HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2013 AGENDA ` f
n g Q0F7S7 QC3 �
1
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 ❑ Phone (360) 473 -5280
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
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 PUBLIC RECOGNITION
5 CONSENT AGENDA
A Claims & Check Register
B Minutes of Meeting — August 21, 2013
C Minutes of Study Session — August 28, 2013
D Interlocal Agreement between the City of Poulsbo and the City of Bremerton relating to the
Special Operations Group (SOG)
E Interlocal Agreement between the City of Poulsbo and the City of Bremerton relating to
Traffic Safety Operations
F Interlocal Agreement between the City of Poulsbo and the City of Bremerton relating to
Marine Patrol Services
6 GENERAL BUSINESS — There are no General Business items
7 PUBLIC HEARINGS
A Public Hearing and Resolution No 3202 to recover fees for abatement costs on the property
located at 1926 North Callow Avenue
B Public Hearing and Ordinance No 5222 to amend Title 20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
(BMC) entitled "Zoning Code" related to SEPA Exemptions, Drive- through Requirements and
Commercial Setbacks
8 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
9 ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
® Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request Those requiring special
accommodations please contact the City Clerk at (360) 473 -5323 by noon on the day preceding the Meeting
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL
MEETING SPEAKERS LIST
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO COMMENT
SO YOUR NAME CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD
4�ew
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CLERK
THANK YOU
r►
Washington State
Department of Transportation 5,6wit w-J- 6y
Z Uko
Developing a Safe Routes Project 'e>06 4- ) � ° 1 3
5
No Cost Solutions and Technical Assistance S teps to Safe Routes Projects
1 Building Partnerships and
WSDOT offers no cost assistance for all the phases of developing a Community Support
Safe Routes project outlined below, helping schools and communities 2 School Traffic Safety Review
prioritize needs, idenify solutions and prepare a plan. 3 Designing Your Proje
4 How to Pay for the Project
Contact: Safe Routes to School Coordinator for technical assistance 5 If you are funded by a WSDOT
Safe that may include help with the steps below. 6 How Well Routes
d Work rant
Getting Started!
1. Building Partnerships and Community Support
Efforts to provide safe walking and biking facilities work best when coordinated partnerships are used to
support them. Safe Routes to School partnerships usually include teachers, school administrator's,
transportation professionals, law enforcement, and public health professionals but may include a wide
variety of representatives.
• Contact for Schools
2. School Traffic Safety Review
This review looks at walkability and bikeability in the vicinity of schools It helps to identify where
infrastructure improvements are needed as well as safety concerns that could be addressed using
education and enforcement efforts.
• Bikeability Checklist
• Walkability Checklist
• Intersection Observation Form (pdf 54kb)
• Safe Routes to School Area Assessment (pdf 207kb)
• School Observation Assessment (pdf 30kb)
Walk Route Planning
Washington State school districts are required to have Walk Route Plans, suggested routes to get to
school, for elementary schools where there are children that walk to school (WAC 392 -151 -025).
School Walk and Bike Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for
Students (pdf 912kb) Provides information about School Walk Route Plans:
• Direction on how to develop and implement school walk routes
• Procedures to identify pedestrian safety deficiencies along walk routes
• Ways for community members to work together to make improvements
3. Designing Your Project
Identifying the right solutions for your project requires a knowledge of the various options and an
understanding of which options are better for different situations Resource documents are available to
help but they do not replace the need to include the transportation professionals responsible for your
target location.
• Design Assistance Safe Routes
• Education
• Enforcement
• Engineering
4. How to Pay for the Project
The WSDOT administers the Safe Routes to School Funding Program. It provides funds for engineering,
infrastructure, education, encouragement and enforcement activities to increase the number of children
walking and biking to school safely.
Funding Sources
• Safe Routes to School Funding Program
• School Zone Crossing Lights
• Other Funding Programs
S. If you are funded by a WSDOT Safe Routes to School Grant
If you get a Safe Routes to School Grant Award for federal funding there are federal requirements that
need to be followed. More information about those requirements can be found in the Local Agency
Guidelines (LAG) Manual.
• LAG Manual Ch 62 Enhancement, Scenic Byways and Safe Routes to School (pdf 470kb)
All funded projects are required to:
• Complete quarterly progress reports
• Complete and submit pre and post project evaluation results
• Complete a School Walk Route Plan
• Submit a SRTS Final Report
Local Agency Agreement- Funded projects must complete a local agency agreement before work begins
• LAG Manual Ch 22: Local Agency Agreement (pdf 1.1 Mb)
Tell People (Communicating) About It
• National Center for SRTS Articles and Press Releases
• Work Zone Safety Guidelines
6. Now Well Did This Work - Evaluation
Evaluation is an important part of the Program. Communities that get WSDOT Safe Routes to School
Funding are required to evaluate the number of children walking and biking to school before and after
their projects using the In -Class Survey Form and Parent Survey Form. Below are some links to the forms
and instructions.
• In -Class Survey Form (pdf)
• Parent Survey Form (pdf 64kb).
• Evaluation Instructions
Other Planning Assistance
• National Parks - Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program
• MPO /RTPO - Regional and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizations
• WSDOT Community Design Assistance
Learn more about Safe Routes to School
• Safe Routes to School Guide
• Safe Routes to School Coaching Action Network Webinars
I
ov $4
O ft) y th N A W /t�n }�}�� Ab t�, Al emu, tiNNQ Oa 4 0 0N 1 t 0 in t tAn ts N .++ � y �! C 3• N
t0 � � +D rG � b � � t (D � � t0 f0 t0 M � � � � O ~•
3 WW J
Li N O W
a p .+ O to -+ W O O + 0 0 0 0 0 -* �• W -+ O) V N A N 01 N to A (O N
i
J + O i tD co W A A A "O0000 V t0
i
A
N v V + O N V O
to to y, N p p� p► .p t�f W s i
V N W t0
1�1 t t i ,�s y th en o .1 t 1� p Qt J N i F to V
P V tJ N W Yn 6f tli Oi N G 0o N V N .1 N t0 A Go 41 V 1V t�. O
CL 2
N O N + N W W A O 01 N N V 01 V to A
NN
1 A O O O
A
O O O P O + 0 0 0 0 0 0 r+ 0 0- 0 0 0 -+ 0 0 V O i i p
O O O d7 O O d O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 -+ 0 0 0 Ai W O i 0 O
0 0 0 00000000000000 .► 0 0 0 N 0 O
0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 o v o n o A ��
l C
T y� m
o 0 o 0 o n n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o
.�- ts
5 co
pt O O O A O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 000
.�
z
�r
o• O
•
marw Patty Lent _
! 6ren i�Gon wa ua °
/� s� -
.p roda ma�tfon } 545 „
Bremerton ;WA98337 =1873
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001 a terrorist attack upon the United States of America
occurred; and
WHEREAS, even though the physical attacks were at the United States Pentagon in
Washington D.C., the Twin Towers in New York City, and a field in Pennsylvania, the effects
were felt throughout the United States and the world; and
WHEREAS, we honor the heroes and volunteers that were lost that day and the many
who are continuing to serve in their memory; and
WHEREAS, twelve years later a Kitsap 9/11 Memorial has been constructed at
Evergreen Rotary Park in Bremerton; and
WHEREAS, in honor of September l l the City of Bremerton will remember how
American's came together that day and hope to educate future generations by holding a day of
Remembrance Ceremony at Evergreen Rotary Park at 6:00 pm local time; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton expresses their support of the United State's Senate
regarding coming together as a nation and ceasing all work or other activity for a moment of
remembrance beginning at 1:00 p m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 11, 2013, in honor of
the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attacks committed against the United States on September
11, 2001;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patty Lent, Mayor of the City of Bremerton, do hereby proclaim
September 11 h as the remembrance and celebration to "Never Forget" SEPTEMBER 11 in
the City of Bremerton and I urge all citizens to celebrate a Day of Remembrance for September
I P and support our efforts to educate future generations and truly never forget.
SIGNED this 4 day of September 2013.
Patty ayor
Sharps are not accepted in garbage or
recycling containers •
Sharps are defined as needles, syringes, ; _ , •
scalpels, lancets, and intravenous ,
tubing with needles attached, g F . • , • •
whether they are used or not.
Properly dispose of sharps
Ask your health care provider or pharmacist if they�
accept sharps. If not, you may deliver properly
packaged sharps (in one of the containers shown
at right) to the attendant booth at any of the j
facilities listed on the back. ..—
Notify attendant you have brought sharps "
before removing from your vehicle.
Kitsap Public Health District also accepts sharps,
but they must be placed in red sharps containers.
For safety reasons, please note:
• Close the lid on the container.
• Do not overfill. 09
• Do not use milkjugs, coffee cans, or other
unapproved containers to store sharps.
• Sharps must be stored in a red sharps
container (available at pharmacies) or a sturdy
plastic bottle with screw -cap lid (e.g 2 -liter
soda, detergent, or bleach bottle). Place a
biohazard sticker on all screw -cap containers.
Stickers are available at all Solid Waste •
facilities free of charge. •
• Improperly packaged sharps
are not accepted for disposal.
Note- Facilities are limited to accepting sharps1�t r
from residential m r only
customers s
Businesses should call Stericycle at 800 - 755 -3291.
ft
See back or call Kitsap 1 at 360 - 337 -5777 for
drop -off locations in Kitsap County
P
5
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT. Claims & Check Register Study Session Date:
COUNCIL MEETING Date: September 4. 2013
Department: Financial Services
Presenter. Shannon Conn
Phone: 473-5323
SUMMARY: Approval of the following checks and electronic fund transfers-
1) Check Ws 354921 through 355009 and EFT's 13118 through 13150 in the amount of
$1,308,044 56.
2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending August 31, 2013 in the amount of $698,785.62.
3) Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending August 31, 2013 in the amount of $56,227.27.
ATTACHMENTS:
FISCAL IMPACTS (include Budgeted Amount).
