,reside.n~iaL~(r:eas. - ' . ' .', , : . ., .... " '. '. " . .....' " .
! .' - ,'--, '....., ", . " , .
::.......:: .~..;ProvidEdor<l?9ciali(1teractionthrough;~t~eet:design.~iemeri~s.',. . '. ': " .' . -.
.: f" ".,
" 'c',: . '., . Ehcaur~ge ~esidential designs wit!'1 all orierita~ion towar~s social intera~tjon, as. opposed"
."~ ,"; :';'-,: ;~,'~o.thE;l;ClUlO~Obil~. :. ,,: :'.,'-. ..' \," . :'. '.; . '. _ . ".-,-:" ",.: . ..', , '
J;.U4Provja~fQr w,a.I~abiliWthrolJghOl,Jt Center~ai1d' '1eighbor!ioods. '\ . . j" ,.' , ; . . t
~., '.- , A . , . (", ,,' - , > . ~ -' I ' ~ " ~
. ttJ4A lri1p'rov~ ped~strian. acc~ss to 'commercial and cOlJlllJunity services witpih'Cen,ters and . '.. ~
;neighbort.1ooas. c:., '.~ ..' .,":'. : ':.. ',''''', " :' , -':' '.',,' ,
(u4<~;b~v,~;~p,~.p~~i~t~a.n:'co~nedi6h~ ~~~e~Aresi~e~tial.ai~as,a~d ' "', ' ;'., '," I
:,~~i,g~~~r~60d ~~ivice,~~ : .', '" . . ',', ..,' ',; ": . '~'.., . .::-. ' :,"" :; ;' .'
: '~09E In' generai: tb'e ,intens!ty of' land uses sho~'ld' be varied; With more inten~~ u~es nearer' the ~ore
:?t)hfq~'1~erand-les$.i,~tensf;l~t:theedge::': . . ' '., , ,: , .>, -: C
.0",. . .-.t':._"" ~ ;.~ '" _~' _ . " , ....~
,,~
,..',)-,,~ ,#;><"~, ~ 'l:;i'~", ';~';,-:.~ 1--. _"",~,~"W-..;"""::,;l.."'" ,.Ih"""":;c"l:..V""O._:~r.-\r:~;:,~". (_t~".<(;~"~c4_~:.,-S-....;..-.,;..,;;F".~-..__'::.>..;.,:......_~..."...,;. "~~I.):,nI~""-OO'~ ......~ ~~: ~..........<. ~ ~~
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPo PLAN CONT...
iii. HOUSING ELEMENT
The housing element of the Manette sub-area plan addresses the future needs of the
community and expected growth targets within the historically concentrated neighborhood.
· By allowing creative infill through cottage style homes, attached and detached single
family homes, townhomes, and ADU's, the neighborhood will be able to address the
needs of aging citizens, young families, and singles with a variety of reasonably priced
housing options. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC4, VCC1
· In addition to addressing the housing needs the community will increase the walkability
within the neighborhood, provide a safer pedestrian environment, and activate the
streetscape. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1, PFP3, PFP4
· The allowed density in the MTR zone will accommodate the need for future growth
allocated to the Manette neighborhood. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC4
, ~ c"'..>C'ity:~f Bteil1~rtbnio04~~~preheri~jVe :P'I~~ ':'Housi~g,:~()iiCie~ :,' :,:.: ,', =
'~. . ~.~ " ;" <'-;::'~ ~.-'e"< -', :. ',- _-. ., _..,' ~. ;
113 Prpvidec~i'v~riety of,hoosing,typesand de~sities to meet changf(ig.needs of Bremertor:l' ~,
:re;>ide.ni~.., :~.<:\. ,:. ',:<:,.',','," :', ,<<..' :., ,:,>"",': ,;,"~'.',' ;.> ;
'H3C'Stimyla~e't~~' pr?duC!i9n of. new ,housiri9 ,for.~1I incon;Els, ,~ges,,'and family,tYpes,.' . . ,', ' . ~
:H.(Proyide ~O~'Sirig, in ,mixed-use centers for'a varietY ofinc<;>mes" age:grpups, .and hou~eh~ld
.~pes.;,', " ' "'.'" '.,,', " ,', . :". ' ",:"'. ~.' . ,.." ' '," ,,'
. ~ip,~omp~~,~~i~~~a;~r~st~~,~;:liVa9je':h~ig~bl?rt10~9S th~t ';';i11 att~9cr t1o~f:}ownets; · " ' ,
,~1D; Im~r?~e:t.he~Vis~~I.(tua!ity'Ofresidenti~lareas wh~reneeded: .
. '_' .' - {., "',." ~ . , , - 1!':' . , ,~. ,.." ~. . ,., . .
~' , :. ;" ,~ccerit'viewsl1~ds inthe'design of- r:esidentiar'areas.~. ,
;~ 'i '" ,;~:. ;:j~~ntitY~~~destabIiSh ~iew'c~rri90r:sa,I~~9 ieside~tia"st~~et$-:';'
, ' ">'~ '; Advotatefoi,th~ undergrounding of.utilities: ::.,,;: ' , ",.'... , . .., . ~
."<O~' .~~.:'~""""'-" ','f ,'-"', ~-,.'...H,,'<' ..,":-,-__~, ~<.' ~ ':',~. ",
"H8'Promot~soqial interacti(;m' as well as n~ighbo'rhood identity arid ir:titiat[ve~.. '. '," , ""~."
. .,~' ~" . ~ ~ "" ".....
:.H8C'l;ncourag~':waik7ability withhl neighborhoQas:: '; ,,'," .' ": ",,;:' " ,"
o'~ .ty"- "".\... " ",', ,,-' l .' -:'1 ""._ ",>' ~_c :. . ',~ ".:" ~ '- _,...., ":,
'~8:D:U$e n~igt:l,boi11ooaJ),lans:to otJtirA~J:fubli,cand :private:projects f~r ~ach:~nefgh~orh06d. ~' "',
., .' '
. . ft- '".." ~ .
\,""". " ~
-
4
,.
,
~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - ~. - - - - - - - -- - - --
....- ~..... . it '" -
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPo PL~ffrr:eMr.~!bit B
iv. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The Manette neighborhood is within walking distance of the regional transit terminal in
downtown Bremerton. With well established bus services, sidewalks, and high traffic
volumes, Manette residents addressed needs such as traffic calming measures through the
neighborhood streets and E 11th St., better connection to parks, and realignment of parking
along the arterial streets.
· The Transportation Element addresses traffic calming measures such as curb bulbs,
landscaping improvements, and mid-block crosswalks. These alterations will create a
safer pedestrian and motor vehicle environment. Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1, PFP4,
VCC3, VCC4
· The sub-area plan encourages alternatives to the automobile by sustaining the development
of transit supportive densities. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC4, VCC1, VCC2.
" "':,'ci~6f'li;~r;;er;i6n~,2oo4'Goinpreh~~~i~~:p'~n~'T.ra~n~portation'Polici'e;' f " ,'" '; "
~. ~,- -, .~: ,'. -<" . . ...- ~. +."',.: . ~. , " c' _ ". : ' ~'.'J' ''',' '0>' ., :~
'T28'. Retl~ct:'the:ur~~nnatuteQf ,roadways within. Bremeljoii bX. encouragfI19,. where, aRPf,opi'ia~e':, ';
,,' :.'; i:..~ "Stt~e,tJr:~e~:arid'landstaping:" " . ' ',' '.~~ '~,,', .' .,., ";
" :':'. '. .. Ttaffic'calmin~Fstrategies and.devices',. , " ..
. _" T < >. "'~,' - ,. . _ ' . " . . " '
..:;~,; · 'Q,ii':stree.lRublic parking . '. ,_," , '
:' /"~;/; , 'Strl;l.~t::Hgt:itirig :f; ~,' " "~"" ..c':"'," '. ' ',. ,.'. ;;: ',';
: . .'e . 'Aceomi:l)odations for tran!?itstops. ' ':~ ':
.... ,',:.' CrC>.sswaf~s and.sjCtewalks. " ",:' , <,;,' . ",' ::. . -:.,',',', "
:~T2c:'ke,~t~r~l~r~~i~::uf.1iq~~:~eighborh~od' a~s~heti~S yi~ .f6~~~ti~mof:~!stj'nctiY~;~t~eets~~p~~,a,rid
~,tt.~ffic~Qdtiqllfngdevices," .' ,- , . . '" 0 ':, ,,:" ,C ".' ',',' .\
;, _,' ,...^ ~,'.< . "-,...~_ ,.'" ~ ,', -.' ".~", . , ."', ,,' - 0 J ,--'- "
,T31) \ivt1er~~P9~sit>le'::1~Et CJtyshaitrequii'e the un~e~:'gro~lJqing'qfqverhea~utiiities t9.'f~duce the" :.,'
:'fl~dfor; r!3,mov~I':a,ndq:iaintenanc~of r~aclsiCle vegetation," _~'" ". ~':, /: ;"~, ': '., ' ','> ~ ,
. -,; - ,~. -~, ,.-' - " -. ~. . - " , '? .' '''., - ~' "" .' '- - . - >
";II p.roJectr~sUj~~{i~1 neig~b()r'h?bds.frQrn.heg.a~iv~'traIJSp'6rtati6n~i'n~act~k' '.:":,' ','. . . p ,
~,~ 4.6:,'Mirtj'mi~e' th:~:i,rbp~'~ts.bitrClffi,c.bn 'residential Deid~b()rho6ds:bydiscoura9i~g-the~se. oflocat, ".
'.access:'street~'bYn0n~lbGaHraffic~ "" '-,.' :", ,.'," 'i"':'''~;: ,.",:'
t',',~_ > :~,,_: ", .,:.~. .." ~~::',o: :~o'-'. ~-'.~,':. 'r ';'~; -.r' " ~,$. _~,' '." .~'~ . '<~_'.~,' .~_ '-',0 ,." ,r-, ", ..~"~'
,T4C}~educ,e: ~pee'dol'1~rieI91i~orn9odsfreets',~hrQugh, the us~ of stteetdesig~' 9~Yice~':~1I.cb.ast(jrp. ,
'J:)l:l'bs;.tmedi~if1 :bb~taCles,'~. orbthermeasur~s'proven:t6 be s.afe arid eff~ctiye:~t, re'ducirig,trave! '
~~sp~~~~:;'.'.,.~,;:';'~;~<:'\\ /<'::~ .:. i'" , .'.:;,' '.'.' ;~; ."J,,';. :' ' " ,",0:- ;,,-<'..,,;~'> :., ~,'.. ' ,
,j:l~, 'Rrovide:atr,~'nspqrtatioh sYl?Jem thate(fecm,ely s~i:Yes:!hEt lle:ed's of ,ah,(:(enco!Jrage~;. . ~ "..' " .
~:p~9,e~tria~: ~,~6y~,lfand -~ti1er rfciri-fT1?tori.~edt~v~f:. ,,):J,:<;':, ,~':~',~;::....,:... "":',,,::. ':.....'" ,. .
;;t1?B;.~l;Isur~:thaide~l~,6ate<;l'Ce~t~rs ar~fwalkabl~,'a;',d ~riC9u~age ,cdrineptiyity.,: '" . ',' '" "
o<~ '~"".~,~""j,,__"_'C'-CL::-' ~'. ",,~ '," .','0 . ,",- ":. " . ""';; :~.r, ':,,< '; _", ".>:, :""".'_;
"
,
"
~
________~__ ___ __ __ _ 4_
7t~......~. - , '"
- - - - - . - --- - - -... --- - -
- ....- J.. '" ~
,,_~~ ,...l<"~'-.c
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH COMPo PLAN~~.~xhibit B
v. ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
The Manette Sub-Area Plan shall be sustainable in design and implementation.
· It is encouraged to enact sustainable development standards with concern of the
environment, increase the amount of public open space, and provide physical and visual
access to the shorelines through access improvements within the plan boundary. Sub-
area Plan Goals: CC5, PFP1, PFP2, PFP3.
· Streetscapes will be inviting, accessible, and functional for the neighborhood. Sub-area
Plan Goals: PFP1, PFP3, PFP4, VCC3, VCC4.
.~:.:;.._.:.. '" L ~$.:;_:_t"--.,.:- .-~.: "';..-!_,--"~~"S-'~'\')o_'("'; ,-,~,,~;, "t '. ,:", _i. '.", ,- . ~', .~. " <>"'"~--',~->'>:' -. "':_;':^~:t";"~-~'
"', :',:~, : City Of Bremertqi..- ~004 C<>lJIprehensive Plan ';Enviro.nmehf P9Ii'cie$.
:' ,~:. . '. _~'" . '~I} , . , 0'" ,< ,?'.-....> ":"_-,,'-, ~.r"'-"'=-_ 'f'. _ ,_.... ~. "t:'. "
~~8S;F.'rOvi.(;h~:;bOm:phY$!c~nlnd \tisu~1 accessJ() '::;~or,eiines';,~. ." .:.:.:;'~::<' .~" " ",/
i-'_..:-:',' .-;_ . "'_~:'" :.~ ~,>- ",'" '0" " "l, ., _~ _ _ . _ "".- ~.' ."...'-. "..' . '.'"
iE:1 08, End~'Ur~g~ d~l)se"d~ye!6pme!1t :~~Quhd'aesign~ted< C~nter~;':vvhich iQc?(po~ate c;>pen '
~ $~~G~..;: '>' ":" , ~. "-> >;;'.;';;:":,,;<:: > t',",' .' :.>". '~':t:. <,,', ,,;'- ~:' " ~_
:Ef1'C'.~ri~ourage.str~etscape~that ~r~ hUrnan;.s6~le,'enal:ll.ewalkJng,a!lcFbic:yclirigiJlnd.~re " '.' "
~:~s~Ii~~c~I~~ ftl.~?~!7-g~(~>..,~;. . .... '.':'C:':? . "',::, ,.~,..<:. :-.0::: "'"'. ',' "'.'::
. ,E,H'O; geat~;,siq,~walk~ a,n~ improved $hbl}ldet:~'aIOrig'rjght~of~,^,ays to':eraple wcil~ing:
-, .' " \- , -_:- -'. - - " ' '-- ~
.' ',;;~
n - '- ~It
%
~.,. ,"~ ..~~>. '., ""."
~r'~.:. ..' <. ~...~;' ,;,,""hG...1",-~_.t., .~, ,,;oi'~, ~.-Q"",_""""",', . ~!,.~."_:""",..,,,,~,.(~_.;j_,o
'_"'''',,- ",; . ,_~...~ ~. ",~_-,~"c_ ..=~r...',~, ,_,,-"~
vi. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
The community developed the commercial components of the Manette Sub-Area Plan to
align neatly with the comprehensive goals of the city. They focused on preserving the current
commercial uses while incorporating new uses that would better serve the community.
· Future economic growth should support the function, charm and eclectic nature of the
commercial core as it is today. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC1, CC3, VCC1, VCC2, VCC3.
· Locating live/work and extensive mixed use developments within the MCC zone will
generate more supportive functions of commerce by increasing the serving population.
Sub-area Plan Goals: CC4, VCC1, VCC2.
· Maintaining the consistency of the neighborhood by restricting development to 35' in
height. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC2, VCC2.
· Parking must be accommodative and attractive. Sub-area Plan Goals: VCC3, VCC4.
.-.' -, r -,~o-~.- r... ,~~, .~. ," ~ ,>" - .. .- " -,J' ~ . - . ~~ - \ -' . ",." ..~':-- .
'/~:,.CjiY~cjf,llreri1,er1orl200(coI1JPr:e#e,ns.iv~ P!~n ~:Ec~nQ.n.i~Oev~iQpme.nt'r~lici~~~, ':c. '~'-;
"c-'-'" "". ,,'(. " ""~ ~", ,~. ~ ',' '., ',', < -'. c,,~ . ~- .- - ..-. 'f
'~EC1~~Etls~r~:pL!sill~ss,i:Or:iihg.d~signa.ti~r\s~arEi inapprdp(ia!e:l?ci3tip,!s. ,'. >.,' ,:,. :,~' :,'
'., ....J ". " ;.r,;, '~-. ',^ ',' ,.,. :' . \ . -., c,~.. . , ". ".~ 'f. -.
:'~C2JV1aint~ir:i';fb~,;ex.is~~g'~5~et ()f'b~ing;a sl1iall city'~ithcoriveniehceano:quaiity; " ':;' 1~,: .:;., , ;,:
!~~~~~~~~:;\xeij..~iedOveiop~~.t$("~denti~1 :~~ibeiHt;~~~;~~! ~cliv1~e$))~,. :
.. ~ c''''''-,_",..~ .r<oi; "-,,,:::... ~&. .':>-' ..'-." ",.;:. ,"or ,""'......~..:::_:'""" ~::.PJ;'v.-;,,..., ~~ '::-""./,..;!'__ ~-C;.. I';'\~".> "..1' -;.-. ~-~._ . ._.,~: ,lI'~.__~<~~~. ""', !l'~.
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
C. PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH CaMP. PLAN CaNT...
vii. CITY SERVICES ELEMENT
The Manette Sub-Area Plan is the product of a community-based planning effort. To create
the plan the Key Communicators led the early information-sharing efforts, and the community-
at-large actively participated in public meetings. Both helped shape the visions and goals of
this plan.
· The sub-area plan for Manette calls for infill development that will keep with the scale,
nature, and charm of the neighborhood, further contributing the efficiency of services
within the City of Bremerton. Sub-area Plan Goals: CC2, CC4, PFP 1, PFP 2, PFP 4.
. Pedestrian centralized improvements will increase the safety and movement of people.
Sub-area Plan Goals: PFP1, PFP3, PFP4, VCC1, VCC3, VCC4.
.." ,'."~_j' ~<, ',. >',._ -'._ ."....".. ,r.." ,',"'.'"", ,~,' ';__ ,..<",,:.' -__~_'. ,.>. .~" -;, . ~ _~. . ""," , ~,
.\"" ','. :":;:city'bfBremer:ton~004 Compreiiensiv~.PI~n- CitY$ervic~~ P9Iicies",;';
". . , _ ,_' ,,_. ','., T - ".' -. ,_ .' . -. ','" ., ;J ~ _.}' . - - -,' <.:. " r ,
.C~~ Pro~ide m~anlbgf.ul;ppp6i1urJitiesJor' tornm~nlty il1Volvement, " ..,....,. .
':C$1SA ~m~,haS;~~'~b'~f~~irlityqf,,~eSig~withih:sub~are~'~of:th~Ci~,. e~'peci~flynl3ig~bOrho6dS.~
,~. - -., .t,.'" -...,,~~ . ~', .'" c. .-. _ "':' . . . '<_" ,_' ~.~__,.- ',". '-,' ;,-
, ":~' ~-:~., ;,irnprove:sid'e.walk$ throl:l9fi()utth~' CitY,. especj~lIy:ac~~sibil!tycfeatu~es.;- :', ,,:.,,~..: " . ,'. "
{_', + ..,' .'., --'__,~_'-~~. ':. ,. " ,', f' - -'., ._ .,.J- ; _' "', ' , '.~~_ ',' ,'~_ "'" ',.,,_'1 .. "-',,":'," "'~'>:.: ' .~ '>
,C;:~17B_Wor!<:,with:a'pprbpriatErCiW departl1)ertts to pro~uce and impl~rrientd~velopmen,L . "",
, stand'ards for neighborhood C1eveI9pm'ent. . , . " .;' .' :' '. , '.' ;:,' ',' '.," . '
". '" " '~. " , '0 . -', ... . '. , -, ~. - -. -, ; " F. ,- - -. ~ c -',- j ." ~ ',,' '. ." -", <
, j:\~'::Stre~s:s'afetY,.a~c~5s;..recreaijon; ~ndpede,stnahfl"ieh,dliness:" (,':;',:; ',' , '"
'" -:..,.<. ," ,'- -.,'-'" .' .,,," ~-,,' -",' ~ . .' '" , <-.~ -. ~ -~-'. - . ~~,' ,'.' --,",~- '-' ",'
. , ", ~:.;\"~~dr.e~s~ s~Ch;' tqpiS!). as:'li9hti'1g,si'd~~alk<an<i~~reerdeSigri: i~=~.,~,~ri~ertn,~I ~ssui:es'\
',', ....9onsi~t~hcy,~itb.thi,s.,comp~ehen.siv!3 Pia!).,' '. ':",,','
- - - - - - - - - - - - - _.- - - - - . - - - - - - - - .
~ "'" ~ , ... ,- .' ~ . .....: ~ "
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
PLAN LAND USE MAP & DESIGNATIOA'~rnate Exhibit B
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
D. PLAN LAND USE MAP & DESIGNATIONS Alternate Exhibit B
MANETTE CENTER CORE (MCC)
The Manette Center Core is centralized around the commercial areas of E 11 th and is
a total of 14 acres. The zone is constrained to the north mid-block between E 11th and
13th streets, to the south by 10th Street, to the east mid-block between Scott and Perry
Avenues, and to the West by Port Washington Narrows.
MANETTE TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL (MTR)
The Manette Transitional Residential is centralized around the center core totaling 14 acres.
The zone is constrained to the north by the Wheaton-Winfield triangle, to the west by the
Port Washington Narrows, and to the east by Pitt Avenue.
MANETTE lOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
The Manette Low Density Residential is centralized north of the MCC and is a total of 6
acres.
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
A. MANETTE CENTER CORE (MCC)
INTENT & PURPOSE
The intent ofthe Manette Center Core (MCC) zone is to implement the vision for this area established
by the Manette Sub-Area Plan principles and goals. The development standards for the central
core of this neighborhood center are to create a lively mixed-use and retail street frontage in a safe,
walkable environment, and to encourage pedestrian-scale building design. These regulations to
work in conjunction with the city's zoning code and other development regulations contained within
the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC). If provisions of this plan conflict with provisions elsewhere
in the BMC, the provisions of this plan will apply. When it is unclear which regulations apply, then
..' > the presumption will be that the regulations of this chapter take precedence, with the ultimate
, determination to be made by the Director.