STUDY SESSION AGENDA 0 No Discussion O Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ® Consent Agenda O General Business 0 Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve consent agenda as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION: [Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
Form updated 11=12
AGENDA BILL so
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT Minutes of Meeting — Study Session Date
August 21, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING Date September 4, 2013
Department City Council
Presenter Greg Wheeler
Council President
Phone (360) 473 -5280
SUMMARY Attached is the summary of the City Council Meeting
ATTACHMENTS. Meeting Minutes
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount)
STUDY SESSION AGENDA x❑ No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION- ❑x Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented
COUNCIL ACTION ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
Form Updated 01/25/13
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday,
August 21, 2013, at 5 00 PM in the Council Conference Room 603 of the NORM DICKS
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6 th Street, Bremerton, Washington, with Council President Greg
Wheeler presiding Council Members present were Nick Wofford, Carol Arends, Faye Flemister,
Wendy Priest, Adam Brockus, Leslie Daugs, and Jim McDonald Council Member Eric Younger
was absent Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich, City Clerk Shannon Corin,
Legislative Assistant Lori Smith, and Information Services Manager Kevin Matthew
A COUNCIL BRIEFING was held to discuss General Council Business at 5 00 PM in the Council
Conference Room At 5 30 PM the meeting moved to the Meeting Chambers
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Jim McDonald followed by the invocation
provided by Pastor Tim Cartwright of Emmanuel Lutheran Church
President Wheeler announced that the screen is still in the process of being repaired, and the
order of the agenda has been changed so that General Business Items 3A and 3B will be heard
first on the Agenda tonight
GENERAL BUSINESS
3A — RECREATION & CONSERVATION OFFICE (RCO) GRANT AGREEMENT FOR
EVERGREEN ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENTS (INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND AND ADA
ACCESSIBILITY) Parks & Recreation Director Wvn Birkenthal explained that the attached grant
agreement provides $211,350 to assist in the renovation of Evergreen Rotary Park -- creating
Bremerton and Kitsap County's first fully accessible playground This project improves ADA
access from the main parking lot to the park's central activity area, increases the number of ADA
and regular car parking spaces by 10, and trees and landscaping are developed in the parking lot
and along the shoreline Parks Development Planner Colette Berna presented additional details
about the proposed improvements
This project has been recommended by the Parks & Recreation Commission Additionally an
active volunteer group named "Bremerton Beyond Accessible Playgrounds" has donated $50,500
in cash, and has pledged 360 hours of volunteer labor to assist with project construction
Rebecca Utah Gabe Utah and Stanley Westerback expressed their appreciation to Wyn
Birkenthal, Colette Berna, the City Council Members, and the Mayor for supporting their efforts,
and presented a check to the City in the amount of $50,500, and John Larson Chair of the Parks
& Rec Commission, provided comments m support of these grants
05:52:30 Motion was made by Daugs, and seconded by Arends Questions were asked by
Daugs with responses provided by Mr Birkenthal, Comments were provided by Daugs, Brockus,
Flemister, and Wheeler
05:59:52 M /S /C /U (Daugs / Arends) Move to authorize the Mayor to finalize and enter into the Grant
Agreement with the Recreation & Conservation Office (RCO) Funding Board for Evergreen Rotary
Park inclusive playground and park Improvements with substantially the same terms and
conditions as presented.
3B — COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (DNR) FOR EVERGREEN ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENTS (SHADE AND
HABITAT TREES) Parks & Recreation Director Wvn Birkenthal also explained that the attached
Community Forestry Assistance Grant Agreement with the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) pays for the cost of shade and habitat trees at Evergreen Rotary Park
City Council Reg Mtg Minutes
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Page 2 of 4
The grant is intended to demonstrate the use of trees to shade the shoreline, increase habitat
values and filter storm water runoff from paved surfaces The grant also pays for educational
signage explaining the advantages of shoreline trees This grant is a sister grant to the RCO grant
for Evergreen Rotary Park improvements and the RCO grant serves as the local match for
Community Forestry grant The grant project helps Bremerton maintain its Tree City USA
designation by planting species appropriate urban trees to publicly owned lands
There were no additional questions or comments from the public or the Council
06:00:20 M /S /C /U (Brockus /Daugs) Move to authorize the Mayor to finalize and enter into the
Community Forestry Grant Agreement with Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for Evergreen
Rotary Park with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented
MAYOR'S REPORT — Mayor Patty Lent
• Presented a Key to the City to Stanley Westerback for his Eagle Scout Kiosk Project at
Evergreen Rotary Park,
• Invited the public to participate in the Work Parties at Forest Ridge Park ever 3 rd Saturday and
at Kiwanis Park every 4 th Saturday (including this week),
• Announced the 24 Annual Bremerton Blackberry Festival to be held over Labor Day
Weekend, and
• With the first day of school on September 4, the Council Members and members of the
community were encouraged to attend a Special Meeting of the Bremerton School Board on
Monday, August 29 at 5 00 PM to provide comments regarding the new Superintendent
Police Chief Strachan provided a monthly briefing on the Bremerton Police Department
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Bob Dollar thanked Mayor Lent and Public Works Department for forming a 4 th Street Tree
Committee, and volunteered to serve
Jack Stanfill presented information for the record to express his concern about the potential
impact to the wetlands and surrounding area due to activities by the Ueland Tree Farm He also
expressed concern that the City of Bremerton did not provide any comments during the entire EIS
process Lastly, he mentioned that Bob Dollar is a new member of their Board
Jack Arends led the Council and those in attendance at the meeting tonight in singing "Happy
Birthday' to Council Member Carol Arends
CONSENT AGENDA
7A — Claims & Check Register Check Numbers 354729 through 354920, and EFT- 13076
through EFT -13117 in the amount of $1,784,611 35, and Regular Payroll for the pay period
ending August 15, 2013 in the amount of $699,659 57
7B — Minutes of Meeting — August 7, 2013
7C — Minutes of Study Session — August 14, 2013
7D — Purchase of Emergency Generator for Pump Station KL -2 from Cummins Northwest LLC
7E — Resolution No 3201 to allow the transfer of 5 -feet of City Property to Right -of -Way along
Taft Avenue and 19 Street
7F — Award Goods & Services Agreement to Olson Brothers Pro -Vac LLC of Puyallup
There were no comments from the public
City Council Reg Mtg Minutes
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Page 3of4
06:25:45 M /S /C /U (McDonald/Wofford) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented
GENERAL BUSINESS (Continued )
8A — AWARD CONSULTANT CONTRACT TO GREY & OSBORNE, INC. FOR THE DESIGN OF
THE LOWER WHEATON WAY PROJECT City Engineer Tom Knuckey summarized that the
City received funding from the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) to make bicycle and
pedestrian improvements on Lower Wheaton Way from the Manette Bridge to Lebo Boulevard
The project includes revising the current roadway section from the current 18 -foot drive lanes and
sporadic sidewalk, to 12 -foot drive lanes with 5 -foot bike lanes, landscaping, stormwater, sanitary
and water main improvements, and a continuous sidewalk on the waterside which will continue the
bridge -to- bridge urban trail
The City requested proposals from five consultants, three were interviewed, and Grey & Osborne,
Inc was selected as the designer
There were no comments from the public
06:30:05 Motion was made by Daugs, and seconded by Brockus Questions were asked by
Daugs, Brockus, and McDonald, with responses provided by Mr Knuckey Comments were
provided by McDonald and Wheeler
06:35:55 M /S /C /U (Daugs /Brockus) Move to approve the consultant contract with Grey & Osborne,
Inc for the design of the Lower Wheaton Way Project, and authorize the Mayor to finalize and
execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Nick Wofford thanked those who volunteer for their community
Carol Arends also thanked everyone who volunteered their time, and appreciates having a caring
community She also thanked everyone for the birthday wishes
Faye Flemister thanked Milenka Hawkins- Bates, Administration Divisions Manager for the Public
Works Department for organizing a group of volunteers to paint the curbs around the schools, and
announced that a Public Meeting would be held on Tuesday, September 3 at 5 00 PM to allow a
chance for the community to comment on the renaming of a portion of 7 th Street in honor of Dr
Martin Luther King, Jr
Wendy Priest has found it worthwhile to be a member of the Council during all of the wonderful
projects that have been taking place, and encouraged anyone who can attend the Kitsap County
Fair to see the City's police dogs in action
Adam Brockus was pleased to see Congressman Kilmer answer questions and greet the public,
was pleased with the success of the "Music in Manette" free summer concert series, and
encouraged the public to attend the last "Rock the Dock" free summer concert series on the
Bremerton Boardwalk Lastly, he encouraged attendance at the 10 Annual Manette Fest which is
coming up on Saturday, September 7 th and announced a Harvest Festival would be added in
September
Leslie Daugs reminded everyone that the Kitsap County Fair begins today, and looked forward to
attending a Recognition Ceremony for Kitsap Community Resources & AmenCorps members on
Friday, August 30 She also thanked all of the volunteers who helped with the curb - painting
project
City Council Reg Mtg Minutes
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Page 4 of 4
Jim McDonald enjoyed attending the Kitsap Wine Festival last weekend, and was pleased with
the progress with the Kitsap 9 -11 Memorial and announced that the beams would be set in place
at Evergreen Rotary Park this Saturday at 8 00 AM
Greg Wheeler and invited anyone interested in attending the next Friends of Kiwanis Park Work
Party on Saturday, August 24 from 9 00 to 11 00 AM (once per month until November) Enjoyed
seeing the summer concert series as "community builders ", and congratulated Leslie Daugs on
earning the Association of Washington Cities' Certificate of Municipal Leadership
With no further business, President Wheeler adjourned the Council Meeting at 6 50 PM
Prepared and Submitted by
0192 & - Siffi
LORI SMITH
Legislative Assistant
Attest
SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk
GREG WHEELER, City Council President
GW SC Is cg
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
■■ eeeeereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeereereeeeeeeee0 eeeeeeeeeeeee■0 eeeeee0 eeeeeeeeeeee ■0 e9 eeeseeeee1
SUBJECT Minutes of Study Session — Study Session Date
August 28, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING Date September 4, 2013
Department City Council
Presenter Greg Wheeler
Council President
Phone (360) 473 -5280
SUMMARY Attached is the summary of the City Council Meeting
ATTACHMENTS Meeting Minutes
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount)
STUDY SESSION AGENDA Z No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION Nx Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION.
Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented
COUNCIL ACTION ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
Form Updated 01125/13
I
I
I
DIGITAL RECORDING
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
A Study Session of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the Council
Conference Room of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6th Street, Bremerton,
Washington, Wednesday, August 28, 2013, at 5 00 PM, with Council President Greg Wheeler
presiding Council Members present were Nick Wofford, Eric Younger, Carol Arends, Faye
Flemister, Wendy Priest, Adam Brockus, Leslie Daugs, and Jim McDonald Council Assistant
Christine Grenier was present to provide staff support
President Wheeler emphasized that the Study Session was open to the public but there would be
no opportunities for input or participation, and announced that approved items by Council will be '
placed on the September 4, 2013 Council Meeting Agenda or as indicated
A NO PRESENTATION ITEMS — The following items are budgeted items or have already been
reviewed by the appropriate Council Committee
1 Interlocal Agreement between the City of Poulsbo and the City of Bremerton relating to the
Special Operations Group (SOG) Consent Agenda
2 Interlocal Agreement between the City of Poulsbo and the City of Bremerton relating to
Traffic Safety Operations Consent Agenda
3 Interlocal Agreement between the City of Poulsbo and the City of Bremerton relating to the
Marine Patrol Services Consent Agenda
B FULL PRESENTATION ITEMS
4 Purchase of four (4) Handheld [Parking] Citation Devices from CiteZone corn
Information Only
5 PFepesed publiG heaF'RgS (GR September A and 19) to approve Letter AgFeemeRt and
Lease feF PeRdeFgast PaFk SGGGeF Field with West SGURd FG PFen;ler SGGGeF Club
Item Pulled
6 Proposed public hearing and resolution to recover fees for abatement costs on the property
located at 1926 North Callow Avenue Public Hearing
7 Proposed public hearing and ordinance to amend Title 20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
(BMC) entitled "Zoning Code" related to SEPA exemptions, Drive- through Requirements
and Commercial Setbacks Public Hearing
Council recessed from 6 42 to 6 52 PM
C GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS
1 Finance and Investment Committee Briefing (8128113 Meeting) — Eric Younger, Chair
2 Finalize 2014 City Council Goals — Greg Wheeler, Council President
3 Other General Council Business
D ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION
With no further business, President Wheeler adjourned the Council Study Session at 8 52 PM
i
i
i
City Council Study Session Minutes
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Prepared and Submitted by
CHRISTINE G ENIER
Council Assistant
Attest
SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk
GREG WHEELER, City Council President
GW SC Is cg
AGENDA BILL 15D
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
■ s���e�a��s���������������������������������00NMM0E0EWE00 0EW000a0N0000E0E00EEE00W000aEEI
SUBJECT Study Session Date August 28, 2013
Interlocal SOG Agreement between the City COUNCIL MEETING Date September 4, 2013
of Poulsbo and the City of Bremerton Department Police
Presenter James Burchett
Phone (360) 473 -5225
SUMMARY. Interlocal agreement to create a collaborative effort between the Bremerton Police
Department and the City of Poulsbo Police Department to enhance point investigative abilities in order
to more effectively identify, arrest and deter those members of our community involved in the use,
sale, manufacturing and distribution of narcotics, prostitution, gambling or criminal gang activity
ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount) Poulsbo to receive from Bremerton a sum equal to
seven percent (7 %) of the yearly drug forfeiture cash and cash proceeds from sales of forfeited
property of all cases
STUDY SESSION AGENDA Nx No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION Nx Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Poulsbo and authorize the Mayor to
finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
i
i
Form Updated 01/25/13
I
i
1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND
THE CITY OF POULSBO
This Interlocal Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 39 34
RCW by and between the City of Bremerton ( "Bremerton ") and the City of Poulsbo ( "Poulsbo ")
WHEREAS, this agreement is intended to create a collaborative effort between the City of
Poulsbo Police Department ( "PPD ") and the City of Bremerton Police Department ( "BPD ") to enhance
point investigative abilities in order to more effectively identify, arrest and deter those members of our
community involved in the use, sale, manufacturing and distribution of narcotics, prostitution, gambling
or criminal gang activity
NOW THEREFORE, Poulsbo and Bremerton, through their respective legislative bodies, do
hereby agree as follows
1 Poulsbo shall assign, as department staffing levels permit, a full time officer to work in the BPD
Special Operations Group ( "SOG ") to participate in narcotics, prostitution, gambling and gang
investigations This understanding permits the Poulsbo police officer to work out of the SOG
office in Bremerton, Washington SOG will target criminal activities that impact both the City
of Poulsbo and the City of Bremerton communities These officers will liaise between the
agencies and facilitate a closer working relationship
2 BPD recognizes that the assigned Poulsbo police officer has responsibilities with PPD and may
be required to provide investigative support, attend mandatory training, conduct investigations or
attend to other work related issues associated and required by the Poulsbo
3 BPD also recognizes that the assigned Poulsbo police officer has reporting responsibilities to
PPD regarding his or her delegated duties in SOG Prior to reporting any information to PPD
regarding an ongoing SOG investigation or covert operation, the assigned Poulsbo police officer
will obtain approval from the SOG supervisor This will allow Poulsbo and SOG superiors to
ensure that the investigation or operation is not compromised.
4 BPD will issue a limited police commission to the Poulsbo officer assigned to work with SOG
This limited commission is authorized when assigned to SOG and gives authority to the Poulsbo
officer to enforce ordinances of the City of Bremerton and to protect the public peace within the
City of Bremerton This commission is valid during work hours and for the duration of the
officer's assignment At the conclusion of this agreement all forms of identification and
authorization issued by the Bremerton Police Department will be returned and terminated
5 PPD will issue a limited police commission to the Bremerton Police officers assigned to SOG
This limited commission is authorized when assigned to SOG and gives authority to the
Bremerton officers to enforce ordinances of the City of Poulsbo and to protect the public peace
within the City of Poulsbo This commission will be revoked upon the Bremerton officer leaving
SOG At the conclusion of this agreement all forms of identification and authorization issued by
PPD will be returned and terminated
i
Page 1 of 4
I
6 Law enforcement personnel assigned to SOG shall have such authority to enforce state laws
within the geographical area of the Cities of Bremerton and Poulsbo, or any other jurisdiction in
Washington, as is given them by the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers Powers Act,
RCW 1093
7. PPD personnel assigned to SOG will adhere to the policies established by SOG and PPD and will
work under the day -to -day supervision of the SOG supervisor Nevertheless, at all times, PPD
personnel assigned to SOG shall be considered employees of the PPD, which shall be solely and
exclusively responsible for that employee All rights, duties and obligations of the employer
shall remain with PPD The personnel assigned by PPD shall continue under the employment of
PPD for purposes of any losses, claims, damages, or liabilities arising out of or related to the
services provided to SOG or the activities of SOG
8 Indemnification
a In executing this agreement, Poulsbo does not assume liability or responsibility for or in
any way release Bremerton from any liability or responsibility, which arises in whole or in part
from the existence, validity or effect of Bremerton ordinances, rules or regulations If any such
cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced, Bremerton shall defend the
same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against Bremerton,
Poulsbo, or both, Bremerton shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's
fees
b In executing this agreement, Bremerton does not assume liability or responsibility for or
in any way release Poulsbo from any liability or responsibility, which arises in whole or in part
from the existence, validity or effect of Poulsbo ordinances, rules or regulations If any such
cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced, Poulsbo shall defend the
same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against Poulsbo,
Bremerton or both, Poulsbo shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's
fees
c Poulsbo shall indemnify and hold harmless Bremerton and its officers, agents, and
employees, or any of them, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits liability, loss,
costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, which are caused by or result from a
negligent act or omission of Poulsbo, its officers, agents, and employees in performing services
pursuant to this agreement In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or
damage is brought against Bremerton or Bremerton and Poulsbo, Poulsbo shall defend the same
at its sole cost and expense, and if final judgment be rendered against Bremerton and its officers,
agents, and employees orjomtly against Bremerton and Poulsbo and their respective officers,
agents, and employees Poulsbo shall satisfy the same
d Bremerton shall indemnify and hold harmless Poulsbo and its officers, agents, and
employees, or any of them, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss,
costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, which are caused by or result from a
negligent act or omission of Bremerton, its officers, agents, and employees in performing
services pursuant to this agreement In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action,
loss, or damage is brought against Poulsbo or Bremerton and Poulsbo, Bremerton shall defend
the same at its sole cost and expense, and if final judgment be rendered against Poulsbo, and its
officers, agents, and employees or jointly against Poulsbo and Bremerton and their respective
officers, agents, and employees Bremerton shall satisfy the same
Page 2 of 4
e If a claim is made that both parties are responsible for all or a portion of damages alleged
to have been sustained as a result of acts or omissions of the parties hereto, then the above
referenced indemnity and hold harmless provisions shall apply only to the extent of the
proportion of liability attributable to the indemnifying party If liability is not or cannot be
apportioned, then the parties shall be responsible for their own costs and attorneys fees incurred
in the matter and shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless for one half of any amount
awarded by the Court or other decision making body with jurisdiction as a result of the alleged
acts or omissions
9 Poulsbo agrees to furnish and pay for service of a cellular system for its assigned agent that is
compatible to cellular equipment utilized by SOG
10 Bremerton will provide workspace and work station with required computer equipment and
maintenance support for the assigned Poulsbo officer
11 Bremerton, through its SOG supervisor, shall maintain a fund of ready cash so that day -to -day
needs of SOG can be met The Poulsbo officer assigned to SOG will be apportioned imprest
monies from the fund by the SOG supervisor, in accordance with SOG polices, to conduct
controlled narcotics purchases and other authorized official business The assigned Poulsbo
officer will be accountable for the proper handling of the funds in accordance with SOG policy
and will be subject to audit
12 For operational necessity, the assigned Poulsbo officer will be authorized to participate in SOG
required training and meetings
13 The Poulsbo officer assigned to SOG pursuant to this agreement will receive compensation from
Poulsbo only, and is prohibited from receiving compensation in any form, from SOG or any
other source
14 The terms of this agreement will commence as of the date signed by both parties This
agreement can be terminated at any time with 30 days written notice by either party with the
understanding that all reasonable attempts will be made not to jeopardize personnel and active
undercover operations
15 The parties do not intend to create through this Agreement a separate legal entity subject to suit
16 Drug forfeiture cash and cash proceeds from sales of property forfeited as a result SOG
operations pursuant to RCW 69 50 505 shall be placed into a forfeiture fund managed by
Bremerton Such monies shall remain subject to the use restrictions of RCW 69 50 505 in the
hands of each party until fully expended for the law enforcement purposes permitted in RCW
69 50 505
17 Poulsbo shall receive from Bremerton a sum equal to seven percent (7 %) of the yearly drug
forfeiture cash and cash proceeds from sales of forfeited property of all cases The seven percent
is calculated after deduction of the State of Washington remittance required by RCW
69 50 505(9)
Page 3 of 4
18 BPD will issue tactical equipment that is available within the SOG quartermaster system All
other officer equipment will be purchased by and the responsibility of PPD
19 BPD will assign a SOG unmarked / undercover vehicle to the Poulsbo officer Fuel and
maintenance will be the responsibility of the PPD
20. Poulsbo shall be responsible for record keeping, reporting, managing and dispersing of funds it
receives from the forfeiture fund in accordance with the restrictions and provisions of RCW
69 50 505
21 The Chiefs of BPD and PPD, or their designees, will meet each quarter, or as needed, for the
purpose of reviewing and discussing the operations and performance of SOG
Signatures of approving authorities
Dated this day of 2013
Alan Townsend Steven Strachan
Chief of Police Chief of Police
City of Poulsbo City of Bremerton Police Department
Becky Erickson Patty Lent
Mayor, City of Poulsbo Mayor, City of Bremerton
R \ Legal \Legal \Contracts\Police \SOG - Poulsbo mterlocal Agreement bremerton Edits 6 -24 -13 - Final doc
Page 4 of 4
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement between Study Session Date August 28, 2013
the City of Poulsbo and the City of COUNCIL MEETING Date September 4, 2013
Bremerton relating to Traffic Safety Department Police
Operations Presenter Chief Strachan
Phone 473 -5750
SUMMARY This agreement confers authority on City of Poulsbo police officers to enforce State and
locals laws and ordinances within the City of Bremerton for the purpose of mutual aid traffic safety
enforcement and education
ATTACHMENTS Interlocal Agreement signed by the City of Poulsbo
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount) There are no fiscal impacts, as mutual aid will only
occur with on -duty officers
STUDY SESSION AGENDA ❑x No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION x❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION.