""',
,. ,--
.'11('\
. \Jl.-J.
@
, <0'2
'.'~.
>~,
'19" ,
iL....:..: .
,..'-~"
.'/
~ L=;:r
~ _--- I
t~5'
'L;:?
, I(/::\V.
,.::I'd..
.Q:2"
~::-t .
l'L ,^
-.~
'.~J:
:,~'.
....~..
.' '(C'q~,
. @)'~
..,_:.JI.
'~u'
. "J ~ .
'>
~~"
.;~..
~'~{~F -
PROHIBITED USES
The following uses are prohibited:
(a) Light and heavy industrial/manufacturing uses;
(b) Drive-through facility;
(c) Automobile sales, service, repair or car wash;
(d) Storage of equipment and materials;
(e) Adult entertainment;
(f) Work release facility;
(g) Commercial surface parking lot not serving a
permitted use
(h) Outdoor storage. Storage is allowed only within
a fully enclosed permanent structure. Garbage
cans and dumpsters shall be placed in an enclosure
as per BMC 20.46.120. No garbage enclosure
shall be permitted between a street and the primary
pedestrian access of a building.
PERMITTED USES
The following uses are permitted:
(a) Bed and breakfast;
(b) Co-location of wireless
telecommunications facilities per
BMC20.46.140;
(c) Community facility;
(d) Drinking place;
(e) Entertainment use;
(f) Finance insurance and real estate;
(g) General office and business service;
(h) General retail;
(i) Hotel and lodging place containing ten
or fewer guest rooms;
U) Medical office and clinic;
(k) Museum and gallery;
(I) Park, playground and open space;
(m) Personal service;
(n) Physical Fitness and Health Club;
(0) Public administration;
(p) Residential as a secondary use;
(q) Restaurant;
(r) Theater;
(s) Veterinary clinic.
<.i()~'
~'
-~--'-'-
,':=:J .
.,?~.,
'0 \
\ .,
. ....-"J
. ! ...., (1'
, '--..:) l
'Jo'~ .
"J' 0'''.
" \.:1: '~
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
A. MCC CONTINUED....
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(a) Maximum building height: Thirty-five (35) feet.
(b) Front yard setback: No minimum front yard
setback. The maximum front yard setback shall
be ten (10) feet. At least eighty (80) percent of the
building's front facade shall meet the maximum front
yard setback.
(c) Side yard setback: Zero (0), except when
adjacent to the low density residential zone (R-10)
where a ten (10) foot setback is required for the first
story and a twenty (20) foot setback is required for
additional stories.
(d) Rear yard setback: Zero (0), except when
adjacent to the low density residential zone (R-10)
where a ten (10) foot setback is required for the first
story and a twenty (20) foot setback is required for
additional stories
(e) There is no maximum density for residential as
a secondary use.
(f) Maximum building coverage: Sixty (60) percent
base maximum; provided, that through the use of
any combination of the following, building coverage
may be increased up to eighty-five (85) percent
maximum by providing any of the following:
(1) Projects containing mixed-use (commercial
and residential): Twenty (20) percent bonus.
(2) Projects providing a pedestrian-oriented
plaza or area of at least one hundred fifty (150)
square feet along a pedestrian walkway, at
an intersection corner, bus stop, or other key
pedestrian area approved by the city. Such areas
shall contain seating for at least four (4) people,
a trash receptacle and three (3) or more of the
following: A pedestrian shelter, a drinking fountain,
a bike rack, pedestrian-scale lights, pavers on the
walkway surfaces, a kiosk, a street vendor station
providing food or beverages, trees, a statue or
sculpture, a public restroom, or other elements
that the city agrees would create a sense of place.
Interior courtyards with these amenities qualify if
they would be readily apparent and accessible to
pedestrians on adjoining sidewalks: Fifteen (15)
percent bonus.
Alternate Exhibit B
(3) Projects providing a through-block
corridor that facilitates pedestrian access
in a location approved by the city: Five
(5) percent bonus.
(4) Projects providing at least fifty
(50) percent of their required parking
underground or within the building:
Twenty (20) percent bonus.
(5) Projects providing green building
techniques and elements: Fifteen (15)
percent bonus
(g) Maximum development coverage:
Maximum coverage by impervious surfaces
seventy-five (75) percent; provided, that
through the use of any combination of the
mechanisms listed in subsections (f)(1)
through (5) of this section, up to ninety-
five (95) percent maximum development
coverage may be allowed.
(h) Height Measurement: The height of
a building or structure shall be measured
as the distance from the average final
grade to the highest point of the structure.
Exceptions: penthouse for elevators,
fi rewa lis , chimneys, and flagpoles may
exceed maximum height limits. None of
these exceptions to the height regulations
shall be used for advertising of any kind.
....---u---------r-------n-..
35 Fcet MAX ^
1 I
--------- ---------t""-77---
.., J
jVl)
B
L.:.::J
.:g
'.~
'@'
c.~.~
....:~.
A~
'.'~"'.".'"
'<':- - .,
. /'Y'::"
".nnn
.~.
::r::::::r .
,,~.
.~(0j
-"~
.,.~'
;'~''''...'
'';.'' --'
" .
_..~'.
,~- .
,'0,
;'J.oo
;"~.,,_.,'.
::!B
~,
(:@S .
~ ~ . - -
"
, ,
\1J~;"
" Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
A. MCC CONTINUED....
Alternate Exhibit B
DESIGN STANDARDS
The purpose of these design standards is to create a lively mixed-use and retail street presence in
",.' a safe, walkable environment, and to encourage pedestrian-scale building design. The following
design standards shall be applied to all new development or significant redevelopment. When
development involves the remodel or expansion of existing structures, the Director may modify
these requirements to reasonably fit the scope and scale of the remodel or expansion.
"' ,{
,.'QJJ
, ('(2\,'
',.:::1.
, ;~
,~,
,,@
~'"
,~.
, ,;-c:::: '
~
"~
'02>
,~""
, !~ru'l
,~,
.'~~.
'~,'
,'~'O
., .t "-
,I~'-
: fUl.,~ '
"~::'
;'d
",OF
" .', ~-)<i
,5
, 'c;:::::J; ,
e~
..'~~
':,(~\.<
~ ,^ ...; ,;
(1) Building Size. Structures shall not
exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square
feet gross floor area.
(2) Entrances. Building entrances shall
be easily identifiable from the street and
sidewalks. This may be accomplished
through the use of such features as:
Ornamentation and/or architectural
detailing around the door, recessing or
protruding the entrance area at least three
(3) feet, or including a canopy, portico or
overhang extending at least five (5) feet
over the sidewalk in the entrance area.
(3) Windows. Any ground floor facade
facing the public sidewalk(s) shall include
window(s) that allow views into interior
building spaces. At least seventy-five (75)
percent of all such facades, measured
to ten (10) feet above the sidewalk or
surface grade, shall be comprised of such
windows.
(4) Bulk. Building modulation shall be used
to reduce the appearance of mass and bulk
of the structure. This may be accomplished
through the additional setback of upper
floors by at least ten (10) feet, recessed
or protruding doorways, use of upper floor
balconies, or varied use of materials.
(5) Blank Facades. Building facades shall
not present a blank facade to view from
public rights-of-way, common parking areas,
or residential properties. Such facades may
be broken by windows, trellises, columns,
variations in plane, or other devices that
add variation and interest to the facade.
(6) Pedestrian Environment. All buildings
fronting on streets shall provide overhead
weather protection for pedestrians with a marquee,
awning, building projection or other permanent
structural element, over approximately eighty (80)
percent of the frontage of the subject property. The
weather protection must cover at least five feet of
the width of the sidewalk and be located a minimum
of ten (10) feet above the sidewalk. The width may
vary to accommodate street trees, streetlights, etc.
(7) PublicAmenities. At least one (1 ) ofthe following
amenities shall be required along any ground floor
facade facing the public sidewalk: Outdoor eating
areas; street furniture such as benches, bike racks
and trash receptacles; plantings in window boxes;
public art; or public display cases, or information
kiosks.
(8) Corner Treatments. Structures at the
intersection of two (2) streets shall include a
significant architectural feature at the building
corner that provides visual emphasis at the corner.
This may be accomplished through the inclusion of
a major entryway at the corner, a building element
the height of which varies from the remainder of the
building by at least ten (10) percent, or a plaza at the
corner that includes a fountain, artwork, or planting
of at least ten (10) feet in height.
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
A. MCC CONTINUED....
Alternate Exhibit B
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(a) Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter
20.48 BMC and
(b) Parking site design shall meet the following:
(1) Access to parking shall be provided from an
alley if available; and
(2) At least eighty percent (80%) of parking
spaces shall be located to the rear of a building
away from the primary pedestrian access.
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Shall meet the standards of BMC Chapter
20.50.050(C) Centers landscaping.
SIGN STANDARDS
Signs shall meet the standards of Chapter 20.52
BMC.
,,,,,'.
...:.
:.;~c~t
"@J>
,,(cl~:
i~
'~'
"3,
:.(2",
-~
>~".'
,',
"
'G2
..~...
.':~
,.,~'.
.~,'K3J, '."
"'-2:~!t'
.,'~
::;~".
.{g.
, .~ <.
,', ,,'>
'<', ,'._k- .
'W'
" .- ~- ,,>'
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
(1:;U"
;(ef
g
,~,
@
'~,'
~,,",
~, . ~ ',.
'n "
'iT?
,J~
,~':
"".~..,",.
:~
',',~.,
"tF~;
~'
",~
," f1J1.q .
:~,
, :,Fmil,
'; t.::..:J
,:'~@J"~
'Qd
,;cb=1
,:t::::::;:J
"',~
, "fL2::;.'
~ ~
.'8
'r::?,' '
'~'
,g
'.'. '
~"
. C:!i::!:i'".
Alternate Exhibit B
B. MANETTE TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL (MTR)
INTENT & PURPOSE
The intent of the Manette Transitional Residential (MTR) zone is to implement the vision for this
area established by the Manette Sub-Area Plan principles and goals. The area designated as
MTR is expected to accommodate new growth that will support the neighborhood center. It is the
intent of these regulations to work in conjunction with the city's zoning code and other development
regulations contained within the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC). If provisions of this plan
conflict with provisions elsewhere in the BMC, the provisions of this plan will apply. When it is
unclear which regulations apply, then the presumption will be that the regulations of this chapter
take precedence, with the ultimate determination to be made by the Director.
PERMITTED USES
The following uses are permitted:
(a) Bed and breakfast;
(b) Co-location of wireless
telecommunications facilities per BMC
20.46.140;
(c) Day care facilities
(d) Education, schools (K-12), and day
care facilities of twelve (12) or fewer
students;
(e) "Live-work units" with upstairs living
and downstairs work unit;
(f) Parks, playgrounds and open space;
(g) Residential uses of the following type:
(1) Group residential facility - Class I
(2) Nursing convalescent home
(3) Senior housing complex
(4) Single unit structure, attached or
detached
(5) Townhouses
(6) Zero lot line development;
(h) Worship and religious facilities of
fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet
gross floor area or less
ACCESSORY USES
The following accessory uses may be permitted
when found in connection with a principal use:
(a) Attached or detached accessory dwelling unit
per BMC 20.46.010;
(b) Detached garage, carport, and parking facilities
associated with the primary use of the property;
(c) Home occupation per BMC 20.46.030;
(d) Playhouses, patios, cabanas, porches, gazebos,
swimming pools and incidental permanently
constructed household storage buildings;
(e) Other necessary and customary uses determined
by the Director to be appropriate, incidental and
subordinate.
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21/2009
B. MTR CONTINUED....
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(a) Maximum building height: Thirty-five (35) feet.
(b) Front yard setback: Minimum front yard setback
shall be ten (10) feet.
(c) Side yard setback: Minimum side yard setback
shall be five (5) feet.
(d) Rear yard setback: Minimum rear yard setback
shall be ten (10) feet.
(e) Maximum development coverage: Seventy-
five (75) percent.
(f) Accessory Structures. The following standards
shall apply to all accessory structures, such as but
not limited to gazebos, cabanas, garages, carports,
and shops, excluding accessory dwelling units per
BMC 20.46.010:
(1) The maximum area for all accessory structures
shall be eighty (80) percent of the principal use
not to exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200)
square feet.
(2) Setbacks of detached accessory structures
are pursuant to BMC 20.44.060.
(g) Design Requirements for Detached Garages,
Storage Buildings and Shops:
(1) Structures shall be designed so that the
appearance of the building remains that of the
principal unit's character including the following:
(i) Constructed of similar materials as the
principal unit;
(ii) A roof of equal or greater pitch as the
principal unit;
(iii) A height no more than twenty-five (25)
percent greater than the principal unit not to
exceed thirty-five (35) feet.
(2) Vehicle Entrance Setbacks: When the
vehicle entrance faces the street, the structure
shall have a front yard setback of at least fifteen
(15) feet, except as provided in BMC 20.44.020
(Traditional Front Yard Setbacks).
.....--.---.-----r------..--. ,~.r.
35 Feet MA.X ^ I '. '(Gr'
~;:~~:;;;::-_I~:-=:~~,~
,S;:J:
L=:J'
...~)
"~
'R
:~7
.~
'~.:
nf1I}
"'..~.'..
.8.
,'@J'.
1::::\,
'0"
.:~.
'. ,!1fl.fj .'
>~
. prlll ,
.,,@
Alternate Exhibit B
(h) Height Measurement: The height of a
building or structure shall be measured as
the distance from the average final grade to .,
the highest point ofthe structure. Exceptions:
penthouse for elevators, firewalls, chimneys,
and flagpoles may exceed maximum height
limits. None ofthese exceptions to the height
regulations shall be used for advertising of
any kind.
ALLOWABLE DENSITY
(a) Minimum Density. The minimum
required density is five (5) dwellings per
acre.
(b) Maximum Density. The maximum
allowed density is fifteen (15) dwellings per
acre.
OFF-STREET PARKING
REQUIREMENTS
Off-street parking shall be provided in
accordance with the requirements set forth
in Chapter 20.48 BMC.
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Shall meet the standards of BMC Chapter
20.50.050(C) Centers landscaping.
--;'.
.:',',-,"
':~...
.:' .t::::J '.
'....S...::,
.~.
~..
'.'.&'
.Q'
"
".~.,.
:'< Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
.!~
(0\
~;
. !~
" -'--.....,.
~,
'@
~
'-=J
~...
P
.~...
~.:
~.
.nn,q
'~~'.'
B
:"'~'
, ,TlJl.ll.
'~.'.;
v
.j1rul
.',(2)::,
....;,
',bb:
c::;::::i "
C:::J "
, ,I
'~',rs'
,'~~
<'~'
" ,. '1/(;'[' .
~'
" "~ ,
:<~.,:
B. MTR CONTINUED....
SIGN STANDARDS
Signs shall meet the standards of Chapter
.',0 20.52 BMC and the following:
(a) Freestanding Signs
(1) Sign Area. The maximum area of
freestanding sign shall be limited to fifty
(50) square feet.
(2) Number of Signs. Only one (1)
freestanding sign is allowed per each
street frontage.
(3) Height. The height of a freestanding
sign shall not exceed six feet.
(b) Building Signs
(1) Sign Area. Signs attached to a
building may have an aggregated area
that shall not exceed one (1 ) square foot
for each one (1) lineal foot of building
fac;ade width.
(2) Maximum Sign Size. The aggregate
area of all building signs, projecting
signs, and other signs attached to
buildings shall not exceed one hundred
(100) square feet.
(3) Number of Signs. The number of
signs is limited to one (1) sign per street
frontage per business.
(c) Illumination.
(1) When sign is located adjacent to the
low density residential zone, the sign
shall not be illuminated between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(2) Signs may be illuminated directly,
indirectly, or internally, providing the
lighting is directed away from other land
uses, and away from on-coming traffic.
(3) Moving, flashing, or animated signs
are prohibited.
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
c. MANETTE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-10)
INTENT & PURPOSE
Inclusion of an area designated Low Density Residential (R-10) within the Manette sub-area plan
was considered an important aspect of the plan. The R-10 area is closely related to the core
yet contains a cohesive neighborhood that the community felt was not appropriate for additional
density or commercial development. The area was included in the plan boundary for the purpose
of analyzing traffic flow and consideration of overall street improvements only. Therefore it is not
anticipated that this plan will regulate this residential area any differently than the City's currently
adopted zoning regulations
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
All development regulations are pursuant to BMC
Chapter 20.60, Low Density Residential (R-10)
:,[,,"
: {~:
"@"
'.0.....
. .
.g
. >::.J
,.~,
"@.
.~.
~.
" <lC
. .fL:2."
l.,r--I.
.~"
'p,
'~.
.~,
g
ES
...~....
;~
.~.
:n:J1Jl
, L.....:J
(~,
'.'6'
'): ,,','"
.00'
c:::::::J .'
:.... :.'.c::::::Jc::J~.)' '. .'......
. ...."
..' c.
:' L:::'l .
.,l?'
il/;0
\JU'
@
(z-c:
~
(q
~.
~
G==J
(Vi)
,~
i1ful
.,~
i'cl,
@
2J
. [1Ilq
~" .
,r:::::
'~
@
00
~J
c::::::J
. c::=J .
~
6
<.~
.'~
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
D. STREET STANDARDS
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
D. STREET STANDARDS
ROADWAY EXPECTATIONS
The street standards section of the sub-area plan
describes the community expectations within the
streetscapes of Manette.
The map on the left facing page depicts the commu-
nity's vision for the improvements needed to make
this neighborhood center more pedestrian friendly.
Details of each street designation are contained
within the following pages.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Manette currently experiences a high volume tran-
siting the bridge through East 11 th Street. Residents
have expressed the desire for right-of-way improve-
ments that will calm the traffic and ease pedestrian
movement throughout the neighborhood.
Current right-of-way widths within the commercial
core vary from 54 feet to 60 feet. These widths are
consistent for a neighborhood center and are suffi-
cient for the improvements envisioned for the plan.
Right-of-way widths for the neighborhood streets
average 40 feet.
The center's current amenities include 5-foot side-
walks and parallel parking throughout the neighbor-
hood.
Alternate Exhibit B
~ ,,.'>It ~, . -,. ," ,< '-' ,. _ ,
:'~
'lo\"
. c=J
,'@5
.,~,
,,@
.'~,'
, "L::::J
;~'
, on r,\
',~.
..~.
'(~,
",' L-.:-J
:~
~'
.'.~:,
;@,
'~
,.,~",.".,
,,',
'<.: 11
",@-
:~ ~/~; ,~:_i '., ", '
c',bd _
Ef
".',' I_
. - ,
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
D. STREET STANDARDS - COMMUNITY BOULEVARD
INTENT & PURPOSE DESIRED AMENITIES
These streets serve the core commercial As the primary circulation streets within Manette,
area and are intended to be the pedestrian the Community Boulevard should include many
primary streets, yet they are also the amenities to make it a desirable streetscape, such
primary streets that move vehicles through as:
the area. The streets should be designed · Decorative pedestrian-scale streetlights placed
in a manner encouraging safe pedestrian at 25' intervals.
movement, ease of vehicular use, and also · Street trees planted within the sidewalk area,
serve the local businesses with additional while maintaining ADA accessibility.
parking. · Hanging baskets.
· Pavers or decorative paving.
· Planters.
DESIGN STANDARD · Street furnishings.
The existing right-of-way width for these · Information kiosks & wayfinding signage.
streets is 60 feet. Improvements should be · Public art.
made to re-configure on-street parking from · Utilization of sidewalks by local businesses for
parallel to angled spaces and the sidewalk uses such as outdoor dining.
width should be increased to at least 10 · Use of low impact development (LID)
feet. techniques such as pervious pavement.
SEE FIGURE 1
,\%,
@'.
, r;.,'Q
6
(~
.@'
~.
,~: D. STREET STANDARDS - MULTIMODAL STREETS
::~" INTENT & PURPOSE DESIRED AMENITIES
.~' These streets serve Manette's core The multimodal streets serve the businesses within
@' commercial area and they are intended to Manette and are utilized by pedestrians, non-
'j~' be pedestrian friendly, they are narrower motorized users, and automobiles. They should
.' '~'.,', than the "C~mmunity Boulevard" and serve include many amenities to make it a desirable
J::;;5 a lower traffic volume. streetscape, such as:
. .~, ", · Decorative pedestrian-scale streetlights placed
, 0 c. DESIGN STANDARD at 25' intervals.
,.' ,.' The existing right-of-way width for these · Street trees planted at the back of sidewalk if
, .~. streets is 54 feet. The desired sidewalk ample width is not available to accommodate
;' '~"'" width is at least 5 feet. Some of these streets ADA accessibility.
f,~.~ have the opportunity to be utilized as part of · Hanging baskets.
':@} the "Non-Motorized-Transportation" network · Pavers or decorative paving.
:>7'6:6> and therefore "sharrows" (which are "shared · Planters.
'~~, right-of-ways" between bikes and cars) · Street furnishings.
.~.<,i.':.i~ should be encouraged where appropriate. · Sharrows (bike lanes).
'. ...... · Use of low impact development (LID)
'. Cl . techniques such as pervious pavement.
, -<3 ~
..(CLi SEE FIGURES 2-5
. ~ ,".'
"ZI3-" "
:.' .-'
,'~ ,~> ~ i'
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
D. STREET STANDARDS - NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS
INTENT & PURPOSE DESIRED AMENITIES
Neighborhood streets serve the residential areas As these streets serve the residential areas
surrounding the commercial core of Manette. These of Manette, improvements should not give
are low-speed streets not intended to serve large the impression of a major commercial area.
volumes of traffic. The design goal for these streets Encouraged are improvements such as:
is to allow pedestrians to feel comfortable walking · Street trees planted at the back of
and using the streetscape. sidewalk.
· Use of low impact development
(LID) techniques such as pervious
pavement.