Move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Poulsbo and authorize the Mayor to
finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented
COUNCIL ACTION- ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
Form Updated 01/25/13
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF POULSBO AND THE
CITY OF BREMERTON
RELATING TO TRAFFIC SAFETY OPERATIONS
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between the City of Poulsbo, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "Poulsbo" and the City
of Bremerton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "Bremerton"
WHEREAS, Poulsbo and Bremerton share similar interests in effectively
maintaining traffic safety operations in then respective cities; and
WHEREAS, when working together, both cities have the ability to enhance traffic
safety and focus more resources on a particular problem or situation at one time,
NOW Therefore, Poulsbo and Bremerton hereby agree as follows:
1 AUTHORITY FOR AGREEMENT This Letter of Agreement is entered
into as an Interlocal agreement pursuant to the Washington Mutual Aid Peace Officers
Powers Act as codified in Chapter 10.93 of the Revised Code of Washington.
2. PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT. The Police Department of the City of
Poulsbo and the Police Department of the City of Bremerton each maintain motorcycle
patroUtraffic units for the purpose of traffic safety enforcement and education The
Police Department of the City of Poulsbo maintains primary responsibility for law
enforcement services within the city limits of Poulsbo. The Police Department of the City
of Bremerton maintains primary responsibility for law enforcement services within the
city limits of Bremerton. The above agencies agree that there is a benefit to sharing the
resources of both motorcycle patrol and traffic safety units to better saturate specific
emphasis areas with more effective patrol The benefit is to the citizens of both
jurisdictions, especially areas such as school zones where motorcycle patrols can serve as
a significant impact to traffic safety in those areas and in turn help to ensure the safety of
pedestrians and other motorists.
3 MUTUAL AID LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES Each party will, to
the best of its ability, furnish Traffic Safety Patrol Officers mutual aid law enforcement
services to, and at the request of, any of the parties named in this agreement. Each city
shall confer police authority on those officers from other jurisdictions providing mutual
aid law enforcement services and enforcing the requesting department's ordinances. Far
purposes of this agreement, the request for mutual aid can be made by the law
enforcement agency with primary jurisdiction If, in the exercise of its discretion, the
responding department determines that its department cannot provide the requested
mutual aid services, then such department shall immediately notify the iequestor of the
formei's inability to respond. The responding department shall be the sole judge of its
ability to respond and assumes no liability for declining to respond.
1
4. SERVICES INCLUDED. Foi purposes of this Agreement, Traffic Safety
Patrol Officers mutual aid law enforcement services shall mean traffic safety education
and enforcement. Enforcement shall occur using the primary jurisdiction's ordinances
and all citations subject to adjudication in the municipal court shall be sent to the
municipal court of the primary jurisdiction. The services provided will be in accordance
with the responding agencies policies and procedures. Any investigative reports
completed by the Traffic Safety Patrol Officers will be forwarded to the agency with
primary jurisdiction as soon as practical.
5. TERM. This Agreement is effective upon authorization and signature by
both parties The contract period shall continue until Decembei 31, 2016. This agreement
shall automatically be renewed on a calendar year basis unless written notice of
termination is given by either party by the proceeding November 30th of any such year.
Any party may terminate its participation in this Agreement by giving 60 days notice of
termination to the other parties hereto.
6 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties acknowledge and agree
that in the performance of this Agreement, they are acting as independent contractors and
not as agents of each other
7. INDEMNIFICATION
a. In executing this agreement, Poulsbo does not assume liability or
responsibility for or in any way release Bremerton from any liability or responsibility,
which arises in whole or in part from the existence, validity or effect of Bremerton
ordinances, rules or regulations If any such cause, claim, suit, action or administrative
proceeding is commenced, Bremerton shall defend the same at its sole expense and if
judgment is entered or damages are awarded against Bremerton, Poulsbo, or both,
Bremerton shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees.
b. In executing this agreement, Bremerton does not assume liability
or responsibility for or in any way release Poulsbo from any liability or responsibility,
which arises in whole or in part from the existence, validity or effect of Poulsbo
ordinances, rules or regulations. If any such cause, claun, suit, action or administrative
proceeding is commenced, Poulsbo shall defend the same at its sole expense and if
judgment is entered or damages ate awarded against Poulsbo, Bremerton or both, Poulsbo
shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees.
C. Poulsbo shall indemnify and hold harmless Bremerton and its
officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, from and against any and all claims,
actions, suits liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever,
which are caused by or result from a negligent act or omission of Poulsbo, its officers,
agents, and employees in performing services pursuant to this agreement. In the event
that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against
Bremerton or Bremerton and Poulsbo, Poulsbo shall defend the same at its sole cost and
expense, and if final judgment be rendered against Bremerton and its officers, agents, and
2
employees or jointly against Bremerton and Poulsbo and their respective officers, agents,
and employees Poulsbo shall satisfy the same.
d Bremerton shall indemnify and hold harmless Poulsbo and its
officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, from and against any and all claims,
actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever,
which are caused by or result from a negligent act or omission of Bremerton, its officers,
agents, and employees in performing services pursuant to this agreement In the event
that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against Poulsbo
or Bremerton and Poulsbo, Bremerton shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense,
and if final judgment be rendered against Poulsbo, and its officers, agents, and employees
or jointly against Poulsbo and Bremerton and their respective officers, agents, and
employees Bremerton shall satisfy the same
e. If a claim is made that both parties are responsible for all or a
portion of damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of acts or omissions of the
parties hereto, then the above referenced indemmty and hold harmless provisions shall
apply only to the extent of the proportion of liability attributable to the indemnifying
party. If liability is not or cannot be apportioned, then the parties shall be responsible for
their own costs and attorney's fees incurred in the matter and shall indemnify and hold
the other party harmless for one half of any amount awarded by the Court or other
decision making body with jurisdiction as a result of the alleged acts or omissions
8 GOVERNING BODY. A joint board consisting of the police chief for the
City of Poulsbo and police chief for the City of Bremerton shall administer this
Agreement Meetings may be called upon the request of any board member with seven
(7) days mirumum notice
9. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement shall be signed in counterparts and,
if so signed, shall be deemed one integrated agreement
10 MODIFICATION The parties may amend, modify, or supplement this
Agreement only by written agreement executed by the parties hereto.
11. MERGER AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement merges and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and/or agreements between the parties
relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes an entire contract between
the parties.
1
i
i
I
I
I
3
i
i
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement.
Dated this day of 2013 Dated this day of Au- ,-Gus? 2013
CITY OF BREMERTON CITY OF POULSBO
By. By: 1 r' 4 ?
Patty Lent, Mayor Beck rickson, Mayor
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
- ZA //Avt---j —
Steven Strachan, Chief of Police Alan Townsend, Chief of Police
APPROVED AS TO FORM APP R�TO RM-
Roger A Lubovich, City Attorney Jim Haney, City Attorney
R V- egal\Legai \Contrads\Police \Traffcc Safety Interlocal with Pouisbo 6-24 -13 dou
I
i
I
I
i
4
I
1
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
■■ a�������a�0Na000sNNNM000ER00X00s0000000a0000E0EE0aa00NNEE00NN000000E0000 ff0000a00aM0001
SUBJECT- Interlocal Agreement between Study Session Date August 28,2013
the City of Poulsbo and the City of COUNCIL MEETING Date September 4, 2013
Bremerton relating to Marine Patrol Services Department Police
Presenter Chief Strachan
Phone 473 -5750
SUMMARY This agreement confers authority to the City of Poulsbo Police Department Marine
Patrol to patrol waters within the Bremerton city limits for the purposes of enforcing applicable laws
and ordinances, promoting boating safety, and preventing law and safety violations
ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement signed by the City of Poulsbo
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount) Due to the mutual interest of and benefit to both
parties in public safety for the community, no monetary compensation will be paid for these services
STUDY SESSION AGENDA ❑x No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION. Nx Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing
Move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Poulsbo and authorize the Mayor to
finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented
COUNCIL ACTION ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
Form Updated 01/25/13
I
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF POULSBO
AND THE CITY OF BREMERTON
RELATING TO MARINE PATROL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Poulsbo, a municipal corporation of
the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "Poulsbo ", and the City of
Bremerton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as
"Bremerton" for marine patrol services
WHEREAS, Poulsbo and Bremerton have geographical boundaries either
bordering on or encompassing navigable waters in Kitsap County and, thus have the
authority to police these waters; and
WHEREAS, Poulsbo has established and maintains a marine patrol service on the
waters within Poulsbo's jurisdiction which can also service the waters under the authority
of Bremerton;
NOW Therefore, Poulsbo and Bremerton hereby agree as follows:
1 Police Authority Bremerton confess municipal police authority on Poulsbo
officers engaged pursuant to this Agreement to enforce State and Bremerton ordinances
within Bremerton waters for the purposes of carrying out this Agreement.
2. Assistance and Patrol Through its Marine Patrol Unit, Poulsbo may
provide assistance to the Bremerton Police Department upon request, and may patrol
waters under the authoiity of Biemerton for the purposes of enforcing applicable laws and
ordinances, promoting boating safety, and preventing law or safety violations, including
responding to emergency complaints in accordance with standard emergency dispatch
protocol. Due to the mutual interest of and benefit to both parties in public safety for the
community, no monetary compensation will be paid foi these services.