SEE FIGURE 6
DESIGN STANDARD
The existing right-of-way width for these streets is
40 feet. The desired sidewalk width is at least 5
feet.
D. STREET STANDARDS - TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Some areas of Manette may require the use of traffic calming features. The intent of this section is
to identify the measures that are supported by the neighborhood. Traffic calming measures should
be utilized where Neighborhood Streets connect with Multimodal Streets and the Community
Boulevard.
Corner bulb-out; either a partial or full extension
of the line of the curb into the vehicular right of way
or parking lane. The bulb-out can be placed on one
side or both sides of the intersection. This feature
is primarily used to reduce the width of street at
pedestrian crossings and to improve the visibility
between pedestrians and drivers. Bulb-outs should
be implemented generously on pedestrian primary
streets such as E 11 th Street, and Harkins.
. A mid-block
: crossing
combined with
a bulb-out can
reduce jaywalking
activities and
, pedestrian contact
with traffic by
~ having a narrowed
street width at the
. crossing. They
also slow oncoming traffic through the crosswalk, increasing
pedestrian and driver visibility.
i~
~,
, (02"
'. <----.J '
'c::2 '
~-:o-J
,/~.
,~.~
"~..
,,:>.,-<: .
:'.'l~
::f~
. ",. ,:/1.1. .
~"~'-..
.' c:._':
".~...';:~ :' .
::/'~
",;" .
, / ~!!:!J .
......'.~. '.
; ;f'
.. 'c .
,:~
'c~:
:; i1:ul
"~,~-. .
.;",.,Q
;~
.'~."'@~'"
'.'-~' 0'
, "
.~.'V ~ ,.'
';/,c :
':;,\~~
, /Z\?:.
I-">:"";~
. 6"" . c,
,;.c,":;
oW
, Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
" , Alternate Exhibit B
'.D. STREET STANDARDS - FIG. 1 COMMUNITY BOULEVARD
'1'."- ,
", -c ~ <
. ,> ,~<
. ,
"
, Q'li)'
.@
,-v-l .
o
,~.
'~':J.
;@
;.'~'
',,0S
p
:cvu
r '
.12'
~:
~
"~'~
.~'
@
. ';=Jl
,fmI1"
.~
" pnq
.@,
"
. QO'
- c::::J _
- , c:::J '
,,: J
"p
-,~..
~,'
6
. '
'. '
"00
, '
, .</<
~.
22'
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
D. STREET STANDARDS - FIG. 2 MULTIMODAL STREETS
NOTE: OPTION A - ANGLE PARKING, NO SHARROW
" ,
, ~ ~. '"
~ . 11'7,\'
. I.J;...J
c@
,,~,
,~:'
:@;
i~':
"'~'
'.J, ',.',
!~"
;i ,
"?,,
"'~I'
,,'2.5'.
" ;1;lJ 1,.
~,
.':=-s'"
. ''0'\,
or6i,
~~~'
, 'lLUY:
.~,'
\'~,
'B.
,'(~'~'
"y&""
.( '. .,>
';2-::J.
:"p~~".:,;
..:~~/
'~:':b'~
-:'c, .'_-,
.'~ '" ;,' Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan ~ Planning Commission Hearing Draft ~ April 21,2009
-,~ '. -'.
t., .
. ,
,', ,.
~,~.,
[e)
'<~'
:@,
;@,.
0S'
T~<
:"~)
.....~....
,,~,
'~~
:~
~'c
'~l
'(~1";
.. . (--~
',;(X):
;:~'
.c::::;J .
';:,,~.,'
':.(O~~ '
::;~,'."",
'I~'
:; ~re .
Alternate Exhibit B
D. STREET STANDARDS - FIG. 3 MULTIMODAL STREETS
4.
d~\
r~'}~
/) \/'
i(U)~1
\':) ~
~~.
~~
Ii.....;.~
H~
)f@I~'"
((u\ !~\)
\!) v
. .
~ 14 g' ~ 14 5' ~ I
26'
NOTE: OPTION B . PARALLEL PARKING WITH SHARROW '
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 2t 2009
Alternate Exhibit B
D. STREET STANDARDS - FIG. 4 MULTIMODAL STREETS
"-~
(U ~'
f(tl)
rJ'0
~~_~~&;;Jt~'-:i;\;~tl:'~wr
~
16'
.,,,
:1r.~f1 ','
\JU'
"(2\'
'.----1 (
:::':::1 '
'~
"Q
"~
';3\'
:' .:,::::.1 ,
"::::::-1
'~'
~.
C2
. Q0).
':~'
'.~
.~
, [1:'"L: 1
'----0
',[;2
:,'~
'(~'
~~.
d
:htln .
L.:J
c--....
., ?:--!..
,rILl
,@
"
on .
. ::::::5'
c=::J
0. r--I....
:L-.,:
!~'
r2'~L
.;~.
~~.
.:;ia\.....
. '---'
\. ., - <
> :,!-,' ','
, ,
, .
;; "
.c0U'
.,-:@..
'-~.
.~
,~
~',.'
.~
'..~.
.~-
:'~
. I1flJl'
;~J
,.~._,..,.
..... , .,
~"fO " <
~:
'I
,@}
'00
c:~::),
~.
,...~...
'~
~.~.,
'.- ~
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009
Alternate Exhibit B
D. STREET STANDARDS - FIG. 5 MULTIMODAL STREETS
~'~~~():nt~'!'~lJ.
, '
ii';fj;".{;. ~ *.~
I 9'
.. ..
17'1010'1
.. .. ..
9' I
.. ..
22'
NOTE: OPTION D - PARALLEL PARKING & VARIED SIDEWALK WIDTH
Citizen Recommended Manette Sub-Area Plan - Planning Commission Hearing Draft - April 21,2009 ,"
Alternate Exhibit B
D. , STREET STANDARDS - FIG. 6 NEIGHBORHOOD STS
'".J ;.-;_~;;;;.,_{;",:;-~>',:,:,
22'
_14 8' -145' _I
14 5'-1-
.'t~;r
.,2\
'--.--J
,~;i,
',' !5..::J "
(:;(
. :"--,.J',
;~c'
'~-,-J ,.'
:~
,,~,
, ,<1 C.
~.
i ;::::r
, , ~ ''':\
'\~:)
'~
7-' '
, ( :.6,
:CL'T
,'~'
',~,
~',~
:?L
, .--.! '
'.,',,~Qc,..'"
,', \ "
.\~ ,,'
,'i!9,,'
,~>.
"-U1:1
",--...--.:....'.
:0\
, 'J':)
'->,.-...-...-,.
.~'
"'C::;::V
c:::::;J
: -r" '- '
:"~
" i,r:::::.'
..3,
, " . ;;---J
r:;; ,-I.
~~>
~cs .
" ,'.'''.;''" .
.:;.~
NOTE: IF ADDITIONAL ROW IS AVAilABLE, PREFER PARKING BOTH SIDES ;.;"
Produced By City ofBremertol1 Department ofCom11luni~v Development
345 Sixth Street, Suite 600, Bremcrton Washington 98337 - 360.473.5275
49
-:-H
The Manette Neighborhood Center
serves the well-defined Manette
neighborhood east of the Port
Washington Narrows. The Manette
peninsula is characterized by dense
single family residential neighborhoods
that enjoy spectacular views to the
I S NE1!t.. claSEet nt~o
Br 0 d t '. The ca
an desi c s this ent
will respect both of these characteristics.
Perhaps more than any other center in
Bremerton, this center will have the feel
and look of a traditional small-town
downtown. In the Center Core, along
11th Street and vicinity, residential uses
above traditional sidewalk-facing
storefronts will be encouraged. Heights
at the core will not typically exceed
three or four stories. The core area will
provide an attractive environment for
small shops, restaurants, and specialty
businesses.
Citl( of Bremerton Comvrehensive Plan
Land Use Element
EXHIBIT C
Essential neighborhood services such as
small grocery and professional offices
will also be accommodated. This area
will become a destination for people
from the entire community as it
develops a unique character.
Immediately outside of the core area,
this Center will encourage an increase in
residential density by strategically
placing small apartment structures and
townhomes in a way that protects the
views of others while preserving their
own views. Duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes will locate towards the low
density edge of the Center.
~~!-"~:\t:.t~_.~~~~~:::{; r~1+~r;m~;~1~E""'::n~~
\\\'"':';''' .J5.~~' " 'Jr/d~fP f ll;l'r"~''::;:.'.~...~_J~lr::.-~.lt~-::!'l}.
~ l~t:' ..rt0(~':z.";z,,;':..........~~..;: -:.~:~ .;:tP':>!!;~.l1.Ja:~~.
. ,....' '\i" "'" ~I:-"--' -, ..-..~ I ~d.. m ,r,;:l.",...:'. ~ ,,,-..;, i '
'~~l7!~);~-',:~i:~~~~f.~~;~~~~~~;}~!$~!~
,.'!i _ .'il~' ,. ,. c., -'-0-1 ,~,...", In .c,' I ,k "'~' ::J,r:;.:
~'.'f ~ - -~,ilir;.:t.: .~i~~I. .:;~ _' ~';:;~1 ~ ..,~;. ;. - . )~31,~.;;
,'~~:"-';j".~~, J.;~:l'",,:~--:':-~"'''-i-:;-1'. fk':'~!j;;
. \ ~':; fr~ "~." ~':;::~.~J:~,;.~~ r ~~']'~J; ~ _ :J~ ~~'jr.~
!, ,to j' ,..._J,~~., r '~--."-;'-,""'1 >;;;l"~otI7~'~'~'r-:~1
. ,-}:~,...::!._~-:. :::;:?L~':;~::J.r;~':,;~1.~~.i pg}~.~~1:'!~
. 'j _ ......,.:I! ., ,'7' Q.j-" f---f.. ~"J:" ',. ..'1' ,- 1--- -_"l_...:-~tf'o 1
I~~~), T;:i~::;~~~ "~~;~!.~:.~~ ~ I~'l~i~f.:~'~~,
I ,I II ; ~.. 'J ,. -: " "- .'j ..,', ,~{ -, . e.r!J ".'
.- ~. :.'~':;-~;7;lj;';~:~~ld>~::i='~~~~t;~~
\.. :'\ -'''', -,;- At -""'-u4 -..; .t.a:;J,- I ,1 I.'...l
";'~:i)t~~;~;~~i~l?l
ED
Tile Manette Center willllccommodate approxi-
mately 1-320 residents within 33 acres.
Employment will grow to as many as 430
persons.
LU-ll
49
The Manette Neighborhood Center
serves the well-defined Manette
neighborhood east of the Port
Washington Narrows. The Manette
peninsula is characterized by dense
single family residential
neighborhoods that enjoy
spectacular views to the Narrows,
Sinclair Inlet, downtown Bremerton
and other points.
The scale and design
characteristics found within the
Sub-Area plan respect both of
these characteristics. Perhaps more
than any other center in Bremerton,
this center will have the feel and
look of a traditional small-town
downtown. In the Center Core,
along 11th Street and vicinity,
residential uses above traditional
sidewalk-facing storefronts will be
encouraged. Heights at the core will
not exceed three stories with a 35'
height maximum. The core area will
provide an attractive environment
for small shops, restaurants, and
specialty businesses.
Citv of Bremerton ComDrehensive Plan
Land Use Element
EXHIBIT C
Essential neighborhood services
such as small grocery and
professional offices will also be
accommodated. This area will
become a destination for people
from the entire community as it
develops a unique character.
Immediately outside of the
commercial core area, this center
will encourage an increase in
residential density in a way that
protects the views of others while
preserving their own views.
For more specific information
regarding the Manette
Neighborhood Center please see
the City's 'Manette Neighborhood
Center Sub-Area Plan' adopted by
Ordinance #
LV-It
City of Bremerton
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub-Area Plan
Comment Table as of 4/21/09
Page - 1 -
Comment # Received Plan Comment! Revision Response
Page
1 4/7/09 N/A Allow a single land owner to build up to 45' The community does not want heights to exceed 35'.
in the MCC, only awarding this to the first See Part II Section B.LCC2 & B.iiLVCC2
landowner to get an approved building plan
creating an incentive for re-development.
Up zone the LOR from R-10 to R-15 ZoninQ This desiQnation was applied by the community as R-10.
OCO has achieved a fair and balanced Thank you.
solution with an unexpected level of success
for the Plan
2 4/8/09 20 15000 SF is too large of a footprint. The plan states that MCC Building size shall not exceed
15,000 SF aross floor area. See Part III Section A.1
19 Mid-block transitions between MCC and The city added the 10' set back into the plan to provide
LOR should be limited. A 10' setback is not a buffer from the MCC properties adjacent to LOR.
adequate. Additional stories are required a 20' setback. See Part
III Section A.b, A.c, A.d.
26 Encourage angle parking in front of This has been addressed in Street Standards Section.
businesses. See Part III Section D
3 4/8/09 Plan effectively destroys JBL Habitability, These uses have been non-conforming since the
Superior Glass, Motorcycle Repair Shop... adoption of the 2005 Zoning Code. The Commission
may consider expanding the permitted use list.
Plan removes parking lot for boatshed Stand-alone off site parking lots are prohibited in all
areas of the City. The current use is grandfathered in.
The community did not express a desire to zone for
parking, the desire was to be a pedestrian friendly
walkable community. See Part II B.iiLVCC4
Mid-block crossings combined with bulb- Comment Noted
outs would reduce available parking
Traffic calming islands do not reduce Comment Noted
speeds
City of Bremerton
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub-Area Plan
Comment Table as of 4/21/09
P 2
age- -
Full on-site parking should be required The plan requires that all parking shall meet the
standards of BMC 20.48 which require onsite parking.
See Part III Sections A, B, & C Parkina Standards
4 4/8/09 Current plan will not likely increase The City of Bremerton will meet the growth targets
population, within the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. Growth
expectations have exceeded the Comp Plan across the
City as a whole.
Current plan will not maintain current See Part II Section B.iii.VCC1
eclectic mix of occupancies
Current plan will not protect views City Staff does not have the resources to develop strict
design standards for view protection ordinances. Future
developments will be required to meet the goals and
development requirements found throughout the plan.
See Part II Section B.i.CC2 & B.i.CC3
Plan does not address transportation flow Comment Noted - The new bridge will land generally in
off of new bridae the same location.
There is a lack of community open space The Plan clearly defines the communities' vision for
within the plan more open space throughout the center. See Part II
Section B.ii.PFP2 & PFP4
Missing transition between zones The city added the additional setback requirements into
the plan to provide a buffer for the LOR properties
adjacent to MCC. Additional stories are required a 20'
setback. See Part III Section A.b, A.c, A.d.
Making everything the same height does Comment Noted
nothing to protect or enhance views
Open space, circulation, parking, All permits submitted to the Oept. will be strictly
architectural character, view protection, and reviewed under the guidelines and development
sustainability are currently lacking proper standards of the plan.
direction and review processes.
City of Bremerton
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub-Area Plan
Comment Table as of 4/21/09
P 3
age - -
Proposed regulations would render several These uses have been non-conforming since the
businesses and buildings non-conforming adoption of the 2005 Zoning Code. The Commission
may consider expandino the permitted use list.
5 4/8/09 7 Photos on page are meant to illustrate Comment Noted
community character. However the
Development Standards preclude this form
of development from happenino.
16 No transition from high density to low This designation was applied by the community as R-10.
density. LOR designation should be
chanaed to MTR
16 MTR zone should be expanded to include The community had the opportunity to vote on the
areas between Upper Shore Drive and designations.
Perry Avenue (as a consistent buffer).
16 MTR should be expanded to include existing The community had the opportunity to vote on the
condo project to north along waterfront and designations.
south of 11 th on the west side of Perry
bounded by 10th Street
Building size, heights, and parking These are the desires of the community for the
standards are too restrictive in combination. community plan. See Part II Section B.i.CC1, B.i.CC2,
B.iii.VCC2, B.iii.VCC4
18 The 'Permitted Uses' section looks like a The community desires small quaint development to add
wish list and is really not possible with the to the variety of what is currently there. See Part II
development standards as proposed. Such Section B.i.CC1 and B.iii.VCC3
as Hotels & lodging place, Museum or
gallery, physical fitness and health club,
restaurants, theater, and veterinary clinic.
19 Height limits should be set to 45' in keeping The community does not want heights to exceed 35'.
with the higher density center (vs. 35' in See: Part II Section B.i.CC2 & B.iii.VCC2
MTR and LOR)
City of Bremerton
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub-Area Plan
Comment Table as of 4/21/09
P 4
aQe- -
19 Maximum building coverage should be There are bonuses available to expand building
increased to 95-100% by bonuses. coverage from 60% to 85%. The Commission may
consider increasing the values of the incentives listed in
MCC f(1)-f(5) p.19
20 The 15,000 SF structure maximum should A main goal of the community was to keep with the
be removed from the MCC code. current scale of the neighborhood.
See Part II Section B.i.CC1
20 The public amenities requirements could A main goal of the community was to provide more
easily cause unintended consequences... to active outdoor activities.
many kiosks, benches, etc or to few See Part II Section B.ii.PFP4
21 There should be some provision that if Comment Noted.
underground parking is involved, the
parkinq area can cover/occupy 100% of lot.
21 A neighborhood parking standards code Comment Noted.
should be developed taking into account the
unique nature, walkability, and
neiqhborhood scale of center projects.
22 Multi-family residential developments should Attached Single Unit structures are allowed.
be allowed to be separated vertically and See Part III Section B - 'Permitted Uses' g.4
horizontially for desiqn flexibility and variety.
24 Why is there a sign standards section in the The Sign Standards of the MCC and MTR zone must
MTR and not the MCC? The building sign meet City Standard sign code (BMC Chapter 20.52).
area is too large for the MTR zone Additional Sign Standards have' been introduced into the
MTR zone due to the addition of Live/Works as a
permitted use. The sign size is based on the width of the
buildings fagade.
See Part III Section B - 'Sign Standards' b.1, b.2, b.3.
6 4/8/09 17 MTR description does not match map. The text has been corrected in the PC Hearing Draft
Plan.
City of Bremerton
Manette Neighborhood Center Sub-Area Plan
Addition to Comment Table 6/3/09
Page 5
Comment # Received Plan Comment! Revision Response
Pa e
7 5/4/09 Parking, Height, and Setback restrictions The community does not want heights to exceed 35'.
will likely decrease any feasibility within See Part II Section B.LCC2 & B.iiLVCC2
opportunity sites due to the high cost of The plan requires that all parking shall meet the
developing. standards of BMC 20.48 which require onsite parking.
The citizen plan freezes the Manette Comment noted.
Business district as it is. A neighborhood
without rowth cannot be vibrant.
8 5/4/09 16 Please include 1112, 1114, & 1118 Perry Citizens were very specific about the Plan boundary
Avenue into the Commercial boundary, as it area. City Council has the opportunity to address this
is currently adjacent to the proposed & request during the Public Hearing on June 3, 2009.
current boundary.
9
5/4/09
Make no changes to the neighborhood.
Comment #1
From:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Angela Kissler-Strauss
Lindsey Sehmel;
the Manette re-zone
Tuesday, April 07, 2009 7:18:55 PM
Lindsey, we wanted to let you and the city know that we love what has been done
with the Manette Sub-Area Plan. You had a tremendously dificult task of
coalescing 2000 highly polarized opinions into some type of compromising plan.
We believe you have achieved a balanced and fair solution with an unexpected
level of success. One side of crazy people wanted a ridiculous and unworkable 25'
height limit (see Manchester in PO for all the problems and litigation a 25' height
limit can cause), and the other side of crazy people that wanted to destroy one of
the most livable and pleasant single family neighborhoods in all of the Puget
Sound Region by turning it into condo-town. Your proposed plan seems to fit the
needs of the Manette neighborhood remarkable well, allowing for a significant
increase in density while preserving the uniquely positive and longstanding
character of the Manette neighborhood, and simultaneously dealing
with some ongoing concerns such as traffic calming, view preservation, and
parking.
We believe it's bad form to complain when someone gets a 99 out of 100, so if
your not interested in constructive criticism please stop reading now. However, if
you are interested in finding out what improvements could be made we have two
suggestions.
First, allow a single land owner to build to 45' in the MCC, awarding this privilage
to the first landowner to get an approved building plan from the communty
development dept. We believe this would create an immediate and lucrative
incentive for re-development of Manette. Also, it would encourage landowners to
investigate the feasibilty of investing in the Manette neighborhood, which we feel
could only be positive. Even if a landowner lost the race to plan acceptance, we
feel the investigation of potential for development in the area would encourage
2nd, 3rd and 4th placers to build anyway (at 35' max).
Second, we feel the RIO zoning of the LDR area could be R15, but we do not own
Comment #1
property in this area, and when speaking to people who do (with one obvious
exception) they all seem to like their neighborhood just the way it is.
Thank you all for your dedication and perseverence in developing the Manette
Sub-Area Plan. Your efforts will be appreciated for years (decades?, centuries?)
to come. You, and the rest of the cities' staff have shown a remarkable ability to
keep a level head in a sea of chaos.
Thanks again,
John Strauss & Angie Kissler
Comment #2
From:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
. Ryan Malane
Lindsey Sehmel;
Comments for Manette .Sub-Area
Wednesday, April 08,20093:42:59 PM
Hi Lindsey,
A quick FYI - your email address is misspelled as "Shemel" instead of "Sehmel" in the
hyperlink from the pink box on your web site. Sending to that address results in a
returned email. Who knows how many comments might have been missed?
As to the plan, overall I think there are some great aspects to it. I would have liked to see
more residents from the affected area involved in the actual discussions. I think many
residents are still unaware of how this will impact their community.
My comments are below:
- 15000 Square feet is too large a footprint. Manette does not need any more of that sized
building, and 15000 is completely opposite from the scale that residents have requested
from this plan. Most buildings in the current commercial core are less than half that size.
- The language in the proposal reads that the MTR zone borders Scott to the East, yet the
map does not reflect this. This needs clarification.
- Mid-block transitions between MCC and LDR (R-10) should be limited. It doesn't
make sense to split the block between Pitt and Scott from 11 th to 13th between MCC and
LDR. This offers no meaningful buffer from commercial to low-density residential and
puts the remaining single family residences too close to potential commercial uses. A 10-
ft setback is not adequate. All other splits are either 1) at existing commercial sites
around existing residential; 2) at a street; or 3) between MCC and MTR zoning.
- Where street widths allow, angled parking in front of businesses should be encouraged
to promote the feel of a shopping/restaurant destination as well as increased parking.
Comment #3
From:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Jane Rebelowski
Lindsey Sehmel;
Manette Sub Area Plan
Wednesday, April 08,20094:04:50 PM
The description of boundaries of and map of boundaries is inconsistent. In addition Scott
and Perry are Aves, not Streets
Your plan is inconsistent with participants desires to maintain existing businesses and
help them thrive. Your plan effectively destroys JBL Habitability, Superior Glass,
Motorcycle Repair shop, and removes parking lot for Boatshed. These are the longest
serving businesses in Manette. You have prohibited their use in the MCC yet almost all
. participants except the architects and planners strongly supported maintaining existing
businesses as a top priority.
It appears that the main focus is multi-family. I am very concerned that full on site
parking is not required. By including areas within the MCC that do not front arterials you
are opening up this entire area for severe traffic calming needs. Your plans are incorrect
as to the r/w widths of several neighborhood streets that you intend to dump multi-family
and commercial traffic on.
"Traffic calming landscape islands" do not reduce speeds as your verbiage implies unless
installed in a series. Their primary function is to reduce severity of collisions at
intersections. Midblock crossings combined with bulb-outs would reduce available on
street parking. The blocks length in the commercial area is quite short as it is. If you are
really trying to encourage commercial activity this would hurt business parking. This
would only be appropriate If you are trying to create Poulsbo Place or another phase of
East Park.
I
Comment #4
8 April 2009
RE: Draft Manette Sub Area Plan
Dear Planning Commission,
First I would like to thank the Bremerton planning staff, especially Lindsey Sehmel and Andrea Spencer,
for pursuing the Manette Sub Area Plan. The challenge presented by the Manette Neighborhood
Coalition and vocal residents was daunting. Their ability to keep the process moving forward and their
understanding was invaluable to the success of this process. Unfortunately the plan is not complete.
Additional provisions are needed to realize a plan that will meet the neighborhood vision and
comprehensive plan concepts. Fortunately they have been able to keep all together and set the stage
for the next step.
The Sub Area Plan process is an opportunity to incorporate unique solutions to common zoning issues.
The Manette plan starts this process, yet does not realize the issues of the residents or the
comprehensive plan. The current plan will likely not increase population, maintain the current eclectic
mix of occupancies and architecture or protect views. Yet all is attainable in an environmentally.
sustainable design.
Additionally the plan does not address the new bridge connection. This is paramount in the distribution
of traffic through Manette. There are several viable solutions. This needs to be incorporated into the
plan. Inter neighborhood connections through Manette are important. As well as traffic calming
measures, some of which are incorporated in the current plan.
When I look at the plan, the first thing I notice is the lack of community open space. A center should
have a gathering area. There are opportunities for public as well as private open space that need to be
incorporated, yet I see no provision for this. After all, where will Manette Fest and other activities
occur? Without interfering with arterial transportation. It is possible, we can make it better.
I am also concerned about the zoning designations and regulations for the area. In addition to missing
transition and multi-family zones, there are some issues with the proposed regulations that would
render several business and buildings nonconforming. My understanding is the current development is
acceptable and desirable, yet the proposed codes would render several buildings nonconforming as well
as some occupancies (albeit grandfathered).
It would also be very difficult to develop small parcels, which is desirable. It would be virtually
impossible to add a second story to Kate's subs, or any other building along 11th. Unless one owned the
entire block, demolish it, and erected a new building(s). Is that Manette?
Comment #4
View protection is important to the adjoining neighborhood residents, especially those on Scott Avenue.
Yet making everything the same height does nothing to protect or enhance views. The Sub Area Plan
process should look at potential views, uses, and building mass and adjust requirements accordingly.
Multiple height and mass can be relegated to maintain views while allowing enhancement of the core
district. This is not currently incorporated in the proposed Sub Area Plan. Unfortunately this is the
result of NIMBY attitudes and tactics. We can do better.
We have the opportunity to develop a plan that can provide for continued development and
preservation of the neighborhood center. Open space, circulation, parking, architectural character, view
protection, and sustainability are currently lacking proper direction and review processes. Additionally,
provisions for existing uses, transition of uses and increased population, as well as variety of housing
choices, is lacking.
Please see that these are incorporated into the final plan.
Sincerely,
Richard Bruskrud
~'/'
i~ < "
~ ~~
J ">4~~
J '~\
", i INTERIORS
::::::::,:."::_::::::::,:,,,,:",::;-,:.:::;:,:;::~-_-::::=,=":_":;.~~"::=-:::-:;'::'=";.==:::'::~C:';:""'::'::=--'::::'~,"';~:=-::-::';;:=-,-=--":-..--=:~,"':::::-'::~:"':':~.";,::':=:.:.::::=::"'_~';::"-:::'=:"-=:;::::'::':.'::':'::':.::;:::-,,::;::-.:.:::."::'::":.::.'..=~::;:;;::::::t:::';:'::;-::'::_-::::':~'':'''::'-:=_~;::'7::::~_':''=::"':::':~:"'::='::;:"-::::':':"'7.::::-;:;"="':"=:':"~'~-:':':"~--':::::'
HECKER
::!t "'-" <<..t,!.. 1, ~ )( ~>~" P:~h '?''it N;t--" t.-'tl-
A.t'\v~il ~ f;;:,t~ ~ ~1;
I P LAN N rccfm nt #5
[~"~~"~~_=~_:-'ii_~;~__~.:_~=~--~_=~="
I ., c
, ,.....
April 8th, 2009
City of Bremerton
Planning Commission
345 6th Street, Suite 600
Bremerton, W A 98337
Attn: Planning Commission Members,
Re: Manette Sub-Area Plan - Public Review Draft - March 30, 2009
As a stakeholder (key communicator), architect, business owner, and commercial property owner in the Manette
Center Core, I am submitting my comments regarding the Manette Sub-Area Plan, a Neighborhood Center for
your consideration. While my involvement during the sub-area planning process was limited, in order to
minimize any potential conflict or negative impact on my businesses, in this letter I will try to set forth the
deficiencies I see in the current draft of this neighborhood plan.
Stakeholders, City Staff, and residents who worked on Manette Sub-Area Plan document, while meaning well
with their objectives to create a community character, places for people, and a vibrant community core, I believe
the Development Standards set forth in this document will preclude these goals from happening in actual practice.
Listed below are my initial thoughts/comments, based on years of experience in architecture and development,
towards making this a better, more realistic document, towards achieving the goals of the community.
B. Plan Visions, Goals & Expectations (page 7)
The Objectives section, in all reality, are just a development "wish list", illegal view protection by limiting
heights, and ideas to make things pretty.
The photographs on page 7 are ment to illustrate community character. However, the Development Standards
preclude this form of development from happening (these pictures are of buildings that are much larger than
15,000 sfmax. and are most likely taller than 35' max set forth in this code - which gives a false impression about
what is possible with this plan.)
D. Plan Land Use Map & Designations (page 16)
LDR are is being removed from Center and placed in R-lO zoning thus there is no transition from high density
core area and surrounding neighborhood. LDR should at least be MTR. MTR zone to south should be expanded
to include area between upper Shore Drive and Perry Avenue (as a consistent buffer zone).
MTR should be expanded to include existing condo project to north along waterfront and south of 11 th on the
west side of Perry bounded by 10th Street.
A. Manette Center Core (MCC) (page 18)
PERMITTED USES:
,
'... ,,"" ,~..oi ... ".,......".....,.....".......-.,=" ...."""""_" ...."'1". ~'-.............-- ."..,. "."- ~"'-" F~,,...:.>'. ,,,,,...,,,,,",,,,.,~ ,-.. .~,~,."",..". '''-' _.<<"'.'"...r.",,." ._.".........,',.-~.~,~~"..,.,,' -- h~;O>-''-''......~ _"".,....,"'"..~c'-""._"'.~_,. ~ ,.~.. "'''''''''-r'''--~'-'~''''''' .>'""'"-"",,,,, "<........,--"""....._",...,..."'.....~...~" .-~ ".......,..#. .", ~.,,,.'..=...,-~ >,,-...-
HECKERARCHITECTS
HE C KE R''1~'''''~&~'1~;:~'{''-
l!"'f, ::~ ~'J n 1i, f,.: ~:::. ~,6'
r ....- ...........- - ....... ,,'...-... ......- --.'--" _.........................
t..~.:..~ .~.~_:e6m ment#.5......._.......... .
! ARCHITECTURE
~ _~~. _,."_,_~_~~~"'''~_._~,,~_~_>~_.___,__w~_,,. ~ ~._~__"~"_.".,_ _n _.."~
! INTERIORS
~i:
~;t
p ~,
::,;:-.:.:-:..."7;;:::::::"...:::.:"~:-:.:::;;-_7.::~::I ~~_~~,..:::~;.::~:..::~~:::::.:_::':;-::7.=:::.:.=:.-=:.:;~:+_:::.,~~:::':~=::".:::.:::c::::-~:::.:-;::;:.:~,;.;"'"::-_-:."":':.-_:.:::..::.':.:_~..:;.:,::,__-::'::..-.-::::~=,~,-::-.:.~::->:.::::-=::::-'_~:."::_:.:...."':'::',~:':":.:.~.::-..;:::~.~,:::::::~:~.=-:-:::::-.~~~:._:::--~_-..:::;::..-::::=.:..:::::;:.~:~-::-...::..":'~::=...;:.::"::.::::::~~:7:'.'7:::
,
Permitted Uses - this looks like a wish list and is really not possible with Development Standards as proposed
(this is because the building size, height, and parking standards are too restrictive in combination). Other notes:
(i) Hotel and lodging place Containing ten or fewer guest rooms. (Boutique hotels are generally around 20-24
rooms) This would be a great Manette restaurants, spas, and retain shops.
(k) Museum or gallery (could not be built with current development standards for parking requirements).
(n) Physical Fitness and Health Club. Larger scale business that could not be developed due to 15,000 building
size restrictions in combination with the stated parking requirements.
Other examples of "wish list" uses, that are not feasible/possible, due to building size restrictions and parking
requirements include Restaurants, Theater, Veterinary Clinic, and Hotel.
PROHIBITED USES:
(h) Outdoor storage. .. Limitation adversely affects existing businesses. Are existing uses grandfathered?
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (page 19)
(a) Maximum building height of35' - this would allow only a three story building on a level lot. Properties along
the North side of lIth street and have an approximate 10' grade change, thus when taking average grade in
account, this would allow only a two story structure on Harkins (at a minimum, grade should be measured from
the highest point on the site). However, height limits should be set to 45' in keeping with a higher density center
(vs. 35' in MTR and R-1O zones) and for existing site grade considerations.
(t) Maximum building coverage: sixty (60) percent... to a maximum of85%. This maximum should be increased
to 95-100% (as proposed, this is just 10% greater then the 75% coverage in the MTR zone). For example, lot
coverage for a 50' wide by 120' lot in the Harkins / 11th Street block would be 5,100 sf(85% of 6000 sf.). Thus
the max building foot print would be 50' x 102'. This would require a setback of 18' combined for both streets.
Does not easily meet max 10' setback set forth in (b) Front yard Setback.. especially when you have an existing
building on of the street frontages.
Bonuses: Base is 60% + Underground Parking or Residential over Commercial 20% + green building techniques
15% = should allow 95% lot coverage when these three bonuses are likely to occur with the right development
standards.
DESIGN STANDARDS (coot) (page 20)
(1) Building Size. Structures shall not exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. This restriction should be
removed from this code. This deterrent to development will preclude any reasonable development to occur. . Take
the example 50' x 120' lot sited above in (t). Max footprint is 5,100 sf. x three stories equals 15,300 sf. -
close/OK. Parking 5,100 -0- 400/sf/car (average area) equals 12.75 or 12 car parks. One 5,100 sf floor of
retail/office commercial space would require 1 per 300 sf g.f.a. - 5,100 -0- 300 = 17 stalls (thus building foot print
must be reduced to 4,800. Since the lot is two small to allow a multi-story parking garage w/ ramps etc., the
building could only be two stories.. one floor for parking and one floor for retail/office.
As the above example illustrates, small lot developments don't work with the current parking requirements. They
could work but the maximum building area would need to be increased. Otherwise, development at a density that
is economically feasible, is unlikely to occur.
(7) Public Amenities requirements (code language) could easily cause unintended consequences... to many
kiosks, benches, etc. or to few if larger scale projects are done.
I~ E eKE R ARC HIT E C T S ({l m
_.,~,.~,'""m'..'.~.:-_._.~--i".~-....--~.....~.__..,,~--~-~.--".._..-'--~._..
if] ')c
'll''' ,,~
~~"'-J'-'''~ ...:01-"
J ,.-
'I- \
'- 'l
H E eKE R~, ",,~ 1'" lJ V ",;- ~~' J'~ '5" ....
$~, k~~ ~./l t, ~1 .?~ ~ ~;) ti..:! t ~
P LAN N =~<ftnrnent#S,_,__"__",,.,_,,_
P. S
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIORS
(8) Corner Treatments - "wish list". This standard allows no flexibility and will not promote any diversity or
interest from block to block. The "Entry" requirement to be 10% taller than rest of building will lower max height
allowed to 10% of35' = 3.5' - 35' = 31.5' height max for bulk of building - thus allowing only a two story
building. Plantings 10' tall on a corner is not allowed by City of Bremerton Engineering Department for traffic
safety (revise or omit)
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS (page 21)
(a) Parking shall meet standards of Chapter 20.48 MNC. Per example stated above, these parking standards will
preclude most development opportunities in conjunction with the building size limitation. A "Neighborhood
Parking Standards" code should be developed taking into account the unique nature, walkability, and
neighborhood scale of center projects (allow reduced requirements for commercial uses).
There also should be some provision that if underground parking in involved, the parking area can cover/occupy
100% oflot area.
B. MANETTE TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL (MTR)
PERMITTED USES (page 22)
(g) Residential uses... Muilt-family residential developments should be allowed to be separated vertically
(Townhouses) and horizontally (add Condo's to list) for design flexibility and variety.
Note, there is no maximum building size in this zone - OK.
Note, why is there a section on SIGN STANDARDS in this section and not in the MCC section? The Building
Sign areas (100 sf) are too large for this zone.
C. MANETTE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-IO)
INTENT & PURPOSE (page 25)
This zone should be a buffer zone to separate the MCC from the main R-IO neighborhood. If this zone is changed
to R-IO, then there would be no buffer. I suggest this zone be reclassified as the MTR so there is a use buffer.
In summary, if there were only three things I could change within this document, they would be to lift the height
limit to a reasonable 45' (allowing 3-4 story buildings as set forth in the comprehensive plan), remove the 15,000
sf. building size limitation (this is too small for an efficient development with underground parking), and increase
the maximum lot coverage to 95% (for various reasons stated above). These changes, along with the others that
are mentioned, would give this plan a fighting chance in fostering growth; increased residential densities,
increased commercial densities, thus making this a vibrant community core vs. the current situation were we have
revolving business start-ups and failures because there is not enough density, thus synergy, to make things work.
Thanks again for your consideration.
Je"ffyekj A. t-tecluy
Jeffrey A. Hecker, Architect
Principal
1 s ,{ H E eKE R ARC HIT E C T S ((; rn
.- ".,,,"_-.... --',..,.",.,.......... ,.."",,,...~____...=, .--"_~..........."""'~"'_...............""""" ..........' '.-~o<-.~_~......,., _.......-.....0-,,'"",.,,-"" ..' .._-">c.....,..-_ ",....,.... .."-"''''......"'''+'T~h_><k' ,....-___ "''''''"'' ^r-7"-,'~'''''''''~'',''''''''''''_''''''-'_, '_~,_...,...-,__.><__<,""......<." ,,_~""
From:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Comment # 6
Carolyn J. Maxon
"jennifer balliet" ~
Andrea Spencer~ Lindsey Sehmet
RE: Draft Subarea Plan Review
Wednesday, April 08,2009 11:02:25 AM
I was unable to attend the last meeting, so had to review the document on the
Bremerton web site. I have a difficult time trying to read on my computer so the
following statement/question may not be revelant.
The map on Page 16 is what I remember after the voting at the last meeting that
I attended and I am in favor of that decision. The narrative on Page 17 under the
Manette Transitional Residential (MTR) states that the East boundaries are "by
Scott street". The map appears to show the East boundary of Pitt Avenue no
Scott Avenue. Am I reading the narrative correctly, if not "excuse the ring."
Comment: Since there is an actual Scott Street, perhaps this should be clarified
to read Scott Avenue in Part II, Section D.
Thanks for your consideration.
Carolyn Maxon
From: jennifer balliet [mailto:manetteneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 10:41 AM
Cc: andrea.spencer@cLbremerton.wa.us; Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Draft Subarea Plan Review
Dear Neighbors:
At long last a draft plan for the subarea of Manette is available for your review.
Go to the City of Bremerton website, click on Community Development, then
Subarea plans, then Manette. The link to the draft document is at the top of the
page.
Please note that all comments are due to Lindsey Sehmel by 5 :00 next Wed. ,
April 8th. There has been a lot of work gone into this document and while many
of our concerns have been addressed it still leaves some issues, such as view
Comment # 6
preservation unresolved. While we were able to get a firm 35' building height
included and the size of the largest commercial buildings reduced to 15,000 sq. ft.,
the future of Manette as a quaint eclectic neighborhood is far from assured.
Just to put the building size in perspective, the existing Market building is approx.
7,000 sq. ft. and the small mall next to it is approx. 9,500 sq. ft. excluding the
overhangs in front of each. The building where the wine shop was and Manette
Antiques currently is is almost exactly 35' high.Y ou may be able to envision what
a building twice the foot print of the market at 35' in height would do to the views
of adjacent properties.
There are many positive aspects to the draft plan including street, sidewalk, and
lighting improvements as well as some good points on building style etc. Please
take the time to read the draft and comment, however briefly before next Wed.
The draft and comments will go to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission
meeting April 21 at 5:30 p.m. at the Norm Dicks building and then on to the City
Council. Public comments will be allowed at both meetings, but written comments
are generally more effective.
If any of your neighbors need a hard copy of the draft document I have a few at
my home (377-0414) or they can be obtained from the City.
Thank you to all who gave up many hours of your time to make this process
successful.
Jordy Andrew
MNC Chair
Manette Neighborhood Coalition
http://www .manetteneighborhoodcoalition.org
bcc: coalition membership list
Comment #7
From:
To:
Andrea Spencer
Lindsey Sehmel;
cc:
Subject:
FW: "Manette Subarea Plan" - Planning Commission Member
Comments
Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:41:31 AM
Date:
Attachments:
Can you please make sure this comment letter gets in the packet for council
From: Lori Smith On Behalf Of City Council
Sent: Monday, May 04,20093:47 PM
To: 'JOHN W COCKBURN'
Subject: RE: "Manette Subarea Plan" - Planning Commission Member Comments
Mr. Cockburn,
Thank you for your letter, which has be.en shared with the Council
Members for their review and consideration.
Thank you,
Lori Smith
Legislative Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-5280
From: JOHN W COCKBURN [mailto:jwc2006@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 3:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Manette subarea plan
The Manette subarea plan as presented to the Planning Commission so
handicaps the property owners in the business core that redevelopment
is very unlikely. The economic climate currently further reduces the
chances of improvements to the business center. The 35 foot height
limit makes mixed use a two story building not three and when
Comment #7
combined with the offstreet parking requirements, greatly increases the
development costs or decreases the building footprint. Any property
bounded by the R-10 zone has further set backs both on the first and
second story resulting in a smaller building and a higher per square foot
cost. The net per square foot cost after following the rules of this
subarea plan should make any project not feasible.
If you want a plan that freezes the Manette business district as it is, then
this is the right plan. Stopping progress does guarantee the citizens
living around the business district the same views as they have now. It
also ensures the continued under utilization of three prime lots for
parking which negatively affects the growth of the tax base. Almost all
of the current buildings along 11th could not be built following the rules
set forth in this plan. I believe that a neighborhood without growth can
not be vibrant, which is why I do not support this plan.
From:
To:
CC:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Comment #8
carymh@comcast.net
City Council;
Lindsey Sehmel;
Manette Sub-Area plan border consideration
Monday, May 04,20094:23:58 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen of the council, my name is Cary Hodge, a
resident of Manette. I would like to propose for consideration an
extension of the sub-area boundry to include my properties adjacent
to the current proposed boundry on the mid west end at east 11th and
Perry, addresses 1112, 1114, 1118 Perry Ave. next to the August
Winn resturant commercial property at the corner of east 11 th and
Perry.
I feel that the inclusion of these properties into the core sub-area
plan would benifit the core business communities vision for future
growth a with possible mix of retail and or multi-family mix for the
properties.
Following are the plat descriptions for the properties to be
considered:
1112 Perry Ave.; BLOCK 000 LOT 12, REALTY INVESTMENT AND
LOAN COMPANY FIRST ADDITION TO
DECATUR, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN
VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 8, RECORDS
OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
1114 Perry Ave.; LOT 13, REAL TV INVEST & LOAN CO'S 1ST
ADDITION TO DECATUR, AS RECORDED
IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 8, RECORDS
OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
1118 Perry Ave.; LOT 14, REAL TV INVEST & LOAN CO'S 1ST
Comment #8
ADDITION TO DECATUR, AS RECORDED
IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 8, RECORDS
OF K!TSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
Thank you for your consideration, I work for the Shipyard and had
been traveling for the government when the public
meetings had previously taken place. Cary Hodge
Comment #9
From:
To:
La u ri e
Lindsey Sehmel;
cc:
Subject: Re: Manette Webpage Update & Meeting
Reminder
Date: Monday, May 04, 2009 4:50:27 PM
Attachments:
These meeting are always when I am out of town.