3. No Duty to Patrol or Provide Assistance Poulsbo Marine Patrol Unit shall
have the primary interest of patrolling its own waters, and shall not be liable for, or be
considered to be in breach of or default under this Agreement on account of any delay in or
failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement. This Agreement shall not create
any duty on the part of Poulsbo to patiol the waters of Bremerton or respond to requests for
assistance Poulsbo has the absolute discretion to decline to provide any requested
assistance at any time without incutiing any liability
4 Independent Contractor The parties to this Agreement agree that Poulsbo
is acting as an independent contractor and controls all marine patrol personnel, including
standards of performance and discipline All persons rendering marine patrol services
under this Agreement shall be for all purposes employees of Poulsbo
5. Indemnification
a. In executing this agreement, Poulsbo does not assume liability or
j responsibility for or in any way release Bremerton from any liability or responsibility,
I
I
which arises in whole or in part from the existence, validity or effect of Bremerton
ordinances, rules or regulations If any such cause, claim, suit, action or administrative
proceeding is commenced, Bremerton shall defend the same at its sole expense and if
judgment is enteted or damages are awarded against Bremerton, Poulsbo, or both,
Bremerton shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees.
b. Poulsbo shall indemnify and hold harmless Bremerton and its officers,
agents, and employees, or any of them, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits
liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, which are caused by
or result from a negligent act or omission of Poulsbo, its officers, agents, and employees in
performing services pursuant to this agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such
a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against Bremerton or Bremerton and Poulsbo,
Poulsbo shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; and if final judgment be
rendered against Bremerton and its officers, agents, and employees or jointly against
Bremerton and Poulsbo and their respective officers, agents, and employees Poulsbo shall
satisfy the same.
C. Bremerton shall indemnify and hold harmless Poulsbo and its officers,
agents, and employees, or any of them, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits,
liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, which are caused by
or result from a negligent act or omission of Bremerton, its officers, agents, and employees
in performing services pursuant to this agreement In the event that any suit based upon
such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against Poulsbo or Bremerton and Poulsbo,
Bremerton shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; and if final judgment be
rendered against Poulsbo, and its officers, agents, and employees or jointly against Poulsbo
and Bremerton and their tespective officers, agents, and employees Bremerton shall satisfy
the same.
d If a claim is made that both parties are responsible for all or a portion of
damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of acts or omissions of the parties
hereto, then the above referenced indemnity and hold harmless provisions shall apply only
to the extent of the proportion of liability attributable to the indemnifying party. If liability
is not or cannot be apportioned, then the parties shall be responsible for their own costs and
attorneys fees incurred in the matter and shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless
for one half of any amount awarded by the Court of other decision making body with
jui isdiction as a result of the alleged acts or omissions.
6 Contract Administration The parties do not by this Agreement create any
separate legal or administrative entity. The Chief of Police of each party shall be
responsible fot administering the terms of this Agreement The parties do not intend to
jointly own any teal or personal property as part of this undertaking.
7. Dutation This Agreement is effective upon authorization and signature by
both parties. The contract pet iod shall continue until December 16, 2016 This Agreement
shall automatically be renewed on a calendar year basis unless written notice of
termination is given by either party by the proceeding Novembet 30` of any such year
j 8. Termination Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time upon
thirty days (30 days) written notice to other party
i
2-
i
I
9. Amendment and Waiver This Agreement may be amended by mutual
written agreement of the parties. No waiver by any party of any term or condition of this
Agreement shall be deemed or construed waiver of any other term or condition, nor shall a
waiver of any breach be deemed to constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach whether
of the same or a different provision of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement.
Dated this day of , 2013 Dated this day of , 2013
CITY OF BREMERTON CITY OF POULSBO
By: By:
Patty Lent, Mayor Becky Uckson, Mayor
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL. DEPARTMENTAL APPROV
A1
!
Steven Strachan, Chief of Police Alan Townsend, Chief of Police
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPRO D AS TO FORM:
2
Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney Jim Haney, City Attorney �qb
R 1LegailLeo\ContractsTolice\Mazme Patrol ILA Poulsbo 2013 - Final doc
-3-
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 7A
CITY COUNCIL
0 ■ aM0aM00E0a00a0WM0MMM000M000000000EE00NNNN00n0N000000EEa000NE00Ea00E000E00N0W00EE00E001
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Study Session Date August 28, 2013
Resolution No 3202 to recover fees for COUNCIL MEETING Date September 4, 2013
abatement costs on the property located at Department DCD
1926 N Callow Avenue Presenter Janet Lunceford
Phone 473 -5213
SUMMARY-
In July of 2013, the City contracted with TRS to secure the house and remove garbage, debris and
weeds from the property located at 1926 N Callow Avenue, pursuant to an Order of Abatement
issued by Kitsap County Superior Court The Order of Abatement allowed the City to enter the
property, perform the work, and lien the property for the costs of the action The owner of the
property, Robert Bottorff, could not be located, service was made by publication The cost charged
to the revolving abatement fund for this action totaled $6351 40, which includes the contract amount,
the advertising costs, process server costs, filing fees and administrative fees as specified in Rate
Table C of the Bremerton Municipal Code The Notice of Hearing was advertised in the Kitsap Sun
on August 16, 2013, and was posted on the front door of the house on the property located at 1926
N Callow Council must now decide if the fees are dust and reasonable, and how they should be
collected
ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution No 3202
• Resolution Exhibit A
Clerk's Memo with Invoices and BMC Rate Table C
• Order of Abatement from Kitsap County Superior Court, dated May 10, 2013
• Order of Default from Kitsap County Superior Court, dated May 10, 2013
• Declaration of Posting, dated August 14, 2013
• Affidavit of Publication from Kitsap Sun, dated August 16, 2013
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount)
If not approved, the City's abatement fund would suffer the deficit of not collecting these funds
STUDY SESSION AGENDA ❑ No Presentation ❑x Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑x Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Resolution No 3202, ordering that the fees incurred for securing the house and
removing garbage and debris from the property located at 1926 N Callow Avenue be collected as
reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
Form Updated 01/25/13
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington approving charges for the abatement of
nuisance conditions on the property located at 1926 N Callow
Avenue and determining means of collection
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton incurred costs for securing the house and
removing garbage and debris from the property located at 1926 N Callow Avenue, and
WHEREAS, Section 104 120 of the Bremerton Municipal Code allows the City
to recoup these costs either by personal judgment against the property owner or as a lien against
the property, and
WHEREAS, the City Council is charged with determining whether the fees are
dust and how they should be collected, and
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development recommends the fees be
collected as a lien against the property located at 1926 N Callow Avenue, and
WHEREAS, has City Council has considered the report of charges filed by the
Director of Community Development and any protests or objection filed, NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS
SECTION]. The abatement charges included in the report to the City Clerk for
the property located at 1926 N Callow Avenue, Bremerton, WA, attached hereto as Exhibit A,
are dust and reasonable and are hereby confirmed and approved
SECTION 2. The City of Bremerton will exercise its right to recapture abatement
fees by filing a lien against the property The Mayor is authorized to execute and file a lien
against the property located at 1926 N Callow Avenue, Bremerton, WA, for the abatement
charges approved herein
SECTION 3 Severabihty 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 4. Effective Date This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage
1
1926 Callow Avenue Abatement Lien
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, this
4th day of September, 2013
GREG WHEELER, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
ROGER A LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk
R \Legal \Legal\Resolutions \Community Development \Bottorff Resolution 8 -14 -13 docx
2
1926 Callow Avenue Abatement Lien
EXHIBIT A
D"panbnent of community Development
345 6M Street, Suite 600
BrOmedon, WA 98337 -1873
Telephone' 360.473 -5213
Fax: 360. 473 -5278
JanetLuncelatMoi bremerton.wa.us
Janet Lunc etoni, Code Enforcement
August 14, 2013
memo
TO: Shannon Codn, City Cleric
Frmm Janet Lunceford, Code Enfbmement Ofi w
cc: Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development
no Abatement costs for 1926 N. Callow Avenue, Robert Bottorff'
The City contracted with TRS to secure the house and remove garbage and debris from the
property located at 1926 N. Callow Avenue in July, pursuant to a Warrant of Abatement issued
by Kitsap County Superior Court. The fees for this action, including the administrative fee set
forth in Rate Table Gof the Bremerton,Municipal Code, filing fees, advertising�costtand
process service costs total $6351.40. I have attached the documentation of costs and a copy of
Rate Table C. I have scheduled a public hearing for September 4, 2013.
CITY OF BRMERTON
GENERAL CLAIM
Date July 2, 2013 CHECK e
VENDOR FUNDIDEPARTMENT
TRS 108164
P.O BOX 5255
BREMERTON WA 98312
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
BOARD UP AND CLEAN UP OF 1926 N CALLOW AVENUE $4,600
V ENDOR # 27339
BARS NUMBER OBJECT PROJECT INVOICE # INVOICE DATE AMOUNT
5246064 54910 64065 J211 6/24/2013 $4,600.0 0
CERTIFICATION.
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that materials have been furnished, the services rendered
or the labor performed as described herein, that any advance payment Is due and payable pursuant to a contrad or is
available as an option for full or partial fulfillment of a contractual obligation, and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid
obligation against the city and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim.
C PROVAL (ALIOM EPT ORDER RECEIVED BY
Rev 3!412010
TRS Trash Removal Services LLC Invoice
PO Box 5255 Date Invotoe #
Bremerton, WA 98312
3W373-2007 6/24/2013 J211
Bil To Ship To
Jaaet Llmwdl3ord
Code Enfwccmcut Officer
CityofDremerion
P O. Number Terms Rep Ship Me F.O.B Projed
6/24/2013
Quari6ty Item Code Description Pnoe Each Amount
BID AMOUNT Job Location 4,60000 4,60000
1926N Callow
Bremerton, WA
Job Description
-Clean up, had and dispose of all junk and debris on property
-Cat and haul away all brush.
- Secure house and gauge, board up aU windows and doors, and
any misc. openings
-Clean up and dispose of all loose debris inside of hour
Tbaak you!
Jesse Linden, Owner
T ®tat $4,600 00
CITY OF BREMERTON
GENERAL CLAIM
Date: April 4, 2013 CHECK #
VENDOR FUND/DEPARTMENT
Ktsap Sun
PO Box 259
Bremerton, WA 98337 -0053
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Service by Publication (Bottorff) $39940
VENDOR #0063
BARS NUMBER OBJECT PROJECT INVOICE # INVOICE DATE AMOUNT
6246016 54910 64065 37922 3/312013 399 40
CERTIFICATION.