I do not want to see business core change. No
three or four story high condos or more stories, no
rows of house closer than thirty feet together.
Just go up Pine Road and you will see what I
mean. I do not want to reach out my bedroom
window and shake hands with my neighbor, or do
I want to overhear conversations in their houses
next door. As it is I can hear my neighbors now
when windows are open. Street parking is well
used now by people with one car garages or no
garages at all. Will we be like homes in
Bremerton's core that you have to have a permit
to park your own car or your guests? Can't
complain about people parking in your permit
space or they will ticket your own car. Diamond
lots are a dime a dozen and Bremerton also use
Diamond enforcement on City streets.
What is wrong with the way Manette is? I lived
here in Manette 16 years and there only thing we
Comment #9
are missing is Starbucks for those who can afford
it and a grocery store that is a real grocery just
like downtown Bremerton. I prefer to drive to
Perry Ave for both of those items.
City Commissioners should heed the wants of
Manette residents that don't want change. Same
goes to the planning commission. Homes and
condos are not selling now. Why change what we
have now?
Please send this on to the commissioners and
planners and while you are at it send this to the
major so because myoid computer does not allow
me to send to them.
Thanks you,
Laurie Skola
1002 Hayward Ave.
Bremerton WA 98310
We are already having homes broke into as did the
pharmacy on Perry. We need fewer things that
don't attract the larger population of theives.
TheDowntown Bremerton core of Condo's that
can't be sold.
Minutes for
City of Bremerton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
April 21, 2009
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wheeler at 5:31 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner
Kosusko, Commissioner Mosiman, Commissioner Streissguth, and Chainnan Wheeler. Quorum
certified.
Also present: Andrea Spencer, Lindsey Sehmel, and Pam Bykonen (DCD staff).
III. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Wheeler introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy
and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the agenda as presented. It was agreed
by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented. .
IV. Approval of Miriutes
The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on March 17, 2009 were presented for approval by
Chainnan Wheeler. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by
Commissioner Kosusko to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 17, 2009 as
presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy:
Abstain; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner
Streissguth: Yes; Chairman Wheeler: Yes. The motion carried.
VI. Public Meeting
A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda).
Chairman Wheeler asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he
closed this portion of the meeting.
1. Public Beann!!: - Manette Sub-Area Plan: Lindsey Sehmel, City Planner, gave a
presentation of the proposed Manette Sub-Area Plan. Using a PowerPoint presentation,
Lindsey highlighted the process of developing the Manette Sub-Area Plan and the ways
that the plan differed from current zoning. Lindsey also spoke about specific items the
residents of Manette wanted in their community such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 2009
Page 1 of9
angled parking. She offered thanks to all of the community members who participated in
the year-long planning process.
Commissioner Wheeler opened the Public Comment portion of the public hearing.
Adam Brockus, 1146 Perry Avenue: "I, too, wish to thank, not only everyone who
came to the many meetings, who were there and some of you may have seen them, but
also to the participation and comments that they brought. And also I would like to give
kudos to the staff who also worked a lot on this plan and going in. Quick question to the
staff: Like the downtown area, will there be design guidelines for any future
development which will be looked at in the Manette Sub-Area Plan if it is passed?"
Staff explained that each zone will have its own development standards that applicants
would have to follow. These development standards are not monitored by a Design
Review Board (DRB).
Dick Bruskrud, 1102 Shore Drive: "J was one of the Key Communicators on the
project. First, I really would like to thank Andrea and Lindsey for the wonderful job they
did in keeping this process moving. The introduction of the document is precise, and it
outlined existing conditions: the residential neighborhoods, the small scale of the
commercial district and the spectacular views. In the vision, it's well outlined in creating
a mixed-use, pedestrian oriented community with varied housing types and. a
neighborhood-scale commercial district. The outreach to the public was excellent; it was
very well publicized, there was numerous presentations and workshops that invited all the
neighborhood to attend. The plan goals, the guiding principles to preserve a unique
neighborhood where new development considers scale, size, quality, and compatibility is
a wonderful goal of the entire plan. It was to encourage complimentary development,
view preservation, quality architecture, mixed-use buildings, housing type variety in a
sustainable design. These are all very good objectives. Establishing an eclectic and
active community space that promotes social interaction is commendable. Improving
pedestrian and bicycle access, creating public spaces, undergrounding utilities, adding
public amenities to sidewalks are all good objectives. In promoting a compact, walkable
commercial core in a sustainable fashion is a good base for all neighborhood centers. All
of these goals help with the consistency to the Comprehensive Plan. The issue I see with
the development standards, however,. is how will they allow or promote goals and
objectives, as well as allow the current businesses and buildings to evolve? The MTR
zone added to provide a buffer to the single-family zone, yet the MCC borders the Low-
Density Residential zone both within and outside the plan boundary and there's no
provision for multi-family, either in a zone of its own or as a conditional use, and yet we
have numerous multf-family buildings in the neighborl:wod, or center I should say. There
are also numerous buildings that do not comply to the current codes, either by set-back,
building coverage, or parking requirements. Fortunately, there are design standards
flexible enough to allow innovation, yet provide direction to accomplish character goals.
The problem with that is, who reviews these and what is the procedure? The MTR
provides moderate-density residential in transition to low-density residential. Besides
some minor issues with the set-back requirements. there is no mention of cottage housing
as mentioned throughout the goals. The roadway standards should be reviewed to
correspond to actual conditions and right-of-way widths. There are varied right-of-way
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 2009
Page 2 of9
widths throughout the center area. As much as I like the diagonal parking in the core,
removing parking on one side moves the pedestrians closer to the traffic which is
contrary to one of the goals, and the neighborhood streets widths, as wide as they are with
limited parking, will promote cut-through traffic. Finally, a sub-area plan should be a
plan, not simply an adjustment to the zoning code in the Comprehensive Plan. It should
not only provide regulations, but provide a plan for implementation. The goals are all
wonderful; the development standards adequate yet do need some adjustment. The plan
is lacking in a process to implement more incentives or the ability to develop at a small
scale which is what I understand the citizens wish to continue with. There are two
glaring omissions that I see is the opportunity to improve the intersection and traffic with
the new bridge construction and it has not been addressed in the plan, and at the center,
the Center does not have a center, a community gathering area more than just a sidewalk
type gathering areas. Thank you."
Andrea directed the commission to the comment letters in their packets received prior to
the meeting.
Adam Brockus, Perry Avenue: "One thing that was talked about during our meetings,
or the community thing, was that the residents of Manette do think of us as an eclectic
neighborhood from the certain designs that were given to the buildings and to the houses
that were put in the area from 1910 all the way up to today, but one thing that they did
have a worry about was if a incongruous, or, let's say, sharply different architecture such
as a modem architeCture, was put in there it would tend to ruin the design or feel of the
neighborhood as it went in. I was hoping to see in the design standards possible design
guidelines that were used similar to what was put in for the Highland up here, and I
would ask that consideration be possibly given to the possibility of a design committee or
design review committee formed up of citizens be possibly applied the same way that
was in the Highland district. Thank you."
Chairman Wheeler closed the public comment portion of the public hearing and opened
commission deliberations.
Commissioner Kosusko agreed with the statements regarding a lack of design guidelines
and design review for this "highly critical" neighborhood; he attributes this lack to the
reactive nature of the proposed sub-area plan and the development restrictions it imposes.
He had hoped the plan would be more proactive and imaginative but believes the plan has
good intentions. He referred to the "Plans, Visions, and Goals" section (page 7) noting
that many of the photographs shown as examples would not actually be allowed
according to the development standards of the plan. He spoke passionately of the
economics and evolution of development and how the plan does not accommodate that.
Commissioner Cockburn, who served as a Key Communicator during this process,
agreed with Commissioner Kosusko, adding that he felt the proposed sub-area plan was
"codifying urban decay" and pointed to the lack of growth in the downtown area before
changes were implemented. He expressed concern over the incomplete buffer between
the Manette Center Core (MCC) zone and the Low-Density Residential (LDR) and felt it
would handicap property owners in the MCC zone that abut the LDR. Other items of
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 2009
Page 3 of9
widths throughout the center area. As much as I like the diagonal parking in the core,
removing parking on one side moves the pedestrians closer to the traffic which is
contrary to one of the goals, and the neighborhood streets widths, as wide as they are with
limited parking, will promote cut-through traffic. Finally, a sub-area plan should be a
plan, not simply an adjustment to the zoning code in the Comprehensive Plan. It should
not only provide regulations, but provide a plan for implementation. The goals are all
wonderful; the development standards adequate yet do need some adjustment. The plan
is lacking in a process to implement more incentives or the ability to develop at a small
scale which is what I understand the citizens wish to continue with. There are two
glaring omissions that I see is the opportunity to improve the intersection and traffic with
the new bridge construction and it has not been addressed in the plan, and at the center,
the Center does not have a center, a community gathering area more than just a sidewalk
type gathering areas. Thank you."
Andrea directed the commission to the comment letters in their packets received prior to
the meeting.
Adam Brockus, Perry Avenue: "One thing that was talked about during our meetings,
or the community thing, was that the residents of Manette do think of us as an eclectic
neighborhood from the certain designs that were given to the buildings and to the houses
that were put in the area from 1910 all the way up to today, but one thing that they did
have a worry about was if a incongruous, or, let's say, sharply different architecture such
as a modem architecture, was put in there it would tend to ruin the design or feel of the
neighborhood as it went in. I was hoping to see. in the design standards possible design
guidelines that were used similar to what was put in for the Highland up here, and I
would ask that consideration be possibly given to the possibility of a design committee or
design review committee formed up of citizens be possibly applied the same way that
was in the Highland district. Thank you."
Chairman Wheeler closed the public comment portion of the public hearing and opened
commission deliberations.
Commissioner Kosusko agreed with the statements regarding a lack of design guidelines
and design review for this "highly critical" neighborhood; he attributes this lack to the
reactive nature of the proposed sub-area plan and the development restrictions it imposes.
He had hoped the plan would be more proactive and imaginative but believes the plan has
good intentions. He referred to the "Plans, Visions, and Goals" section (page 7) noting
that many of the photographs shown as examples would not actually be allowed
according to the development standards of the plan. He spoke passionately of the
economics and evolution of development and how the plan does not accommodate that.
Commissioner Cockburn, who served as a Key Communicator during this process,
agreed with Commissioner Kosusko, adding that he felt the proposed sub-area plan was
"codifying urban decay" and pointed to the lack of growth in the downtown area before
changes were implemented. He expressed concern over the incomplete buffer between
the Manette Center Core (MCC) zone and the Low-Density Residential (LDR) and felt it
would handicap property owners in the MCC zone that abut the LDR. Other items of
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 2009
Page 3 of9
concern were: maximum height, maximum lot density, the lack of a design review board,
and street tree requirements.
Commissioner Streissguth agreed with the previous comments and asked staff to
respond to Mr. Bruskrud's and her concerns regarding the intersection where the east end
of the bridge is located, the development standards, specifically the lack of provisions for
multi-family or how to regulate the large volume of non-conforming uses, the idea of
cottage housing, road standards and the lack of consistency with existing conditions and
potential safety issues. She also asked who would be reviewing development submittals
if there is no Design Review Board, and how the MCCILDR zone border will be
addressed.
Commissioner Kennedy also agreed with the comments from other commissioners,
adding that she didn't believe the residents of Manette intended to write a plan for
neighborhood decay, but with so many restrictions put on development the fear is that it
will happen. She urged the use of architecture design standards instead of a sub-area plan
that severely limits development.
Commissioner Kosusko noted that many innovative ideas regarding public spaces were
discussed at the community meetings but those ideas were not included in the plan.
Commissioner Mosiman commented that, unlike other sub-area plans the commission
has reviewed, this sub-area plan lacked "specificity" and was unsure of where it would
lead the community. He ackilowledged that community character is important to the
citizens of Manette and didn't feel the proposed sub-area plan reflected t,hat.
Chairman Wheeler also participated in the public outreach as a Key Communicator. He
spoke about the community's desire to keep Manette as it is because of its unique charm,
not because of a fear of change.
Andrea responded to the commission's remarks by first reminding the commission that
what is in the proposed document is what the residents of Manette wanted and felt
comfortable with. On the point of not initiating a Design Review Board, Andrea stated
that during the course of the public meetings it was determined that even having a DRB
would not be a great enough assurance to the residents of what could be developed within
the boundaries of the sub-area plan. She felt that, although the plan is not as specific in
its direction as other sub-area plans, it was a good starting place and should be revisited
in five years when the residents could judge if the plan was working toward their
neighborhood vision or against it. By establishing a strong "Plans, Visions, and Goals"
section, it lays the groundwork for a forward thinking plan; other parts of the plan such as
design standards can be modified at a later date when the City has more available
resources.
Commissioner Streissguth asked if a direct approach was made to the residents in
letting them know the inflexibility of the plan would not allow many of the characteristics
they had approved at the beginning of the outreach process. Andrea said it had been
attempted. She also corrected the misconception that cottage homes are not allowed in
this plan; in the MTR zone there is no minimum lot size requirement and up to IS'
dwelling units per acre is allowed which would accommodate cottage housing.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 2009
Page 4 of9
At this time there is no additional information available regarding the intersection at the
east end of the new Manette bridge; WSDOT has not confirmed what the final design
will be and how it will affect the intersection, so no details involving the bridge were
included in the sub-area plan.
Andrea suggested the commission adding 'multi-family' as a stand-alone use within the
MCC district as the Commission had raised concerns regarding continuance of the
existing multi-family as a non-conforming use; she noted that townhomes were an
approved use in the MTR zone.
In the proposed sub-area plan, all permits and land use applications would be reviewed
and approved by DCD staff and they would ensure compliance with the design standards
contained within the plan.
It was pointed out that in the areas where the commercial component abuts a residential
zone, the developer must provide additional setback in the building design itself with a
tiered profile to reduce bulk.
Commissioner Kosusko did not agree with the parking requirements for new
development in the MCC zone. He felt the large amount of required off-street parking
did not mesh with a walkable neighborhood. The commission acknowledged that the
requirement probably came from residents who live near the commercial area who did
not want shoppers parking on their residential streets. Andrea explained that written
comments received from the residents were divided - some said the parking requirements
were too high, others said they weren't high enough so the default was to bring forward
the parking requirements from the current code.
Because of the lack of proposed community/gathering spaces and specific direction in the
plan and the inclusion of innovative design incentives and the Design Review Board,
several commissioners questioned the need to move forward with a sub-area plan at this
time. Andrea emphasized the importance of acknowledging the public process for
creating the goals, visions, and values included in the sub-area plan and that work would
be lost if the commission chose to vote against the plan instead of adopting the plan and
revisiting the issue of implementation at a later date.
Before reopening the public comment portion of the meeting, Chairman Wheeler
reminded the commission that the proposed sub-area plan met the mandates of the State's
Growth Management Act (GMA) as well as the desires of the "vocal majority" of the
residents as well as the not-so-vocal residents who participated in this year-long planning
process. He acknowledged that the plan is not perfect and there are areas that could be
improved upon, but the plan as presented is what the residents who participated in the
process wanted.
Commissioner Streissguth gave a list of items she felt needed further discussion:
o Roadway standards and the resulting public safety issue;
o Allowing multi-family as an outright permitted use in the MCC zone;
o Revisit the mid-block transitional zone where it abuts low-density residential;
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 2009
Page 5 of9
o Parking standards
Commissioner Kosusko asked about shared parking to help ease the parking
requirements. Andrea said there is a share parking component in the zoning code that is
based on day time uses versus night time uses or weekday uses versus weekend uses, not
just businesses sharing parking spaces.
Andrea suggested moving forward the first part of the proposed plan, pages 1 - 16, with
amendments to the map on page 16 to utilize the City's existing zoning by changing the
MCC zone to NCC, the MTR zone to R-lO*, and LDR to R-IO. Commissioner
Mosiman agreed this could be a workable solution.
Commissioner Cockburn spoke about the high volume of traffic along 11th Street due to
the way traffic exits and enters the Manette Bridge as well as the high number of
residents who live east of Perry Avenue and use 11 tl1 Street as their main travel route and
the potential for accidents from people pulling out of angled parking and into the traffic
lane. Commissioner Kennedy suggested removing the road standards section from the
plan before moving it forward. Commissioner Streissguth cautioned against developing
street standards that would never become a reality because of the actual use of the streets
in question. Andrea suggested making pages 17 through 35 a work item for 2010 so the
question of how the Manette Bridge design will affect traffic flow could be answered.
The commission discussed the boundaries of the different zones within the sub-area plan;
Andrea urged them to leave the boundaries as they are because of the great amount of
time and deliberation the residents put into creating the boundaries, and to instead simply
revert to the current zoning code within the established boundaries. Chairman Wheeler
commented that if the MTR zone returns to R-10* which has long been established as an
interim measure waiting for a sub-area plan, it will be met with resistance from the
residents who had worked on creating the final document.
Commissioner Cockburn noted that the most vocal group dUring this process lived
within the LDR zone and they clearly understood that, in order to maintain their status
quo, imposing such strict devel9pment restrictions would essentially block any new
development from occurring in the MCC zone.
Andrea said that another option proposed by a community group was to implement only
the MCC zone and leave the rest as is. She also reminded the comniission.that returning
to the current zoning would do away with townhomes, cottage housing, live/work spaces,
and other permitted uses included in the sub-area plan.
Commissioner Wheeler re-opened the Public Comment portion of the public hearing.
Jordy Andrew, 1328 Hayward Avenue: "It's very difficult to respond to all of your
comments. I share a lot of your concerns; they've all been discussed ad nauseum
throughout this process. There are a lot of references here to this being like a year-long
process: it was six or seven meetings. They occurred over a year and that was not as a
result of the community's input or request. We would've liked to have had enough time
to do all of the things that you asked us to do, but we're lay people. We don't understand
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 2009
Page 6 of9
the zoning and planning guidelines that you all are so familiar with. You recognize
clearly the big problem with the traffic section of this plan. Nobody knows what's going
to happen with the bridge. We asked repeatedly of staff to provide that. They don't
know because WSDOT hasn't told them. So, you're basically trying to put some
overlooking visionary things into a plan where you don't know what you're working
with. We don't know. That was a problem for us and we couldn't overcome it. So we
basically just said, 'Well, let's look at some ideas.' And that's what's reflected in that
portion of the plan. The other thing that I think that is really important to understand is
that all of the citizens who participated - and a number of business people or business
owners that participated - were trying to work within the framework that was laid down
in 2005. We, as citizens, didn't want to take anything away from the commercial
property owners. We wanted to leave them with the same options that they had under the
Comp Plan revisions in 2005. And that's very difficult because the desire of some people
in the community is to have absolutely no change. They were not happy with the 2005
Comp Plan revisions, and part of what staff had to put up with was a reaction to those
revisions. And because the community has gone on record for the last 10 or 15 years
telling the City what it wants in its community. If we were given the opportunity to
develop view corridor, view preservation type language, that is something that the City
doesn't have now, and is really visionary and forward looking, I think that that would
solve a lot of the problems. But, given the fact that what we have to work with as a
community, we clearly recognize that 35 foot building height limit isn't going to give us
what we want, but it's better than nothing and that's why we ended up there. Had we
been able to take the time to develop the kind of preservation type language that we
hoped would come out of this process, I think it would be a better plan. But, we were
given basically a deadline and we did the best we could do as a community to get to this
point by this date. I would surely encourage you to [inaudible] the parts of this aside that
you are uncomfortable with and either kick it back to staff or kick it back to the
community for more work because there are many of us in the community that are
willing to put the time in to get something that we feel that we can live with long term.
Thank you."
Dick Bruskrud, Shore Drive: "The big problem, and I think you are all realizing this, is
that under this current plan it doesn't help the large developer, which I don't think
anybody really wants in Manette, and it almost makes it impossible for a small building
to be improved. What is going to end up happening, and you've all realized this, is that
nothing will end up happening, and so what good is a plan that is going to stifle and not
allow further development and improvement of our community? No matter what you
think is the right or best improvement, whether it's taller buildings or shorter buildings,
its view, the use of the buildings - whatever they are, if we cannot improve them in any
form, then this is not really a plan. And this is where I have a problem with this
particular plan: we need to set away, standards, that will allow people to improve their
property and to improve their businesses, and there is ways to do this. Throughout the
process there has been fairly vocal contingency that has been focused on view protection
as a height limit. Certainly height does affect views, but it is not the only answer to
protecting views and they would not listen to any other type of reasoning. The same
thing with larget buildings; they didn't really understand how a larger building can be
appear as a smaller building or that it might be necessary to do a larger building in order
to accommodate the parking and make the buildings economically feasible. This is a
Planning Commission Meeting
April 2] , 2009
Page 7 of9
Chairman Wheeler closed the Public Meeting.
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chairman's Report: None.
B. Director's Report: Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development, reported
that the City has been successful in petitioning for American Recovery Grant funds:
o LIFT - $330K per year for 25 years to help implement the Downtown Sub-Area Plan;
o $6.4M to sewer Gorst, and environmental hazard area;
o $6M to improve the water treatment process;
o Submitted a grant application for $250K to conduct a wetland study in SKIA;
There will be a community meeting at Mt. View Middle School on Tuesday, April 28,
2009 for the joint school siting project to pair an urban school with another community
facility.
There will be a community meeting to view and discuss the new Manette Bridge. This
meeting will be hosted by WSDOT and be held in the Norm Dicks Government Center
main meeting chambers on Tuesday, May 5, 2009 from 4PM-7PM.
C. Old Business: Andrea gave a quick overview of the problem with Planning
Commissioner's term expiration dates. Because of the inordinate amount of time it
would require to fully research commissioner term dates from the time of the
commission's inception, it was decided that all commissioner terms will end on
December 31 st of the new term expiration year as each is reappointed.