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of pegury that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered
or the labor performed as described herein, that any advance payment is due and payable pursuant to a contract or is
available as an option for full or partial fulfillment of a contractual obligation, and that the claim Is a dust, due and unpaid
obligation against the city and that t am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim
CUU PROVAL (AUDITING Ic EPT H I ORDER RECEIVED BY
Rev u412010
K • - %6 5th Street • PO Box 259 ADVFJ
�� Bremerton, Washington 98337
(380) 3773711
JAA��� t.8gg.377.37t 1
U Fed I D # 31- 1250530
kDVERTISING INVOICE and STATEMENT
CITY OF1 BREMERTON DEPT OF ECO. KITSAP SUN
CITY OF BREMERTON DEPT OF ECO• PO BOX 34688
STE 600 SEATTLE, WA 98124 -1688
345 6TH ST
BREMERTON WA 98337
RECEIV
APR -, � �c 1 3
City of 8remertbn
020061665800000399403 City Attorney's Office
-- - - - - --- - — - PL , - S -- FA , - R Acl - ETt R UPPER no T+flt�'�:�
SGaTt1ATE 1 AD NUfMER W DATE 2 4 DE&CRIpmuo GR DEB }9 t1iUPD UNM i jr ,, a ORMI NE1 AMOUW
02/22 289128 IN THE SUPERIOR LOUR lx75 7 399.40
03/29 3310 20131623
LEIGHANN DENTON
399.40
545 6th Street • PO Box 259 •UNAPPUED AMOUNTS ARE INCLUDED IN TOTAL AMOUN'i DI
K�tsa Uri Bremerton w esinngton 98337 AD accounts are due upon receipt.
j� (3W) 377 -3711
><� 1.588- 3773711 ALL MAJOR CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED
Fed. 10 4 31 12605W
616658 03/29/13 - 03/316/7131 37922 CITY OF BREMERTON DE
CITY OF BREMERTON
GENERAL CLAIM
Date February 22, 2013 CHECK#
VENDOR FUND/DEPARTMENT
Ken's Process & Professional Inguiry Services 503/77
126 Callow Avenue N
Bremerton WA
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Service of Process & Messenger Service - (Bottorff) $21200
VENDOR #18869
BARS NUMBER OBJECT PROJECT INVOICE # INVOICE DATE AMOUNT
5246016 54910 64065 123929 2/13/2013 21200
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been famished, the services rendered
or the labor performed as described herein, that any advance payment is due and payable pursuant to a contract or is
available as an option for full or partial fulfillment of a contractual obligation, and that the dawn Is a lust, due and unpaid
obligation against the city and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim.
r
CLA!YAPPROVAL FAUDrnN6 OFF IbERMEPT j EAD) ORDER RECEIVED BY
i
Rev 314/2010
Legal Liaison: Ken's Process & Professional Inquiry Services, LLC N ® �, � � I - ) I
.
126 Callow Ave. No., Bremerton, Wa 98312 `
(360) 405 -0910 866 -405 -0910 Fax 405 -0912
,t f
Firm:
Address Date f /'_,
Return Date
Last Day
r A ( 1 ° ' • Statute Runs.
Contact
/a r Phone ! r •1 e " File No
Court A t " County. Cause No.�
Name: Documents-
vs
r 14 A.
1 r
r � V
Delivery Only 0 Leave Original ❑ Return Copy [] Oth (°� s°° #°
is petlw�c� I Vt E
' : U
a�
City of Bremerton
�ct3
Fite County Superior District Sea District I ppeal (I Auditor /Tress Other
Bench — —
Copy Bnkrptcy Cnm Civil
File First _- Serve First Serve Only p,.
Service On ' "� ,,..' Service $ ' y
Address - ` f ; , , V ♦/ Return ------------
f j Miles "
� .yY
Notes Messenger
Special
r
Other
e 1 �
Served
Date. Time BY No.
TOTAL
CITY OF BREMERTON
GENERAL CLAIM
Date October 31, 2012 CHECK #
VENDOR FUNDIDEPARTMENT
Mtsap County Superior Court
614 Division Street
Port Orchard, WA 98368
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
Flung Fee for Bottorff $24000
Please return check to Leighann
VENDOR 93773
BARS NUMBER OBJECT PROJECT INVOICE # INVOICE DATE AMOUNT
5592064 54910 64065 10131/2012 24000
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered
or the labor perbrmed as described herein, that any advance payment is due and payable pursuant to a contract or is
available as an option for full or partial fulfillment of a contractual obligation, and that the darm is a just, due and unpaid
obligation against the city and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim
tl i
C M PROVAL (AUDIT G gPPICERIDEr ORDER RECEIVED BY
Rev 3/412010
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — RATE TABLE C
All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees
C. DEPARTMENT OF COAEMRJ ffy DEVELOPMENT
1. SUBDIVISIONS RATE
Preliminary Short $1000 + $150 per lot
Preliminary Formal Plat/Binding Site Plan $2500+
$150not (1-100 lots)
$1001lot (101 -200 lots)
$75/lot (201 + lots)
Final Short $630 + $40/lot
Final Formal Plat/Bmding Site Plan $945 + 40Aot
2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Substantial Development Permit $1,300
Conditional Use Permit — Type U $850
Conditional Use Permit — Type III $1750
Shoreline Variance $1750
Permit Revision $325
Shoreline Exemption $100
3. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
Checklist $320
Environmental Impact Statement Review /Adoption $650 + additional cost of
expertise
4. APPEAL (to Hearing Examiner) $350
1 PRE-APPLICATON CONFERENCE $100
6. ABATEMENTS
Dangerous Building $900 + Direct Service
and Supply Cost
Garbage &Weed $640 + Dist Service
and Supply Cost
7. ABANDONED PROPERTIES FINES & PENALTIES
Failure to Register $1,000 + $100 per day
Failure to Inspect, Maintain, and/or Secure $1,000 + $100 per day
& BUILDING PERMIT FEES Refer to Exhibit 1
9 PLAN REVIEW FEE 65% of the building
permit fee as set forth in
Exhibit 1
10. ESTABLISHED "BASIC" PLAN REVIEW
Pursuant to DCD policy 50% of Plan Review Fee
Resolution No 3191
Q
.f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR
8 KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
9 CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington Case No.: 12 -2- 02387 -7
municipal corporation,
10 ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Plaintiff,
11
VS.
12
13 ROBERT BOTTORFF and U.S. BANCORP,
dba U.S. BANK,
14
Defendants.
15
16 This matter came before the Court on plaintiff City of Bremerton's motion for an
17 Order of Abatement to abate the nuisance property at 1926 North Callow, Bremerton,
18 Washington. The Court considered the pleadings filed In this matter, the orders issued in
19 this matter, the evidence presented at this hearing and the argument of counsel for plaintiff,
20 Mark E. Koontz. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds as follows:
21 1. This Court has issued an Order of Default against all defendants in this
22 matter
23
2. The property at 1926 North Callow Avenue, Bremerton, Washington is a
24
25 nuisance because the building is abandoned and left unsecured and the property contains
26 debris, all of which is a violation of the Bremerton Municipal Code.
ORDER OF ABATEMENT - I ROCBR A. LUBOVICH
BREMERTON CRY ATCORNEY
WS 6th StivxL Suite 640. Brem -non. Washington 98 1;7
1 3. The City has adopted an ordinance that permits it to seek abatement of
2 nuisance properties.
3 4. That RCW 7 48.020 authorizes this Court to issue an order of abatement to
4
the City allowing the City to enter the property to abate nuisance.
5
6 S. That after the abatement, the City may seek an order directing the county
7 treasurer to place the costs of abatement on the tax rolls against 1926 North Callow
8 Avenue, Bremerton, Washington pursuant to RCW 35.80.030.
9 Based on the above findings, It Is Ordered:
10 1. Plaintiff% motion is GRANTED;
11 2. Plaintiff and its contractor or agent are hereby authorized to enter onto the
12 property at 1926 North Callow Avenue, Bremerton, Washington to abate the nuisance as
13
described herein and as described in the Declaration of Mark E. Koontz in support of
14
plaintiff s motion;
15
16 3. After the abatement, Plaintiff may seek an order directing the county
17 treasurer to place the costs of the abatement on the tax rolls of 1926 Callow Avenue,
18 Bremerton, Washington;
19 4. This order does not bar plaintiff from seeking any other remedies that may
20 be available to plaintiff.
21 Entered this 1D day of May, 2013.
22
23 ANNA M LAUR
24 KITSAP SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
25
26
ORDER OF ABATEMENT - 2 ROGER A UJBOVICH
BREMERfON CITY ATTORNEY
145 6th Street. Suite 600 Brermnion. Wa%hmgtun 98337
�. W^ .79 1' .t P`_ 1U, V" 1141
r
I Presented by:
2 ROGER A. LUBOVICH
3 BREMERTON CITY ATTORNEY
4 v /V /
5 Mark E. oon , WSBA #26212
6 Attorney for P aintiff
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER OF ABATEMENT - 3 ROGER A WBOVICH
BRkMERTON Crn ATTORNEY
145 6th Stmt, Suite 600 Bremerton. Washington 9037
0A....1. AAM4 -714S rill- ifitl-J71 -5161
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR
8 KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
9 CITY OF BREMERTON, a Washington Case No.- 12 -2- 02387 -7
municipal corporation,
10 ORDER OF DEFAULT AGAINST
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS ROBERT
1 I BOTTORFF, U.S. BANCORP dba
vs U.S. BANK
12
13 ROBERT BOTTORFF and U.S. BANCORP
dba U.S. BANK,
14
Defendants.
15
16 This matter came before the Court on plaintiff City of Bremerton's motion for an
17 order of default against defendants Robert Bottorff and U S. Bankcorp dba U S. Bank
18 ("U.S. Bank") The motion was based on the grounds that defendants had not appeared,
19 answered, or otherwise defended in this action.
20 A hearing was held on plaintiffs motion on Mayp, Plaintiff appeared at the
21 hearing through Its attorney, Mark E. Koontz. Pursuant to CR 55(a)(3), plaintiff is not
22 required to give notice of the hearing to defendants since they did not appear. Defendants
23
24 did not appear personally or through an attorney at the hearing. No response was made by
25 defendants to plaintiffs motion.
26 The Court considered the pleadings filed in this action, the Declaration of Mark E.
Koontz in Support of Plaintiff s Ex Parte Motion for Order of Default, with the following
I
ORDER OF DEFAULT - I ROGER A LUBOVICH
BREMERTON CITY ATTORNEY
345 6th Stmvt. Suite 600_ Brcmrrt m_ Washington 98337
2
I Exhibits: Summons (Exhibit 1 to Koontz Declaration); Complaint (Exhibit 2 to Koontz
2 Declaration); and Declaration of Service (Exhibit 3 to Koontz Declaration).
3 Based on the oral argument of plaintiff s counsel, the pleadings and evidence
4
presented, the Court finds:
5
1. Defendant Robert Bottorff was properly served by publication with
6
7 plaintiff s summons and complaint in this action in accordance with RCW 4.28. 100 and
8 RCW 4.28.110.
g 2. Defendant Robert Bottorff failed to appear, answer or otherwise defend in
10 this action.
11 3. No notice of appearance was served by defendant Robert Bottorff on
12 plaintiff or its attorney.