D. New Business: None
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 19,2009.
Approved by:
G~~~
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 2009
Page 9 of9
Commission Meeting Date: April 21, 2009
Agenda Item V.8.1
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA TITLE:
DEPARTMENT:
PRESENTED BY:
Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Code Amendments to
Adopt the Manette Sub Area Plan .
Department of Community Development
Lindsey Sehmel, City Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2008 City Council funded work on a Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan to ensure that
future redevelopment of the neighborhood is coordinated and well designed.
Enclosed for Planning Commission review is a Draft of the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area
Plan. The Commission will conduct a public hearing during the April 21 ,2009 regularly scheduled
meeting.
The Sub Area Plan includes two primary components:
1) An amendment to the 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan adding the Manette Neighborhood
Center Sub Area Plan.
2) Development regulations for the Manette Neighborhood Center that will function as zoning upon
Plan adoption.
The Draft Plan addresses the desires of the community to keep heights at 35', establishes a
maximum building size of 15,000 SF, and designates street typologies and preferred streetscapes.
The plan also sets the plan boundaries, zoning designations, and expected growth patterns.
Extensive community and stakeholder meetings were held on the Sub Area Plan between the
summer of 2008 and the present. The community members with varying views worked together to
determine the development standards within the plan and came to develOp the final boundaries and
zoning designations that are presented in the plan that is now before the Planning Commission for
Public Hearing & Recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff advises the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing, consider public testimony, and
formulate a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the Manette Sub Area Plan and a text
amendment to Chapter 20.80 of the Title 20 Zoning Code to activate the development standards of
the Manette Sub Area Plan.
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Move to recommend that the City Council adopt the Manette Sub-Area Plan as presented in
Attachment I, based on the Findings and Conclusions in Attachment II. The Planning Commission
recommends that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to make reference to and incorporate the
Manette Sub-Area Plan and amend the Zoning Code Chapter 20.80 to activate the development
regulations of the Plan, as shown in the draft ordinance in Attachment III.
1
INTRODUCTION
The Manette Sub Area Plan is a detailed planning document that fits within the framework of the 2004
Comprehensive Plan. Extensive outreach efforts between city staff, key communicators and the
neighbors helped utilize the community as the primary architect! drafter of the plan. It was determined
early on that this plan needs to address the ability to preserve the charm and eclectivity found in the
single family neighborhood. Residents, Property Owners and Business owners were all highly active
in the development of the plan. In every best effort to create a well balanced plan the community was
able to move past differing views and look at what truly was a need, desire, and want for the future of
Manette.
ANAL YSIS
The basic requirements for a Sub Area Plan are met and exceeded as follows.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency - The Manette Sub Area Plan meets many goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan, as found in Part II of the Sub Area Plan. As with other Sub Area Plans,
overall development intensity called for in the Sub Area Plan is not expected to exceed the threshold
evaluated at the time of the Comprehensive Plan - in fact the communities' desire was to keep with
the current types of development patterns and not increase the intensity of development within the
neighborhood outside of the expected growth of the Comprehensive Plan.
The 2004 Comprehensive Plan designated the Manette Neighborhood Center as a future growth
center for the City with an expected a 20-year growth rate of 240 residential units and a high
employment allocation of 173 new jobs for the center.
Based on the community desires for this neighborhood center, and the limited area established for
growth, it is expected that the development that will occur in this center will be modest in nature. In
the 2004 Comprehensive Plan it established the citywide growth expectations, and these targets were
allocated to each of our individual centers. As we create sub-area plans it is anticipated that we
revisit these centers growth expectations and fine-tune them as we gather more neighborhood-
specific information that we didn't have during the 2004 Comprehensive Plan update. As a result we
expect with each plan adoption that the allocations will change, and this should not be of concern to
the Commission as the City is evaluated on a citywide basis as to whether or not we are meeting our
targets. The table below summarizes our estimates of how we are achieving our growth targets to
date:
20 Year Growth Allocations of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan
Center Planned Residential Expected Residential Difference
Units Units
Manette 240 111 -129
Bay Vista 605 875 270
Northwest Corporate 0 588 588
Campus
Downtown Bremerton 605 801 196
Eastpark 420 454 34
Total 959
Public Participation Process - The Plan utilized wide community input and outreach efforts to find
an acceptable document for adoption consideration. The City, along with the Key Communicators
hosted 5 public open houses and a wide range of key communicator meetings were also held over the
course of 6 months within the community. The Key Communicators widely utilized the tools found
2
within the 'Meeting in a Binder' to share, educate, and inform the community. Allowing, extensive
community input to be integrated throughout the plan. With the high level of dedication from the
community, City staff was able to vastly integrate the desires of the community into the plan through
the use of the goals, visions, and plan expectations that were prioritized throughout the public
meetings.
Development Standards - The developments standards found within Part III of the Sub Area Plan
were presented and reviewed by the community during our March 30, 2009 open house: The
community desired to keep zoning similar to the Neighborhood Commercial Core (NCC) and the R-
10* that was designated in the 2005 zoning update. It was requested to make some minor
modifications to keep with the charm that Manette produces.
· Reduce building size from 20,000 square foot floor plate to 15,000 square feet gross
floor area.
· Buildings heights will be measured to maximum height of roof peak.
· Buildings within the MCC that are adjacent to LOR zoning are required to have a 10'
setback, and additional stories require a 20' setback.
Street Typologies - The Sub Area Plan includes a series of typologies for streets and introduces a
systems approach for the neighborhood street grid within Manette. Each street is assigned a 'type'
based on its characteristics. And for each 'type' a desired set of streetscape standards are identified.
With new development and through city-initiated projects, streets in Manette will be upgraded
according to the typologies over time. The overall focus on street typologies is pedestrianization and
multi-modal options. Further discussion is available within Part III of the Plan.
SEPA
Adoption of development regulations and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require evaluation
of environment impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. Because the
Sub Area Plan is an area-wide land use action tied to an overall plan (not site-specific) SEPA review
is treated as a "non-project action". The City issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Signifigance (DNS)
for the Plan on April 3, 2009. The action does not have a significant impact on the environment
because the threshold of development is within the intensity already evaluated at the time of the 2004
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement. No significant development capacity is being
added. The DNS on the non-project action requires statutory notice, review and appeal periods which
the City will complete by April 18, 2009.
OPTIONS
1. Hold a Public Hearing on the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan and recommend
as drafted. Based on the findings in Attachment II
2. Hold a Public Hearing on the Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan & amend the plan
& revise the findings in Attachment II
3. Continue Public Hearing and Deliberation to future date.
4. Move to Not Recommend Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I: Manette Neighborhood Center Sub Area Plan
Attachment II: Findings and Conclusions
Attachment III: Proposed Ordinance for City Council
Attachment IV: Record of Comments since 4/21/09
3
Page 1 of 1
Lori Smith
From: Lindsey Sehmel
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:51 AM
To: 'kismets@aol.com'
Cc: City Council
Subject: RE: Still bristled
From: kismets@aol.com [mailto:kismets@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:00 PM
To: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Fwd: Still bristled
-----Original Message-----
From: kismets@aol.com
To: lindsey. sehmel@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:40 pm
Subject: Still bristled
Dear Lindsey, I can't understand why our city government is stonewalling our community.
Manette overwhelmingly voted against change. The community as a whole "did not beg to
come back to the table" This will be challenged with ethics probes and lawsuits. We will not
be silenced so easily. We want transparency in government. Yes, Manette bristled and we
are still shocked at such ugly underhanded dealings.
I will be sending a copy of this letter out to various authorities
thank you L. Njegovan
6/3/2009
Page 1 of2
Lori Smith
From: Lindsey Sehmel
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:29 AM
To: 'Richard Bruskrud'
Cc: City Council; Andrea Spencer
Subject: RE: Manette Sub Area Plan
From: Richard Bruskrud [mailto:richard@bruskrud.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:23 AM
To: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Manette Sub Area Plan
Dear Lindsey,
First I would like to thank you for your hard work on the Manette Sub-Area Plan. We would never have gotten
this far without your help. I was planning on attending the council meeting tonight and presenting the following
statement. Unfortunately circumstances have arose that will preclude my participation today. Would you
please see that this information is presented to the council? I am sorry for the late delivery.
Dick Bruskrud
Dear City Council,
I have many concerns about the proposed Manette Sub-Area Plans. To begin, neither plan is a "plan", but
simply a slight tweak in the zoning code. The vision statement is quite representative of the citizen's desires.
Yet the technical portions do not support this vision. Nor is there a "plan" on how to implement any of the
vision statements. This area of the plan needs to be more thoughtful of how the current development can
remain and evolve, with new development fitting the current character.
Numerous buildings and occupancies currently in place could not be built with the current zoning or with either
"plan". Most all of the buildings along 11th Street could not be built under the current zoning or either "plan".
None of the multi-family buildings conform to current zoning or either "plan". Even the current strip mall is non-
conforming (although probably should be). And numerous businesses, such as Chet's Chop Shop, Superior Glass
and JPL Enterprises are non-conforming uses.
There is no provision for community gathering or open space. A center should accommodate a place for people
to congregate.
There is no "plan" for accommodating traffic through the area other than traffic calming measures.
There is no "plan" for accommodating parking for the business area other than onsite parking requirements that
do not fit the current character.
View preservation is simply a standard height restriction that if all were this height, then no view protection is
accommodated.
Although the citizens' plan does establish some design review, there is no provision for the community to
participate in this provision ofthe "plan".
6/3/2009
Page 2 of2
In essence, Plan A is incomplete. This plan was presented to meet City Council mandated deadlines.
Unfortunately there are many controversial issues that need more discussion and review. These issues can be
resolved. Please allow us the time to do so.
Plan B is not representative of the citizens' concerns and never should have been done.
Please send this back to the neighborhood to complete, so that the vision established can be developed into a
proper Sub-Area Plan.
Richard Bruskrud
1102 Shore Drive
Bremerton, WA 98310
6/312009
Page 1 of2
Lori Smith
From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:28 AM
To: 'Joe Wall'
Cc: 'Gerry Scot'
Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - Manette Sub Area Plan
From: Joe Wall [mailto:joerwall@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 20099:16 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Gerry Scot
Subject: manette sub area Plan
Dear Council members,
"
Please vote down the proposed Manette sub-area plan recommended by the planning comission, the one
that ignores resident input, and proposes to Seattlize areas of Manette. Who are the members of the
"Planning Comission" that in dark of night come up with their own plan after all the time invested by
good citizens to volunteer their time to devise a plan for the very neighborhood they live in?
In addition to all the citizens honest effort, the city spent something like $40K on consultants and
facilitators to support the public input process (AKA Sugar coat development and see if they can out-last
the citizens. They failed). And it is then dismissed?
Manette is a place that does not need fixing. It is great the way it is. Come over to Seattle and tour the
endless blocks of un-occupied development and see what it does to enhance livability. It doesn't. This
is why every so often the Seattle Times runs a realestate article on how cool Manette is calling it
"Seattles Best neighborhood" in one article. Seattle use to be full of neighborhoods like Manette. Many
fallen to rapid build to the max development. One can't cross a street in Ballard without risk of gettig
run over. While on the other hand, residents of Manette know their neighbors, and the names of
neighbors pets 2 blocks away.
The density saves the planet argument does not hold water when it is used to degrade a model
neighborhood.
Look at Seattle govt's financial position after 25 years of swallowing the development coolaid. After all
that has been done to feed the development machine, tear down and max-out: Ballard, the University
District, Capitol Hill, Roosevelt, Wallingford... the city is running out of money, and the residents are
rewarded with more traffic, high taxes, higher utility costs, smog, congestion, grafitti, gangs, and a vast
sea of bland condo and town home projects, and lost jobs at failed banks that also drank the coolaid.
It is especially irritating to see how far the promoters can get with pretty pictures of green vibrant
"urban" settings full of shopping stick figures amid the new buildings. When you see such sales
pitches, you know they are offering you a plate of bulls hit for dinner.
httt:> :LLwww.seattlemag.com/0t:>124a397 / overa 11- best-neig hborhoodsL
Joe Wall
206 N 60th st
6/3/2009
Christine Grenier
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Signed By:
Vlieg, Lisa M CTR NAVSEA KPWA [lisa.vlieg.ctr@navy.milj
Wednesday, June 03,20092:17 PM
City Council; Lindsey Sehmel
Manette Commercial Core
There are problems with the signature. Click the signature button for details.
Since I cannot make it to the town meeting this evening, I would like the opportunity to
put in my two cents...
Leave Manette alone and keep it the beautiful town it is! People move to Manette because
of it's quaintness, not because of it's commercial resources. If buildings higher than
25ft tall are built no longer will residents and visitors be able to drive down Perry
Avenue and see the decades, if not a century, year old homes, the beautiful tree covered
Olympic Mountains, the ferry coming in or leaving the docks. Instead, Manette will look
no different than the rest of Bremerton, crappy.
I wish I could add more, but that pretty much sums up the negative effects commercial
building will have on the one place left on the Kitsap Peninsula with small town mentality
and beauty.
Thank you,
Lisa Vlieg
A Concerned Manette Resident
1
~
Page 1 of2
Lori Smith
From: jennifer balliet [manetteneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 1 :24 PM
To: City Council
Subject: comments for the Manette Sub Area Plan decision
To: Members of the Bremerton City Council,
As a member of the board of directors of the Manette Neighborhood Coalition, I wish to
make comments about the IICitizen1s Plan All, that many of our members and residents
of the Manette community took part in developing. These comments are based upon
input and ongoing discussions we have had within our membership.
The Manette Neighborhood Coalition is an autonomous organization that actively
provides an effective, focused voice for the residential neighborhood of Manette. Our
purpose is to gather and disseminate information and, when deemed necessary, act on
matters that affect the neighborhood in which we live. We represent over 160 Manette
households and are active members in good standing with the Manette Business
Association. We want to dispel any belief that we are anti-growth, we wholeheartedly
support growth and improvement in our sub area, while maintaining the unique and
eclectic style of Manette, as the community has repeatedly expressed. We know this is
an accomplishable goal, as other communities have shown.
I am not going to address the Planning Commission proposal, as it has already been
communicated by others that the PC plan is unacceptable to us and disregards the work
our community and the City Planners have done so far.
Although we support the Citizen's Plan A over the Planning Commission1s
recommended Plan B, we do have concerns that Plan A has some imperfections. Due to
untimely budget cuts, some topics did not receive as much attention as they deserved.
We look at Plan A as a good place to start and are hoping to have the ability to revisit
some of these issues at a later time. Much work has already been invested in this Plan
by the community and City Staff. It would seem to be a waste of resources if that work
was not honored.
We are asking you, the Council, to adopt Plan A with provisions to revisit and/or address
specific areas of concern.
I would like to flag some issues to be addressed at a later date.
I do not believe we have yet reached a satisfying conclusion for the small residential
neighborhood in the area north of the business district, which includes Scott and Pitt
streets. This area currently has some distinct problems, yet it is an area that has
6/2/2009
Page 2 of2
tremendous potential to be developed in a way that enhances the unique charm of
Manette and blends well with the business district. We have yet to hit on the perfect
idea, but I am confident a pleasing solution is waiting to be discovered. Perhaps it could
include some open space, or contain a central focus for the core area. We are willing to
provide a task force of residents to look at this issue further (at no cost to the City, of
course!) and provide feedback and ideas to the city at a future date. In view of the
current economy and the general lack of resources, private and traditional financing,
there is no lack of time to complete a more perfect plan.
Another issue of concern is the lack of input into this process from business owners and
landlords. Only a very few showed up, and they did not comment much. As members of
the Manette Business Association, we are aware of the struggle this community has in
staying viable. We wish to support our existing business community and friends, but
need more input from them as a group to know what they need.
The square footage topic came up near the end of the process and has some of us
feeling uncomfortable, especially the small neighborhood in the Scott/Pitt area. We're
n'ot exactly going for the humongous rectangle look in our small community. More
discussion and guidelines would be beneficial.
We appreciate the efforts of the City Planners on this plan and the hard and difficult
work they have done. We also appreciate the many hours and input that was provided
by the residents. We hope that you will recognize and honor the effort which is
reflected in Plan A, but also recognize that it falls short of what we ultimately
envisioned.
Our organization is completely committed and highly motivated to seeing this process
through to an adequate and workable sub area plan. We will do our part to see it
through, and we strongly urge each of you to support the people of Manette.
Thank you for your consideration and support,
Jennifer Balliet
Secretary, Manette Neighborhood Coalition
htt~:/ f'!l/~w:_ma neUe n_~gh borhoodcoa I ition .org
6/2/2009
Page 1 of2
Lori Smith
From: City Council
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:45 AM
To: rmalane@yahoo.com
Cc: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - Manette Sub-Area Plan (Malan e)
Dear Mr: Malane
Thank you for your message expressing your concerns about the Manette Sub Area Plan. A
copy of your letter has been provided to the Council Members, as well as the Director of
Community Development for their review and consideration; and will also be included as part
of the record at the Public Hearing (Item 7-0 on the attached agenda) to be held Wednesday.
June 3.
Thank you,
./...f)#~
Lori Smith
Legislative Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-5280
From: rmalane@yahoo.com [mailto:rmalane@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:49 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Manette Sub-Area Plan Comments
Dear Bremerton City Council:
Last August, more than 150 residents expressed their concern regarding possible development
plans and the vision for a future Manette by attending and speaking out at a sub-area meeting. Those
residents want to preserve the "artsy", "funky" restaurant district and character-filled neighborhood core
that is so frequently pointed out in the press as the best ofBremerton. We'd love to have additional
amenities, but don't expand amenities at the expense of the neighborhood we love.
There exists no "mandate" that says Bremerton must always accommodate developer's interests
or develop an area simply for the sake of continued development. I am not saying that evolutionary
development is not appropriate - simply that revolutionary development is not necessary in one of
Bremerton ' s most valued neighborhoods. Despite one commissioner's comments, we are not in danger
of "urban decay", but rather we have an existing, valuable, mature waterfront community that would like
to preserve the value that has been built over generations. Manette is not Belltown, nor is it downtown
Bremerton .
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
If the plan isn't perfect, send it back for additional work with your concerns outlined, but please
DON'T cherry pick the parts most agreeable to the commission and then throw out the rest. There was a
lot of compromise involved here and much of what residents wanted was not even left on the table.
6/212009
Page 2 of2
PROCESS BIAS:
I don't believe the current process or proposal is truly representative of "resident" opinion;
however, I believe it was the city administration's best attempt at engineering an outcome that could be
palatable to both residents and development. It was clear from the beginning that there were many
commercial property owners who were pressuring the city for zoning change, and that this process was
designed to quell the resident outcry while finding a solution for development.
I would also like to point out that all of those Citizen Plan meetings were held at 5:30 when
many of the Seattle-commuting residents could not attend. I was at all but one of them. It is a shame
that more residents either could not or chose not to get involved. However, it could have been made
much easier for residents to get involved by simply changing the time or location.
I found it distressing that a process meant to represent "resident" opinion was so heavily reliant
on city-developed options. There was never a "clean slate". The meetings were also heavily influenced
by people with interests in the area rather than actual residents of the affected area. That's not to say that
everyone shouldn't get a voice - simply that you cannot represent the results of the "Citizen Plan" as
something drawn up by the residents of the affected area. It was a barrel of compromises developed
from existing zoning and prior work.
CONCERNS:
Below are just a few of the issues. There are many others, but these were the most common/popular
concerns. Some of these were addressed in the Citizen plan, but virtually none of them are in the
Planning Commission's plan.
. View Preservation language and lower building heights (25-28-ft)
. Additional Open Space
. Allowed uses such as theaters, etc.
. Small, neighborhood scale buildings (suggesting ~5000SF) with significant building set-backs
. Allow cottage housing
. More parking for businesses, better sidewalks, lighting, plantings
. Keeping Commercial off of residential streets where possible
As it impacts my neighborhood block (11 th to 13th between Pitt and Scott), I believe there is not
adequate buffer between Commercial zoning (either MCC or NCe) and low density residential in either
plan. In fact, I question why Commercial is extended into that area at all. However, if you allow the
parking lots to be commercial, MTR should extend to Scott and North to 13th. Splitting the block into
both commercial and LDR makes no sense - that was the whole point of creating buffer zoning. The
buffer ofMTR should continue to the street, not mid-block in an existing neighborhood. Of the four
property owners I've spoken to who would live in the remaining LDR zoning within that block, none of
them would wish to be zoned LDR if the parking lots remain commercial and can be built large scale to
35- ft. If anything, residents wanted some open space in that area.
I hope that the City Council will choose a solution that adequately addresses residents'
concerns while still allowing for a sustained and improved Manette. Of the many neighborhoods in
Bremerton , Manette has one of the strongest senses of community and pride. Most "Manette residents"
actually refer to themselves as such and want to preserve the neighborhood they have invested in.
Please consider this when making your decision.
Regards,
Ryan Malane
6/2/2009
Page 1 of 1
Christine Grenier
From: Carolyn J. Maxon [cjmaxon@tscnet.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 7:56 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Manette Sub-Area Plan
I'm sure that you have received many letters from other Manette residents questioning what
went wrong with the progress in this process. I'm also certain that many of these letters also
framed all or many of my concerns and questions that I have with the comments and potential
actions of the Planning Commission. I will therefore attempt to offer my personal perspective
regarding this matter.
I have lived in Manette for over 40 years. My husband and I chose this area in lieu of a new
development because of it's proximity to down town, the ferry, the Puget Sound, the beautiful
views and the eclectic nature of the small business area. As it still is. Now I read that if the
Citizen's Plan proceeds there will be a future of "urban decay". I can speak from having lived
in this area; those 40 years did not produce this type of decay. So I ask, is this statement well
founded or an extreme? I note that aside from the dwellings of some rental moguls in a few
areas, Manette has held fast and has actually seen a resurgence of businesses, remodeled
homes and frankly a closer knit community than I have experience in the past. I am certainly
not opposed to progress or making things better, but change for change sake is nonproductive.
I, like many of my friends, have put many hours into this process and I am a little annoyed that
the Planning Commission appears to so lightly put aside the long and lengthy work of
Community members of every age and occupation and I would like to add the City's Andrea
Spencer and her staff. I am also a little irritated that it appears that our plan, which we as a
community labored over, counted for nothing.
I know that if the Planning Commission elects to not listen to the Manette community, I
personally will not see the impact of those actions. But there is a need to preserve the
"funkiness" and beauty of our area for others.
I sincerely request that if the Planning Commission feels that there are deficiencies in the
Citizen's Plan (which happens to be the Voice of Manette) , that the PC return the plan to us
for further review and more specific guidance so that we can understand the process.
Carolyn J. Maxon
Manette Resident
6/2/2009
Page 1 of3
Christine Grenier
From: Lindsey Sehmel
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 7:50 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Manette Sub-area Plan
Please see comments below. I will provide Council members with paper copies at the hearing. Thank you.
Lindsey
From: jennifer balliet [mailto:manetteneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Manette Sub-area Plan
Lindsey,
The following comments are submitted by me on behalf of the MNC Board of
Directors. Please forward on to the Council members.
Thanks again for all your hard work through out this process.
Jordy
Members of the Bremerton City Council
The following comments on the Manette Sub-area Plan are submitted to you on behalf of the
Board of Directors of the Manette Neighborhood Coalition. The MNC has over 160 member
households in the Manette community and has been actively involved in the public process
to develop a sub-area plan for our community.
Weare adamantly opposed to the Planning Commission (PC) plan recommended at their
April meeting. What occurred at that meeting was in complete disregard of a year long
public process that produced a plan that, however imperfect, was the result of a great deal of
discussion and compromise by a broad cross section of Manette property owners and
residents.
The Manette sub-area plan is some what unique in that it began with what we were assured
was a "blank sheet of paper". The plan did not begin with a consultant's and/or developer's
vision for what Manette should look like. The process, while not perfect, presented choices
to the participants to "guide" in the development of various plan elements. One of the
criticisms leveled by some at the earliest meetings was that these choices were often limited
and did not include many other equally viable options. This flaw in the process led to many
compromises that ultimately included elements in the plan that would not have otherwise
been acceptable, building heights and gross square footage being two obvious examples.
There was virtually no one suggesting that larger and taller buildings were appropriate for
the Manette commercial core. Even with the 35' height limit and the 15,000 sq. ft. maximum
6/2/2009
Page 2 of3
(roughly twice the size of the largest commercial development currently in Manette) allowed
in the citizen plan, the PC found these plan elements unacceptable.
What the residents of Manette want for their community has not changed much over the
years. Looking back through comment cards from similar public meetings on previous comp
plan revisions, residents have consistently told the city what is important to our
neighborhood. We cherish our views, the eclectic nature of the business area and the
undeniable quality of life that a vibrant community provides. The citizen plan is not a perfect
document, but one forged out of many difficult compromises and the pressures of budgetary
and time constraints that will serve as a framework for future discussions on what our
community should become.
The PC's comments and objections do not show any appreciation for the difficulties that the
citizen participants labored under. By their own admission the majority of the commissioners
did not attend any of the public planning meetings. What few specific comments were made,
to cite just two examples, on the lack of an open space element and traffic patterns were in
fact discussed during the process. The participants clearly have a desire for more public open
spaces, a plaza or park to serve as a focal point for community activities. The second issue of
traffic patterns was specifically discussed, but when Staff was asked what the traffic flows
off the new Manette bridge were going to be like they could not provide meaningful input
because the City and WSDOT are only at the 60% planning stage. Additional comments
made by some Commissioners were general in nature and amounted to little more than
OpInIOns.
One specific comment that was made at the PC meeting was in regard to the lack of public
presence at the meeting. Andrea Spencer responded to the comment by stating, correctly,
that the public participants felt that they had come up with consensus plan and had no reason
to believe the PC would have any major objections to it. In fact in the past the PC has made
very few if any major changes to sub-area plans at this stage in the process. Why is this plan
the exception? If the PC had specific suggestions or objections then why not refer it back to
the public for more work?
The MNC has taken the position from the very beginning of this process to work with the
City to develop an acceptable plan. Through the initial rocky start and a subsequent four
month suspension of the process we have encouraged our members and other residents
to continue to participate in what turned out to be a prolonged series of public meetings. The
participants left the process at the end feeling proud or'their efforts and realizing that in spite
of all the diligent work and difficult compromises the plan was still in some ways
incomplete. It is this aspect of the process that the PC did not recognize or appreciate. The
action they took and the recommendation to you as a Council shows a serious lack of respect
for the public process that got us to this point!
The MNC requests that you as a Council recognise and support the efforts of community
members to determine our future and to acknowledge that the "one size fits all" development
mentality of the PC needs to be re-examined. We ask that you accept the citizen plan. If you
feel more work or additional changes need to be made the citizens of Manette stand ready to
6/2/2009
Page 3 of3
do so at your request.
Thank you for your consideration
Jordy Andrew
Chair MNC
1328 Hayward Ave.
Bremerton, W A
(360) 377-0414
Manette Neighborhood Coalition
hUg:/ /www.manetteneighborhoodcoalition.org
6/212009
Page 1 of 1
Christine Grenier
From: Lindsey Sehmel
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 7:50 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Andrea Spencer
Subject: FW: Manette Subarea Plan
Please see comment below. I will provide paper copies for Council members.
From: Kathy Warcup [mailto:kathyw99@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:45 AM
To: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Manette Subarea Plan
Hi Lindsey,
I'm planning to attend the June 3 meeting, but wanted to get my short comment to you in
advance. Thanks for all the work you are all doing on this.
As I look at the website, it looks like the actual proposal the City Council will look at is quite
different from what the community folks came up with at all those meetings. I'd like to urge the
City Council to consider going back to what the residents want -- after all, we live here! I know that
so many people worked so hard, and put in lots of hours towards the community's version, so
that's my "vote". At the meetings I attended, I didn't always agree with everything my neighbors
came up with, but I do feel that the community consensus is what's important.
Thanks, and I'll see you at the next meeting,
Kathy Warcup
1610 Hayward Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98310
Hotmail@ has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check itout.
6/212009
Page 1 of2
Lori Smith
From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council
Sent: Monday, June 01, 20094:10 PM
To: 'rleldred@comcast.net'
Subject: Citizen Comments - Manette Sub Area Plan (Eldred)
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Eldred,
Thank you for your message expressing your concerns about the Manette Sub Area Plan. A
copy of your letter has been provided to the Council Members, as well as the Director of
Community Development for their review and consideration; and will also be included as part
of the record at the Public Hearing (Item 7-0 on the attached agenda) to be held Wednesday.
June 3;
Thank you,
.1..0# ~
Lori Smith
Legislative Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-5280
From: Robert Eldred [mailto:rleldred@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:22 PM
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting Wed.
Subj ect: Manette sub-area plan
City Council, Bremerton,
It is concerning that the planning commission has made it evident it wishes to sidestep much of the plan
those of us who were involved helped formulate.
We put much time and effort into developing this plan and were led to believe our approach was
appropriate, consistent with the goals of a subarea plan and was workable. We heard no responsible
objections and, while the council has evidently elected to reject much of our input, still have not.
If the powers that be are to be taken seriously in this matter they need to present a well argued and
reasonable position as to why our input was rejected, why they believe they have better ideas about the
future of Manette, why we were not so advised in this planning process and just who they believe they
are serving, if not their constituents and those most reasonably concerned----i.e. the residents of
Manette.
There exists a suspicion the council is perhaps more interested in pleasing the interests of certain
developers, than residents who by ANY measure should overwhelmingly take precedence over selfish
development interests. Expanding the tax base is clearly in the interest of some, and we have seen the
failure of that kind of thinking in the downtown waterfront where our residents lost forever the
opportunity to convert some wonderful view property into what could have been a genuine waterfront
6/1/2009
Page 2 of2
parle Yes we have a new waterfront park and a nice addition, but have lost forever the opportunity to
have a GENUINE waterfront park. We
have there instead a downtown condo project (projects), that have usurped a great view at the expense of
the many for the sake of the few. It is some~hat ironic to read of our mayor criticizing Seattle, among
others, for wasting their unique resorces when we have, in fact, done much the same.
As one who resides on an exceptional piece of waterfront, please understand I am not writing from the
perspective of a skewed self interest, but I, and MANY others who participated in the planning process,
are very much interested in the long term value (value to those who reside here, not writing monetarily)
of our Manette lifestyle. Virtually every one of us has seen prior neighborhoods in which we were
associated, or perhaps even lived, deteriorate to a remarkable degree in the interests of development,
expanding a tax base or rewarding the monetary interests of some privileged few over the residing
many. That MUST NOT be allowed to happen here in Manette. We live here----NOW.
Listen to us. It is our lifestyle you should be concerning yourselves about. We can accommodate growth
as envisioned in the community mandate without sacrificing the community as it is, and it is a VERY
nice place to live as it is! The plan we evolved did in fact envision and accommodate that growth goal.
Many of us have to wonder what it is that has prompted the revisions in the plan we submitted. Was this
approach to community involvement simply an unserious expression for reasons ofPR? We have a right
to know which development interests you have been discussing this plan with, and why their interests
might be taking precedence over those of the residents of Manette. Will you be forthcoming in this
regard or are we left to speculate?
Sincerely concerned long standing (12-yrs.) citizens of Manette,
Robert L. and Mary-London Eldred
317 Shore Drive
6/1/2009
Page 1 of3
Lindsey Sehmel
From: jennifer balliet [manetteneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Manette Sub-area Plan
Lindsey,
The following comments are submitted by me on behalf of the MNC Board of
Directors. Please forward on to the Council members.
Thanks again for all your hard work through out this process.
Jordy
Members of the Bremerton City Council
The following comments on the Manette Sub-area Plan are submitted to you on behalf of the
Board of Directors of the Manette Neighborhood Coalition. The MNC has over 160 member
households in the Manette community and has been actively involved in the public process
to develop a sub-area plan for our community.
Weare adamantly opposed to the Planning Commission (PC) plan recommended at their
April meeting. What occurred at that meeting was in complete disregard of a year long
public process that produced a plan that, however imperfect, was the result of a great deal of
discussion and compromise by a broad cross section of Manette property owners and
residents.
The Manette sub-area plan is some what unique in that it began with what we were assured
was a "blank sheet of paper". The plan did not begin with a consultant's and/or developer's
vision for what Manette should look like. The process, while not perfect, presented choices
to the participants to "guide" in the development of various plan elements. One of the
criticisms leveled by some at the earliest meetings was that these choices were often limited
and did not include many other equally viable options. This flaw in the process led to many
compromises that ultimately included elements in the plan that would not have otherwise
been acceptable, building heights and gross square footage being two obvious examples.
There was virtually no one suggesting that larger and taller buildings were appropriate for
the Manette commercial core. Even with the 35' height limit and the 15,000 sq. ft. maximum
(roughly twice the size of the largest commercial development currently in Manette) allowed
in the citizen plan, the PC found these plan elements unacceptable.
What the residents of Manette want for their community has not changed much over the
years. Looking back through comment cards from similar public meetings on previous comp
plan revisions, residents have consistently told the city what is important to our
neighborhood. We cherish our views, the eclectic nature of the business area and the
undeniable quality of life that a vibrant community provides. The citizen plan is not a
6/2/2009
Page 2 of3
perfect document, but one forged out of many difficult compromises and the pressures of
budgetary and time constraints that will serve as a framework for future discussions on what
our community should become.
The PC's comments and objections do not show any appreciation for the difficulties that the
citizen participants labored under. By their own admission the majority of the
commissioners did not attend any of the public planning meetings. What few specific
comments were made, to cite just two examples, on the lack of an open space element and
traffic patterns were in fact discussed during the process. The participants clearly have a
desire for more public open spaces, a plaza or park to serve as a focal point for community
activities. The second issue of traffic patterns was specifically discussed, but when Staff was
asked what the traffic flows off the new Manette bridge were going to be like they could not
provide meaningful input because the City and WSDOT are only at the 60% planning stage.
Additional comments made by some Commissioners were general in nature and amounted
to little more than opinions.
One specific comment that was made at the PC meeting was in regard to the lack of public
presence at the meeting. Andrea Spencer responded to the comment by stating, correctly,
that the public participants felt that they had come up with consensus plan and had no reason
to believe the PC would have any major objections to it. In fact in the past the PC has made
very few if any major changes to sub-area plans at this stage in the process. Why is this plan
the exception? If the PC had specific suggestions or objections then why not refer it back to
the public for more work?
The MNC has taken the position from the very beginning of this process to work with the
City to develop an acceptable plan. Through the initial rocky start and a subsequent four
month suspension of the process we have encouraged our members and other residents
to continue to participate in what turned out to be a prolonged series of public meetings. The
participants left the process at the end feeling proud of their efforts and realizing that in spite
of all the diligent work and difficult compromises the plan was still in some ways
incomplete. It is this aspect of the process that the PC did not recognize or appreciate. The
action they took and the recommendation to you as a Council shows a serious lack of respect
for the public process that got us to this point!
The MNC requests that you as a Council recognise and support the efforts of community
members to determine our future and to acknowledge that the "one size fits all" development
mentality of the PC needs to be re-examined. We ask that you accept the citizen plan. If you
feel more work or additional changes need to be made the citizens of Manette stand ready to
do so at your request.
Thank you for your consideration
Jordy Andrew
Chair MNC
1328 Hayward Ave.
Bremerton, W A
6/2/2009
Page 3 of3
(360) 377-0414
Manette Neighborhood Coalition
http://www.manetteneighborhoodcoalition.org
6/2/2009
Page 1 of2
Lori Smith
From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:36 PM
To: 'Kim Bjornemo'
Subject: RE: Citizen Letter - Manette Sub-Area Plan
Dear Ms. Bjornemo,
Thank you for your message expressing your concerns about the Manette Sub Area Plan. A
copy of your letter has been provided to the Council Members, as well as the Director of
Community Development for their review and consideration; and will also be included as part
of the record at the Public Hearing (Item 7-0 on the attached agenda) to be held Wednesday.
June 3.
Thank you,
.1..0# ~
Lori Smith
Legislative Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-5280
From: Kim Bjornemo [mailto:tworfeet@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01,2009 10:19 AM
To: jennifer balliet
Subject: Manette Sub-Area Plan
Members of the Bremerton City Council,
I was stunned and saddened when the Planning Commission gutted the Manette
community developed plan and presented a new plan with little or no explanation. On
the surface, the Planning Commission plan appears to favor only those concerns of
developers and commercial property owners, ignoring the concerns and desires of the
heart of Manette---its residents. The saving grace is that the members of the City
Council will have an opportunity to choose a plan that best addresses both the concerns
of Manette residents and the daunting problem of future population and economic
growth. I believe the plan developed by the community in conjunction with the city
representatives will achieve both goals.
The Planning Commission has not provided any evidence that their plan will provide a
superior result for the residents. On the contrary, many items, such as allowing "strip"
clubs (adult entertainment) but not allowing community theaters, increasing maximum
building size to 20,000 sq. ft. without a setback, no provision for a low density area,
and 35' average height, all seem likely to degrade the standard of living in our
community rather than improve it.
There is no doubt that planning for future growth is a necessity. Without evidence to
the contrary, the community developed plan is our best option. I request that you support
6/1/2009
Page 2 of2
the community of Manette and chose our plan when you vote on 3 June.
Very Respectfully,
Kim Bjorncmo
1409 Marlow A vcnuc
Bremcrton, W A 98310
6/1/2009
Page 1 of2
Lindsey Sehmel
From: Andrea Spencer
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 11 :29 AM
To: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: FW: Citizen Letter - Manette Sub-Area Plan
Attachments: JUNE 3, 2009.doc
For the record
From: Lori Smith On Behalf Of City Council
Sent: Monday, June 01,200911:14 AM
To: 'mikemcwilliams@comcast.net'
Subject: FW: Citizen Letter - Manette Sub-Area Plan
Dear Mr. McWilliams,
Thank you for your message expressing your concerns about the Manette Sub Area Plan. A
copy of your letter has been provided to the Council Members, as well as the Director of
Community Development for their review and consideration; and will also be included as part
ofthe record at the Public Hearing (Item 7-0 on the attached agenda) to be held Wednesday.
June 3.
Thank you,
:/..-;, ~
Lori Smith
Legislative Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-5280
From: mikemcwilliams@comcast.net [mailto: mikemcwilliams@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 7:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Manette Sub-Area Plan
city .council@ci.bremerton.wa.gov
To: The City Council ofBremerton
Subject: Manette Sub-Area Plan
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
The purpose of this correspondence is to express a concern regarding the Manette Sub-Area Plan.
Please allow me to start this correspondence by thanking the City of Bremerton for allowing the
citizen's of Manette to participate in this plan and provide input. This allowance was a wonderful
gesture on the part of the city and a excellent way to develop a plan that would take into consideration
the interest of "all" stakeholders.
6/2/2009
Page 2 of2
My concern regarding the sub-area plan is one shared by many citizens of Manette - the allegation that
our inputs may be dismissed. This allegation was reported in the Kitsap Sun and naturally discussed by
many members of a very close community. I'm hoping this allegation is not true.
I have had the honor and privilege of sharing my thoughts with your council in person and in writing.
I've always been complimentary and appreciative of your efforts. Your elected commission is truly an
awesome responsibility. It is my sincerest hope that this appreciation is reflected in my correspondence.
In my past discourse with the citizens of Manette and to the members of the City Council regarding
future development, I have always stated, without equivocation - "You cannot avoid history".
However, I have always been quick to follow with statements to the fact that you can shape the future.
We shape the future with each decision and fateful course of action we take.
I believe citizens of Manette have made their decisions and taken the action to shape the future of the
community. It is a deep concern on the behalf of many that these efforts may go unheeded. Although I
too may share this concern, I have also witnessed the City Council's wisdom in decisions regarding the
city as a whole and I hope your forth-coming decision will be one that considers the inputs of the
community - I'm confident this will be the case.
In closing, on a personal note:
I have been a member of this community since 1968 and my family has a long history in the area -
McWilliams Road was named after my Grandfather. My life's direction has led me away from this
community on several occasions for the purpose of education, military service, and professional
requirements. Regardless of my location, I have always considered Manette my home and I have always
cherished it. Everything I am as a person started on the playgrounds, neighborhoods, and households of
Manette.
Manette is my home. It is a community in every sense of the word and throughout the my past forty
years has maintained itself in peace, goodwill, and with a consistent sense of values that would be
envied by any other community I have lived in from Seattle to New York City. In the aforementioned
article in the Kitsap Sun, John Cockburn, a member of the planning commission alluded to the potential
"urban decay" that may occur through the desires of the community. In forty years, I have failed to
observe anything that might be considered "decay" in any way, shape, or form. Manette has persevered
and is a shining example of what all communities should be. Manette should and must be preserved so
that future generations will have the same wonderful experience.
Thank you very much for your time and kind consideration.
Cordially,
Michael T. McWilliams
6/2/2009
Page 1 of2
Lori Smith
From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council
Sent: Monday, June 01,2009 11 :14 AM
To: 'mikemcwilliams@comcast.net'
Subject: FW: Citizen Letter - Manette Sub-Area Plan
Attachments: JUNE 3, 2009.doc
Dear Mr. McWilliams,
Thank you for your message expressing your concerns about the Manette Sub Area Plan. A
copy of your letter has been provided to the Council Members, as well as the Director of
Community Development for their review and consideration; and will also be included as part
ofthe record at the Public Hearing (Item 7-0 on the attached agenda) to be held Wednesday.
June 3.
Thank you,
./..0# ~
Lori Smith
Legislative Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-5280
From: mikemcwilliams@comcast.net [mailto: mikemcwilliams@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 31,20097:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Manette Sub-Area Plan
Gity .cQlJncil@ci.brt::m~r1:Qn.Wlt,gQY
To: The City Council of Bremer ton
Subject: Manette Sub-Area Plan
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
The purpose of this correspondence is to express a concern regarding the Manette Sub-Area Plan.
Please allow me to start this correspondence by thanking the City of Bremerton for allowing the
citizen's of Manette to participate in this plan and provide input. This allowance was a wonderful
gesture on the part of the city and a excellent way to develop a plan that would take into consideration
the interest of "all" stakeholders.
My concern regarding the sub-area plan is one shared by many citizens of Manette - the allegation that
our inputs may be dismissed. This allegation was reported in the Kitsap Sun and naturally discussed by
many members of a very close community. I'm hoping this allegation is not true.
I have had the honor and privilege of sharing my thoughts with your council in person and in writing.
I've always been complimentary and appreciative of your efforts. Your elected commission is truly an
6/1/2009
Page 2 of2
awesome responsibility. It is my sincerest hope that this appreciation is reflected in my correspondence.
In my past discourse with the citizens of Manette and to the members of the City Council regarding
future development, I have always stated, without equivocation - "You cannot avoid history".
However, I have always been quick to follow with statements to the fact that you can shape the future.
We shape the future with each decision and fateful course of action we take.
I believe citizens of Manette have made their decisions and taken the action to shape the future of the
community. It is a deep concern on the behalf of many that these efforts may go unheeded. Although I
too may share this concern, I have also witnessed the City Council's wisdom in decisions regarding the
city as a whole and I hope your forth-coming decision will be one that considers the inputs of the
community - I'm confident this will be the case.
In closing, on a personal note:
I have been a member of this community since 1968 and my family has a long history in the area-
McWilliams Road was named after my Grandfather. My life's direction has led me away from this
community on several occasions for the purpose of education, military service, and professional
requirements. Regardless of my location, I have always considered Manette my home and I have always
cherished it. Everything I am as a person started on the playgrounds, neighborhoods, and households of
Manette.