13
4. The time for appearing and answering the summons served by publication is
14
15 60 days from the date of the first publication. The date of the first publication was
16 February 22, 2013. More than 60 days has passed since the date of the first publication.
17 5. U S. Bank was properly served the summons and complaint by personal
18 service on November 16, 2012.
19 6. U.S. failed to appear, answer, or otherwise defend in this action.
20 7. No notice of appearance was served by U.S. Bank on plaintiff or its
21
attorney.
22
8. The time for appearing and answering the summons and complaint served is
23
24 20 days from the date of service. More than 20 days has passed since the date of service of
�
25 the summons and complaint.
26
i
i
ROGER A LUBOVICH
ORDER OF DEFAULT - 2
1 BREMERTON MY A n'OkNbY
145 6th Strut. Suite 600. Brews ton Washington 98317
Phm.r Ifin- 471. Fix ifn- 171 -5161
1 9. Venue is proper in this action since the real property at issue is located in
2 Kitsap County.
3 Based on the above findings, It Is Ordered:
4
1. Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
5
2. Defendant Robert Bottorff and U.S. Bank are declared to be in default for
6
7 failing to appear or defend in this action
8 Entered thih /a day of May, 2013.
9
ANNA M. LAURIE
10
KITSAP SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
t[
12
13
Presented by:
14
ROGER A. LUBOVICH
15 13REMERTON CITY ATTORNEY
17 Mark E. Koontz, WSBA #26212
18 Attorney for Plaintiff
19
20
21
22
23
I
24
25
i 26
i
i
i
j ORDER OF nFFAULT - 3 ROGER A LUBOYICH
BREMERTON CITY ATTORNEY
145 6th Stntit. Suite 600. Brn7ncvttm Washington 98137
CITY OF BREMERTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
IN RE THE MATTER OF:
DECLARATION OF POSTING
Robert Bottorff
#C11 0156
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
ss.
County of Kitsap )
I, Allison Daniels, declare as follows:
I. That I am a citizen of the United States of America, a resident of the State
of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18) years, not a party to the above- entitled
action, and competent to be a witness herein.
2. That on the 14th day of August, 2013, I posted a true and correct copy of
the above captioned Notice of Violation issued August 14, 2013, by stapling said notice
to the front porch post of the house on the property located at 1926 N. Callow Avenue.
Executed at Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington on this 14th day of August,
2013.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
AfiWkr - A - Hison Daniels
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Account #37922 AD# 20135535
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KITSAP
I, Rolene Buswell, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says- That she is now, and at all tuxes
embraced in the publication herein mentioned was the principal clerk of the pimters and publishers of
KITSAP SUN, that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court
of the County of Kitsap, in which County it is published and is now and has been for more than six months
prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as
a daily newspaper in Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington, a weekly newspaper m Kitsap County,
Washington and is now and during all of said time, was printed in an office maintained in the aforesaid
place of publication of said newspaper, that the following is a true text of an advertisement as it was
published in regular issues (and not in supplement form) of said newspaper on the following date, to wit
And on August 16, 2013 such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said
period. The full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $62.86
This amount has not been paid in full.
-7
(Signature of Principal Clerk)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of August 16, 2013
' NOTARY PUBLIC
OF WASHINGTON
CHRISTY 19 MOFFITT
LSTATE
► App atmtt E1gdt88 July 0%.
CITY OF BREMERTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public hearing before the City Council of the City of
Bremerton on
DATE: September 4, 2013 TIME. 530 P.M. OR LATER
in the Meeting Chambers at the Norm Dicks Government Center, 345 - 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington,
and all interested persons are requested to be present. To be considered is the following.
APPLICANT- City of Bremerton
ACTION Request approval of hen to recoup costs incurred in the amount of $6,351.40 for the abatement
of the property located at 1926 N Callow Avenue
ALL PROTESTS AND OBJECTIONS TO THIS ACTION MUST BE FILED IN WRITING IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, 345 6th STREET, SUITE 600, PRIOR TO CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON
THE DATE OF THE HEARING.
DATED at Bremerton, Washington this 14TH day of AUGUST, 2013.
For more information regarding tins action, you may contact Janet Lunceford, at (360) 473-5213.
Isl Jeannie Vaughn
Jeannie Vaughn
Building Official
August 16, 2013
Ad#i 20135535
i
I
i
I
i
i
I
To
T
11114/2011 11/14/2011
1926N Callow (1) jpg 1926 N Callow (5) jpg
AL
t y
1 a..
4 4 4, ��
a l ti� -tStE T im' r
.,� � s 1y �:., �.k � �., �S+
11/14/2011 7/18n012
1926 N Callow (8) jpg 1926 N Callow jpg
°rt'
!3
It
t I 1 4 P 1 ,P� ` A � w�' ° •'�q 5 r " �.� , r _ - I I t'
e'4 J tk'k ' JT i%�Ki y,, 2 �'� •° R'Y]' �, l� TT � y w 1�y w. +�4 , � 9 } t �� r
dN�'F
s"4w =� '.. � ' „q�'^* T � ``�� r .✓'", I �'
y � t �
u 4. o
` � r�i "�a:. ���� V ` r uS?, di�i� w S�3's,� @ � .'��✓..�'�� 4 _.�� . � I 1 °r7 ,v" m'r''
t Y 1 r o ° , .fit �{ +� •' \ �+. o ��. ^
`LZn� �L�3. � � y „ r �< �� II .� d �1r`h� o vv• C�� � �e
r
6/28/2013 8114/2013
1926N Callow (2) Mpg 1926 N Callow (1) Mpg
0
A
4 1 T I,
(� Y C � ,ryy �'S7U y "�p.5r� �'^ 0 9 , � � •J ... 7 .. _ ^ � -.. .ui +. ` r ^ ^ 1+\
. � =i.,+, � ° r� °, n ""' °non.."^./ .✓ � ��
8114/2013 8/14/2013
1926 N Callow (3) Mpg 1926 N Callow jpg
AGENDA BILL 4 1 f5
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
■■ ���������o�������s�����ss�an0000e00Ne00000ENo0e0EE00M0o00M00EE0M000Na0E0Ne0000a00aaazI
SUBJECT Public Hearing and Study Session Date August 28, 2013
Ordinance No 5222 amending BMC Title COUNCIL MEETING Date September 4, 2013
20, the Zoning Code Department DCD
Presenter Nicole Floyd
Phone 360 473 5279
SUMMARY The action before Council is to conduct a public hearing and adopt an Ordinance
amending BMC Title 20 as follows
1 Increase SEPA exemption levels as permitted by State Code
2 Modify requirements relating to drive- through facilities within commercial districts
3 Alter front yard setback requirements for commercial properties
ATTACHMENTS
A Staff Memo and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from the workshop held on April 16,
2013 & the hearing held on July 16, 2013
B Ordinance No 5222 including Planning Commission Findings & Conclusions
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount) None
STUDY SESSION AGENDA ❑ No Presentation ❑x Full Presentation
STUDY SESSION ACTION. ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business px Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No 5222 to amend BMC Title 20 related to
SEPA exemptions, Drive- through requirements, and Commercial setbacks
COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action
Form Updated 01125/13
ORDINANCE NO. 5a D -
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Bremerton, Washington, making amendments to the
Zoning Code - BMC Title 20, to increase the SEPA
threshold exemptions, modify drive- through requirements,
and adjust front yard setback requirements for commercial
properties
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4950 on November 30,
2005 establishing a new Zoning Code, and
WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the
need for modification has been identified, and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has established a procedure for
amending the Zoning Code in Title 20 18 020 (d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code
(BMC), which requires amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with other applicable
rules and regulations, and
WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, County Wide Planning Policies, The State Growth Management
Act, and other applicable regulations and ordinances, and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2013 the Planning Commission conducted a
workshop on the proposed amendments, and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2013 the proposed Zoning Code amendments
were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite 60 -day review and comment period
and the City received conformation on July 1, 2013 that the notice was received, and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2013 a SEPA DNS was issued for the proposed
action with an administrative appeal deadline of July 15, 2013 and no appeals were filed,
and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2013 the public was notified by a legal
advertisement in the Krtsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in
the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013 the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the Zoning Code amendments and formulated a recommendation to
forward the amendments for City Council consideration, and
1
Zoning Code Amendments
WHEREAS, on August 24 ,2013 the public was notified by a legal
advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in
the public hearing by the City Council, and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2013 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 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS
SECTION 1. The findings and conclusions adopted by the Planning
Commission attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted and incorporated as if set forth
fully herein
SECTION 2. Section 20 04 100 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Use of Categorical Exemptions" is hereby amended by adding a new subsection
as follows
20.04.100 USE OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS
(a) Whenever a department within the City receives an application for a
license or, in the case of governmental proposals, the department within the City initiates
the proposal, the Planning Department shall determine whether the license and/or the
proposal is exempt The Planning Department's determination that a proposal is exempt
shall be final and not subject to administrative review If a proposal is exempt, none of
the procedural requirements of this chapter apply to the proposal The City shall not
require completion of an environmental checklist for an exempt proposal
(b) In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the Planning
Department shall make certain that the proposal is properly defined, and shall identify the
governmental licenses required (WAC 197 -11 -060) If a proposal includes exempt and
nonexempt actions, the Planning Department shall determine the lead agency even if the
license application that triggers the Department's consideration is exempt
(c) If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the City may
authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of this
chapter, except that
(1) The City shall not give authorization for
(i) Any nonexempt action,
(n) Any action that would have an adverse environmental
impact, or
(iii) Any action that would limit the choice of alternatives
(2) The responsible official may withhold approval of an exempt
action that would lead to modification of the physical environment, when such
modification would serve no purpose if nonexempt action(s) were not approved, and
(3) The responsible official may withhold approval of exempt actions
that would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant when the
expenditures would serve no purpose if nonexempt action(s) were not approved
2
Zoning Code Amendments
(d) Threshold levels for categorical exemptions Pursuant to WAC 197-11 -
8000)(c) and (1)(d), cities may adopt raised levels of threshold exemptions for certain
ttMes of actions, except as provided in WAC 197 -11 -305 and 197- 11- 800(1)(a) As
authorized pursuant to WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(c) and (1)(d) the following threshold
exemptions are adopted
(1) The construction or location of 30 or fewer single family
residential units
(2) The construction or location of 60 or fewer multifamily residential
units.