Manette is my home. It is a community in every sense of the word and throughout the my past forty
years has maintained itself in peace, goodwill, and with a consistent sense of values that would be
envied by any other community I have lived in from Seattle to New York City. In the aforementioned
article in the Kitsap Sun, John Cockburn, a member of the planning commission alluded to the potential
"urban decay" that may occur through the desires of the community. In forty years, I have failed to
observe anything that might be considered "decay" in any way, shape, or form. Manette has persevered
and is a shining example of what all communities should be. Manette should and must be preserved so
that future generations will have the same wonderful experience.
Thank you very much for your time and kind consideration.
Cordially,
Michael T. McWilliams
6/1/2009
Page 1 of 1
Lindsey Sehmel
From: Kim Bjornemo [tworfeet@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01,200910:19 AM
To: jennifer balliet
Subject: Manette Sub-Area Plan
I Members of the Bremerton City Council,
I
I I was stunned and saddened when the Planning Commission gutted the Manette
II community developed plan and presented a new plan with little or no explanation. On
the surface, the Planning Commission plan appears to favor only those concerns of
developers and commercial property owners, ignoring the concerns and desires of the
heart of Manette---its residents. The saving grace is that the members of the City
Council will have an opportunity to choose a plan that best addresses both the concerns
of Manette residents and the daunting problem of future population and economic
growth. I believe the plan developed by the community in conjunction with the city
representatives will achieve both goals.
I The Planning Commission has not provided any evidence that their plan will provide a
I superior result for the residents. On the contrary, many items, such as allowing "strip"
clubs (adult entertainment) but not allowing community theaters, increasing maximum
I building size to 20,000 sq. ft. without a setback, no provision for a low density area,
and 35' average height, all seem likely to degrade the standard of living in our
community rather than improve it.
I
I There is no doubt that planning for future growth is a necessity. Without evidence to
I the contrary, the community developed plan is our best option. I request that you support
I the community of Manette and chose our plan when you vote on 3 June.
!
Very Respectfully,
Kim Bjornemo
1409 Marlow Avenue
Bremerton, W A 98310
6/2/2009
Page 1 of 1
Lindsey Sehmel
From: Kathy Warcup [kathyw99@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29,2009 11:45 AM
To: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Manette Subarea Plan
Hi Lindsey,
I'm planning to attend the June 3 meeting, but wanted to get my short comment to you in
advance. Thanks for all the work you are all doing on this.
As I look at the website, it looks like the actual proposal the City Council will look at is quite
different from what the community folks came up with at all those meetings. I'd like to urge the
City Council to consider going back to what the residents want -- after all, we live here! I know that
so many people worked so hard, and put in lots of hours towards the community's version, so
that's my "vote". At the meetings I attended, I didn't always agree with everything my neighbors
came up with, but I do feel that the community consensus is what's important.
Thanks, and I'll see you at the next meeting,
Kathy Warcup
1610 Hayward Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98310
Hotmail@ has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it out.
61212009
Lindsey Sehmel
Subject:
paul mccullough [psmccullough@mac.com]
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:55 PM
Christine Grenier
Karen Danis; Lindsey Sehmel; Alan Winkley; Alexis Hood; Delaine Soappman; Gary and
JoAnn Blackwood; J. Mark Hood; Jodi Jones; John and Millie Becker; Josi Cockburn; Karen
Anderson; "mailto:sandidiego"@hotmail.com; "mailto: luvz2flyalot"@comcast.net;
"mailto: megarat"@comcast.net; "mailto:tkberney"@comcast.net; "mailto: rowgerc"@msn.com;
"mailto:phammond1"@sprynet.com; Jean McCullough
manette sub-area plan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
City Council, Bremerton,
It is concerning that the planning commission has made it evident it wishes to sidestep
much of the plan those of us who were involved helped formulate.
We put much time and effort into developing this plan and were led to believe our approach
was appropriate, consistent with the goals of a subarea plan and was workable. We heard no
responsible objections and, while the council has evidently elected to reject much of our
input, still have not.
If the powers that be are to be taken seriously in this matter they need to present a well
argued and reasonable position as to why our input was rejected, why they believe they
have better ideas about the future of Manette, why we were not so advised in this planning
process and just who they believe they are serving, if not their constituents and those
most reasonably concerned----i.e. the residents of Manette.
There exists a suspicion the council is perhaps more interested in pleasing the interests
of certain developers, than residents who be ANY measure should overwhelmingly take
precedence over selfish development interests.
Expanding the tax base is clearly in the interest of some, and we have seen the failure of
that kind of thinking in the downtown waterfront where our residents lost forever the
opportunity to convert some wonderful view property into what could have been a genuine
waterfront park. Yes we have a new waterfront park and a nice addition, 'but have lost
forever the opportunity to have a GENUINE waterfront park. We have there instead a
downtown condo project (projects), that have usurped a great view at the expense of the
many for the sake of the few. It is somewhat ironic to read of our mayor criticizing
Seattle, among others, for wasting their unique resorces when we have, in fact, done much
the same.
As one who resides on an exceptional piece of waterfront, please understand I am not
writing from the perspective of a skewed self interest, but I, and MANY others who
participated in the planning process, are very much interested in the long term value
(value to those who reside here, not writing monetarily) of our Manette lifestyle.
Virtually everyone of us has seen prior neighborhoods in which we were associated, or
perhaps even lived, deteriorate to a remarkable degree in the interests of development,
expanding a tax base or rewarding the monetary interests of some privileged few over the
residing many. That MUST NOT be allowed to happen here in Manette. We live here----NOW.
Listen to us. It is our lifestyle you should be concerning yourselves about. We can
accommodate growth as envisioned in the community mandate without sacrificing the
community as it is, and it is a VERY nice place to live as it is! The plan we evolved did
in fact envision and accommodate that growth goal Many of us have to wonder what it is
that has prompted the revisions in the plan we submitted.
Was this approach to community involvement simply an unserious expression for reasons of
PR?
We have a right to know which development interests you have been discussing this plan
with, and why their interests might be taking precedence over those of the residents of
Manette.
Will you be forthcoming in this regard or are we left to speculate?
Sincerely concerned long standing (36 yrs.)citizens of Manette,
1
Paul S. and Jean M. McCullough
2
Page 1 of 1
Lori Smith
From: City Council
Sent: Thursday, May 28,20099:28 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Manette Sub-Area Plan
FYI...
From: Michael Shepherd [mailto:whitewaterid@live.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28/ 2009 9:00 AM
To: City Council; Andrea Spencer
Subject:
This is a follow up to our council discussion last night about the Manette Community
Plan. I mentioned a plan drawn up by the county to support the character of the IlIahee waterfront
community so I've inlcuded the website address so that the Council can look it up and consider
another approach which is working well. IlIahee has established a height restriction of 28 ft/ two
story limitation in one portion of the community. Manette ought to consider something like that in
their plan for the residential areas.
The IlIahee community plan is available at the folowing link:
httR :LLwww.kitsap--9ov.com/dcd/communit.LRlanLsubareasLIllaheeLsubareafinaled.htm
Chapter 3/ pages 7 & 8 relate specifically to the height restriction.
(pages 3-7/8)
5/28/2009
lLLAHEE COMMUNITY PLAN
future higher densities. Urban Reserve has a maximum of 1
dwelling unit per 10 acres.
3.5 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS
A boundary line adjustment should not assist in the creation of any
lot that is more non-conforming than previously existed.
3.6 VIEW PROTECTION
One of IIlahee's unique features is its expansive views of many
scenic areas. From many properties in IIlahee, views of Mount
Rainier, the Cascade Mountain Range, Bainbridge Island, Puget
Sound, and the Seattle skyline are clearly visible. These views are
of great value and importance to the IIlahee community and have
been impacted over the years by new building construction and the
growth of view-obstructing vegetation. In an effort to reduce the
future impacts of these obstructions, the Plan establishes
regulations restricting the height of new residential construction and
restricting the planting of row trees and other vegetation in ways
that would significantly impact existing views.
View Protection Overlav Zone
Within the IlIahee community boundary, a View Protection Overlay
Zone (VPOZ) is established. Contained within the VPOZ are all
east sloped properties north of Sylvan Way (Figure 3.2). The
following regulations will only apply to the properties located within
the VPOZ.
HeiQht Restrictions
The maximum height of all new construction in the View Protection
Overlay Zone (VPOZ) is set at 28 feet, measured from the mid-
slope point of the property's buildable area to the highest point of
the structure. Additionally, all new construction within the VPOZ
shall be restricted to a maximum of two (2) stories. A day-light
basement shall be allowed pending all other restrictions within this
section are met. This restriction would apply to new construction as
well as additions and remodels to existing structures.
3-7
ILLAHEE COMMUNITY PLAN
tvifQsicpe ,cOdlt
()f C\.jUri:)Ljh:~ ort~\}
Generally, the further property owners build down the slope, the
higher their structures can be while maintaining the 28-foot
elevation restriction. The opposite is also generally true; the further
upslope property owners build, the lower their structures must be to
meet the restriction.
3-8
Page 1 of3
Christine Grenier
From: Jim McDonald [mazama90@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27,20097:48 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Manette community plan
Karen,
Thanks for articulating you views on the Planning Commission's comments on the Manette
Community Plan. I felt the very same way.
I was very disappointed when I read about the Planning Commission's response in the paper.
Your comments describe exactly how I felt after investing a considerable amount of time into the
community planning process.
r, Jim McDonald
333 Lewis Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98310
----- Original Message -----
From: K~reD 013nis
To: cit~.council@ci.bremerton.wa.gov
Cc: 'LirillsE2y~ehrnel'
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:51 PM
Subject: Manette Subarea Plan: comments
Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express concern over the version of the Manette Subarea Plan the Planning
Commission (PC) approved. I participated in all but one of the meetings during which City
planners led Manette residents in a series of decisions, the results of which fed the version of
the plan the PC received for action. At least two commissioners attended the same meetings,
not once publicly objecting to the direction in which we were headed.
Now, for the record, I am not wedded to either Plan; I simply want a Plan that aligns with legal
and policy mandates, and is likely to preserve the character that residents value, while
stimulating sustainable businesses. Furthermore, if we can inexpensively improve the
appearance of the commercial center and surrounding areas, that will help to draw visitors into
the area and make it more pleasant for residents.
If you ratify the PC's version of the plan, I am quite concerned about the precedent this sets.
The citizens invested significant time working with the City to propose the plan the
Commissioners saw. The City planners approved it, finding it consistent with sound engineering
and safety standards and consistent with the Growth Management Act and the 2004
Comprehensive Plan. When the Commissioners chopped it in half, they sent a clear, strong
5/28/2009
Page 2 of3
signal that. they did not represent the residents. And that, for some mysterious reason, the
commissioners' ideas were "better."
This presents a disconnect that should not be ignored. And it raises the suspicion that there are
other forces at work-sinister forces working in the shadows because their activity would be
censored if it saw the light of day-forces that might be having undue affect on decision makers
charged with acting in the best interests of their constituents-all of their constituents.
Back to the more apparent.
The PC charged that the City/residents' plan would result in "urban decay." Strong words..and
based on what.??
I have heard that one of the commissioners objected to the diagonal parking along 11th street
on the basis of safety. Yet, the City engineers found it an acceptable design. If that schema is
working for Winslow, why wouldn't it work for us? If there truly is a problem, can we simply
amend the concept, perhaps starting that feature at a point farther east on 11th St?
Specifically, below are several of my reasons for preferring the zoning contained in the plan the
City and the residents co-developed:
L The MCC allows theaters, and NCC does not. Manette has already been termed "the arts
district." Why prohibit a theater when it is consistent with the neighborhood's character?
). The MCC prohibits strip clubs (aka "adult entertainment"); the NCC does not. MCC zoning helps
to preserve a family-friendly atmosphere. Do we want to proactively avoid the situation we face
on Callow Avenue, or plan for additional investments to clean it up later.?
The MCC requires upper stories to be set back, resulting in a more pleasing architectural style.
The NCC has no such requirement.
L The MCC caps a building at 15,000 sq ft; the NCC at 20,000 sq ft. I realize that a large
building, subdivided into separate retail spaces, can be economical to build. Why do we need
the extra 5,000 sq ft?
, The City/resident's plan included a low-density section adjacent to the MCC, for the purposes of
promoting streetscapes that harmonize with the commercial center and transitional area. The
commissioners' plan fails to include this design feature, and, thus, will not encourage the
attractive developments that the residents value.
5/28/2009
Page 3 of3
As I mentioned, however, I am not wedded to that Plan-particularly if it contains a fatal flaw.
However, so far no one has presented a convincing case for a fatal flaw. Thus, if the facts
presented to you point to a strong concern I would hope that wisdom and reason would prevail,
and the Council would not choose either Plan. .
Instead, send both Plans back to the PC for this specific action:
Direct the PC to work with the City planners and the residents to resolve key differences using a
fully collaborative process. none of this stilted, formal comment process with residents speaking
in turn during a PC meetingnbut a real discussion. If necessary, bring in a facilitator.
We residents did the best we could, given the information and knowledge available to us. And
we have a vested interest in the results. Please allow us to help mold the future that we see
being in the best interests of Manette.
Sincerely,
1{aren rr. (j)anis, CK:M/CX-P/E
Specialist in Collaboration and Human Capital Planning
Danis Consulting
Bremerton, W A
(360) 377-2226
5/28/2009
Christine Grenier
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christine Grenier
Thursday, May 28, 2009 3: 17 PM
City Council
Citizen Comments - Manette Sub-Area Plan
-----Original Message-----
From: paul mccullough [mailto:psmccullough@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:55 PM ~
To: Christine Grenier
Cc: Karen Danis; Lindsey Sehmel; Alan Winkley; Alexis Hood; Delaine Soappman; Gary and
JoAnn Blackwood; J. Mark Hood; Jodi Jones; John and Millie Becker; Josi Cockburn; Karen
Anderson; "mailto:sandidiego"@hotmail.com; "mailto:luvz2flyalot"@comcast.net;
"mailto:megarat"@comcast.net; "mailto:tkberney"@comcast.net; "mailto:rowgerc"@msn.com;
"mailto:phammondl"@sprynet.com; Jean McCullough
Subject: manette sub-area plan
City Council, Bremerton,
It is concerning that the planning commission has made it evident it wishes to sidestep
much of the plan those of us who were involved helped formulate.
We put much time and effort into developing this plan and were led to believe our approach
was appropriate, consistent with the goals of a subarea plan and was workable. We heard no
responsible objections and, while the council has evidently elected to reject much of our
input, still have not.
If the powers that be are to be taken seriously in this matter they need to present a well
argued and reasonable position as to why our input was rejected, why they believe they
have better ideas about the future of Manette, why we were not so advised in this planning
process and just who they believe they are serving, if not their constituents and those
most reasonably concerned----i.e. the residents of Manette.
There exists a suspicion the council is perhaps more interested in pleasing the interests
of certain developers, than residents who be ANY measure should overwhelmingly take
precedence over selfish development interests.
Expanding the tax base is clearly in the interest of some, and we have seen the failure of
that kind of thinking in the downtown waterfront where our residents lost forever the
opportunity to convert some wonderful view property into what could have been a genuine
waterfront park. Yes we have a new waterfront park and a nice addition, but have lost
forever the opportunity to have a GENUINE waterfront park. We have there instead a
downtown condo project (projects), that have usurped a great view at the expense of the
many for the sake of the few. It is somewhat ironic to read of our mayor criticizing
Seattle, among others, for wasting their unique resorces when we have, in fact, done much
the same.
As one who resides on an exceptional piece of waterfront, please understand I am not
writing from the perspective of a skewed self interest, but I, and MANY others who
participated in the planning process, are very much interested in the long term value
(value to those who reside here, not writing monetarily) of our Manette lifestyle.
Virtually everyone of us has seen prior neighborhoods in which we were associated, or
perhaps even lived, deteriorate to a remarkable degree in the interests of development,
expanding a tax base or rewarding the monetary interests of some privileged few over the
residing many. That MUST NOT be allowed to happen here in Manette. We live here----NOW.
Listen to us. It is our lifestyle you should be concerning yourselves about. We can
accommodate growth as envisioned in the community mandate without sacrificing the
community as it is, and it is a VERY nice place to live as it is! The plan we evolved did
in fact envision and accommodate that growth goal Many of us have to wonder what it is
that has prompted the revisions in the plan we submitted.
Was this approach to community involvement simply an unserious expression for reasons of
1
PR?
We have a right to know which development interests you have been discussing this plan
with, and why their interests might be taking precedence over those of the residents of
Manette.
Will you be forthcoming in this regard or are we left to speculate?
Sincerely concerned long standing (36 yrs.)citizens of Manette,
Paul S. and Jean M. McCullough
2
.
.
.
Page I of I
Lori Smith
From: Adam C. Brockus [adam.brockus@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 20096:29 AM
To: Lindsey Sehmel
Cc: City Council; andrea.spenser@ci.bremerton .wa.us; manetteneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com
Subject: 4 Manette Sub-Area Plan Questions
Lindsey,
From my District Meeting, the following four questions came up about the Manette Sub-Area Plan.
I) Even though both plans keep buildings heights at 35 feet, can a "View Preservation" Clause be
amended into it?
2) Will properties in the Sub-Area Plan be eligible for the "ad velorum tax abatement" program?
3) It appears that with the townhouses and cottages allowed in the Manette Transitional Residential
(MTR) Area, the grow-out potential of the Citizen's Plan is actually higher than that passed out of the
Planning Commission. Is that true?
4) Why is a Faith-based Business Incubator one of the Prohibited Uses in the MCC?
I think it will be vary informative for the citizens and the council if we got the answers to these
questions before the Public Hearing. Thanks,
Adam C. Brockus
Bremelion City Councilman, District 3
ada111. brockus@gmail.com
5/21/2009
P;lgC I or.2
Lori Smith
From: Lori Smith on behalf of City COLJned
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 444 PM
To: 'carymh@eomeast.net'
Cc: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: RE: Citizen Comment - Manette Sub-Area Plan Border Consideration
Attachments: DIST 3 - FLYER MAY'09,doe
Mr. Hodge,
Thank you for your letter, which has been provided to the Council Members for their review
and consideration prior to the Public Hearing that is currently scheduled on Wednesday, June
3, 2009.
You may also be interested in attending a Community Meeting hosted by Council Member
Adam Brockus on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 from 6:30 to 8:00 PM at the Bremerton Senior Center
(please see attached flyer).
Thank you,
J..~ ~
Lori Smith
Legislative Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-5280
From: carymh@comcast.net [mailto:carymh@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 20094:23 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Lindsey Sehmel
Subject: Manette Sub-Area plan border consideration
Ladies and Gentlemen of the council, my name is Cary Hodge, a resident of Manette. I would
like to propose for consideration an extension of the sub-area boundry to include my properties
adjacent to the current proposed boundry on the mid west end at east 11 th and Perry,
addresses 1112, 1114, 1118 Perry Ave. next to the August Winn resturant commercial
property at the corner of east 11 th and Perry.
I feel that the inclusion of these properties into the core sub-area plan would benifit the core
business communities vision for future growth a with possible mix of retail and or multi-family
mix for the properties.
Following are the plat descriptions for the properties to be considered:
1112 Perry Ave.; BLOCK 000 LOT 12, REALTY INVESTMENT AND LOAN COMPANY FIRST
ADDITION TO
DECATUR, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE
8, RECORDS
OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
'ji4/2()()<)
P~lgC .2 \l1'.2
1114 Perry Ave.; LOT 13, REALTY INVEST & LOAN CO'S 1 ST ADDITION TO DECATUR. AS
RECORDED
IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 8, RECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY,
WASHINGTON.
1118 Perry Ave.; LOT 14, REALTY INVEST & LOAN CO'S 1ST ADDITION TO DECATUR, AS
RECORDED
IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS. PAGE 8, RECORDS OF KITSAP
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
Thank you for your consideration, I work for the Shipyard and had been traveling for the
government when the public
meetings had previously taken place. Cary Hodge
') / -J./.2 Illl')
.
.
.
Page 1 01'1
Lori Smith
From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council
Sent: Monday, May 04,20093:47 PM
To: 'JOHN W COCKBURN'
Subject: RE: "Manette Subarea Plan" - Planning Commission Member Comments
Mr. Cockburn,
Thank you for your letter, which has been shared with the Council Members for their review
and consideration.
Thank you,
Lori Smith
Legislative Assistant
Bremerton City Council
(360) 473-5280
From: JOHN W COCKBURN [mailto:jwc2006@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 20093:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Manette subarea plan
The Manette subarea plan as presented to the Planning Commission so handicaps the property
owners in the business core that redevelopment is very unlikely. The economic climate currently
further reduces the chances of improvements to the business center. The 35 foot height Iimit_
makes mixed use a two story building not three and when combined with the offstreet parking
requirements, greatly increases the development costs or decreases the building footprint. Any
property bounded by the R-l0 zone has further set backs both on the first and second story
resulting in a smaller building and a higher per square foot cost. The net per square foot cost after
following the rules of this subarea plan should make any project not feasible.
If you want a plan that freezes the Manette business district as it is, then this is the right plan.
Stopping progress does guarantee the citizens living around the business district the same views as
they have now. It also ensures the continued under utilization of three prime lots for parking
which negatively affects the growth of the tax base. Almost all of the current buildings along 11th
could not be built following the rules set forth in this plan. I believe that a neighborhood without
growth can not be vibrant, which is why I do not support this plan.
5/4/2009
1A
Motion # I
Move to authorize Cecil McConnell, acting in his capacity as city council president and
mayor pro-tem, to fultill the responsihilities of Mayor of the City of Bremerton until such
time as the City of Bremction's 2009 Mayoral election results are certitied.
Motion # 2
Move to appoint Cecil McConnell as interim mayor of the City of Bremerton until such
time as the City of Bremerton's 2009 Mayoral election results are certitied.
Motion # 3
Move to begin the selection process of a qualified person to be appointed as interim
mayor for the City of Bremerton until such time as the City of Bremerton's 2009 Mayoral
election results are certified.