(3) The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational,
service or storage building with 30,000 square feet of gross floor area, and with
associated parking facilities designed for 90 parking spaces;
(4) The construction of a parking facility designed for 90 parking
s aces•
(5) Any landfill or excavation of 1,000 cubic yards throughout the
lifetime of the fill or excavation, and any fill or excavation classified as Class I II or III
forest practice under RCW 76 09 050 or regulations thereunder
SECTION 3. Section 20 42 040 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Definitions" is hereby amended as follows by amending the definition of
"Drive- through facility," deleting the definition of "Dnve- through lanes," and adding the
definition of "Stacking Lane" as follows
20.42.040 DEFINITIONS
"Drive- through facility" means an automobile - oriented component of a
permitted use that includes both service window(s) and a stacking lane €ae4ay designed
primarily for drive - through trade, and which provides service and caters to patrons while
in their motor vehicles
See BMC 20.44 120
vvaau
20 nn ten n.,,,,tt d rive +t"..,,ugh la
"Stacking Lane" means a designated driving lane provided for vehicles waiting
for, receiving and exiting after receiving a service at a drive up window from a permitted
use. The lane is ph shy separated from other traffic and pedestrian circulation on the
property and includes adequate area for cars to wait for service
3
Zoning Code Amendments
SECTION 4. Section 20 44 120 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Ancillary Drive- Through Lanes" is hereby amended as follows
20.44.120 DRIVE - THROUGH FACILITIES
(a) Applicability Drive-through facilities are an accessory to a principal use
of a structure and therefore are only allowed when found in association with a permitted
use Drive - through facilities are expressly prohibited in some zoning districts regardless
of the principal use
(1) Exception: While generally prohibited within the NCC and DCC
zones, dnve- through facilities may be permitted in the following areas provided the
business has direct vehicular access from either Wheaton Way or Kitsap Way
(i) Properties zoned Neighborhood Center Core (NCC) that
are within the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center, and
(u) Properties within the Wheaton Riddell Sub -Area Plan
(2) Drive - through facilities standards within this section apply to the
construction of new drive - through facilities, the addition of a drive-through ty_to
existing developments, and/or the relocation of an existing drive - through facility onsite
(b) Site Design Requirements: All drive- through facilities shall comply with
the following requirements
(1) Location All efforts should be taken to locate the drive - through
facility towards the side and or rear of buildings Drive - through facilities shall not be
located between the building and the street frontage except in the following
circumstances
6) Pnmga Frontage A drive-through facility may be placed
between a building and the street frontage only when all other site designs have been
exhausted and are deemed unworkable by the Director The drive-through facilily shall
be fully screened from view of the fronting street through the use of features such as
sight- obscuring fencing, walls, trellises, and landscaping_
(u) Secondary Frontage When a site contains more than one
street frontage the drive - through facility may be located between the building and
secondary frontage only when all other site designs have been exhausted and found
unworkable Screening from the secondary frontage is encouraged but not required
(2) Stacking All drive- through facilities shall include a stacking lane
that provides room for a minimum of four (4) cars to line up belund the drive - through
window For restaurant/food/drink uses the stacking lane shall provide room for a
minimum of six (6) cars
(3) Design The drive- through lane(s) shall be designed as a dedicated
lane, physically separated from parking areas and internal parking circulation aisles in
order to enhance pedestrian safety and provide screening from adjacent properties and
rat -of -way A combination of the two of following shall be provided adjacent to the
drive - through lane(s)-
4
Zoning Code Amendments
6) Landscaped strips, islands, or berms that are a minimum of
three (3) feet wide and fifty (50) square feet in size are required in addition to all other
required landscaping areas Said landscaped areas shall include a mix of ground covers
and shrubs that act as a barrier between the drive - through lane and adjacent properties
ri t -of -wad parking area,
iii) Hedges, decorative walls, fencing, or trellis that act as a
visual barrier between the drive-through _lane(s) and adjacent properties right -of -way and
parking areas,
(iii) Decorative pavement, alternative materials (bricks,
stamped concrete), or other durable ground treatment that clearly separates the drive -
through lane(s) from other driving and parking areas onsite that will withstand heaM
traffic conditions found in association with dnve- through lanes Paint striping does not
meet this requirement
(4) Signage
6) Each ordering location shall have a maximum of one menu
board One additional menu board may be placed adjacent to the stacking lane for
patrons waiting behind the ordering station Each menu board sign shall not exceed thirty
(30) square feet and have a maximum height of seven (7) feet
(u) Menu boards shall be located in a landscaped strip or island
no smaller than three (3) feet wide and fifty (50) square feet in total size This
landscaping area shall be in addition to all other required landscaping The menu
boards) shall be oriented away from public streets and be intended for viewing by drive -
through patrons only Screening of the menu board may be required when the board is
located adjacent to the right -of -way or neighboring properties Screening shall ensure the
board is not readable from the surrounding properties or street
(5) Pedestrian features In order to enhance safe pedestrian access
designated walkways from all onsite parking areas and from the public sidewalk to a
building entry, shall be provided as follows
(i) Walkways shall be a minimum five (5) feet in width
clearly marked and easily distinguished from driving surfaces by using a combination of
landscaping strips or islands that delineate the pedestrian walkways-, and
(n) Walkways shall include at least one of the following
treatments* decorative paving, stamped/stained concrete or raised walkways with
alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone and decorative pavers) to clearly
indicate the safe walking route Walkways through heavy traffic areas such as the drive -
through must be made of durable materials able to withstand heave traffic conditions
SECTION 5. Section 20 48 260 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Drive- Through Stacking Requirements" is hereby amended as follows
20.48.260 DRIVE- THROUGH STACKING REQUIREMENTS.
Drive - through stacking requirements can be found in C hapter - 1 1 BMC
20 44.120
5
Zoning Code Amendments
SECTION 6. Subsection 20 62 060(a) in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Development Standards" within the Commercial Corridor Zone is hereby
amended as follows
20.62.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(a) Lot development shall be in accordance with the following standards,
unless allowed for otherwise by law
(1) Maximum front yard setback Ten€ive (10-5) feet At least sixty -
five (65) percent of the building's front facade must meet the maximum front yard
setback The setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the
minimum necessary to facilitate a superior site design In order to obtain approval for an
increased setback, the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the
protect facilitates superior site design is the minimum necessary is consistent with
specific goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan and is compliant with all
applicable sections of the BMC The following list identifies examples of circumstances
where increased setbacks may be found to be appropriate
6) When the site includes more than one (1) street frontage
(u) To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other
physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible
(iii) To accommodate phasing of infill development
0v) On sites that are significantly developed with existing
legally established nonconforming uses or structures whereby strict code compliance will
not facilitate effective circulation; or
(v) For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide
enhanced public amenities within the setback area which includes but is not limited to
the following- public plazas, increased landscaping architectural features improved
pedestrian connections
(2) Minimum side yard setback zero (0) except when adjacent to the low
density residential zone (R -10) where a ten (10) to twenty (20) foot visual screen is
required pursuant to BMC 20 50 050(b)
(3) Minimum rear yard setback zero (0), except when adjacent to the low
density residential zone (R -10) where a ten (10) to twenty (20) foot visual screen is
required pursuant to BMC 20 50 050(b)
(4) No maximum density for secondary residential uses
(5) Maximum building coverage fifty (50) percent unless increased per
subsection (b) of this section In no case shall maximum lot coverage exceed seventy -five
(75) percent
(6) Maximum development coverage is seventy -five (75) percent unless
increased per subsection (b) of this section In no case shall maximum lot coverage
exceed ninety -five (95) percent
(7) Maximum height forty-five (45) feet, except that structures within one
hundred (100) feet of the low density residential (R -10) zone shall not exceed thirty -five
(35) feet in height
(8) Maximum building heights within the downtown regional center are
pursuant to the Downtown Subarea Plan and shall supersede subsection (a)(7) of this
section
6
Zoning Code Amendments
SECTION 7. Section 20 62 080 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Parking Requirements" within the Commercial Corridor Zone is hereby
amended as follows
20.62.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
On -site parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20 48 BMC, and the
following standards shall be met
(a) On -site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site
and shall not occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the site frontage facing the arterial
street frontage(s) The site frontage includes all of the area between the right -of -wad
front building wall which applies to the entire length of the property regardless of
building width Corner lots have two (2) site frontages as they are positioned on two (2)
street frontages.
(b) All efforts shall be taken to avoid installing ggarkmg shall not
on street corners Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall
be fully screened Screening shall consist of the following_
(1) A four (4) foot tall decorative wall within the front vard
landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas The wall shall be located such that
it blocks views of the parking from the right -of -way For long spans of frontage (one
hundred 100) feet or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add
architectural vanetv
(2) Shrubs or other alternative materials may be substituted for the
wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs /alternative will provide equal to or better
visual screening than the wall Shrubs shall be a minimum of three (3) feet tall at time of
installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in BMC 20 52
(3) Openings may be required within a wall section in order to provide
a sidewalk from the nght -of -way to the building entry The entry shall be the minimum
necessary to accommodate a sidewalk that is a minimum of five (5) feet in width clearly
marked, and distinguished from driving surfaces by using decorative paving,
stamped/stained concrete, or raised walkways with alternative materials (such as brick
cobblestone, decorative pavers) Paint striping does not meet this requirement
(c) Access to parking may be from adjacent non - pnpg al arterial streets, or
from driveways off of the pnncipal arterial
(d) Driveways providing access to parking area shall be well marked
SECTION 8. Subsection 20 64 060(a) in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Development Standards" within the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor
Zone is hereby amended as follows
20.64.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(a) Lot development shall be in accordance with the following standards,
unless allowed for otherwise by law
(1) Maximum front yard setback -is- Ten 4w (10-5) feet -except -tom
fi° ^* J • ^ fdsath add may be iftrrea e d if th n: + P d *1, t t,
_
. At least sixty -five
Zoning Code Amendments
(65) percent of the building's front facade must meet the maximum front yard setback
The setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum
necessary to facilitate a superior site design In order to obtain approval for an increased
setback, the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project
facilitates superior site design is the minimum necessary, is consistent with specific goals
and policies within the Comprehensive Plan and is compliant with all applicable sections
of the BMC The following list identifies examples of circumstances where increased
setbacks may be found to be appropriate
(1) When the site includes more than one (1) street frontage -
60 To accommodate existing topography utilities or other
physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible
(iii) To accommodate phasing of infill development
(iv) On sites that are significantly developed with existing
legally established nonconforming uses or structures whereby strict code compliance will
not facilitate effective circulation, or
(v) For protects that in the opinion of the Director provide
enhanced public amenities within the setback area which includes but is not limited to
the following public plazas, increased landscaping architectural features improved
pedestrian connections
(2) Minimum side yard setback zero (0) except when adjacent to the low
density residential zone (R -10) where a ten (10) to twenty (20) foot visual screen is
required pursuant to BMC 20 50 050(b);
(3) Minimum rear yard setback zero (0) except when adjacent to the low
density residential zone (R -10) where a ten (10) to twenty (20) foot visual screen is
required pursuant to BMC 20 50 050(b),
(4) Maximum building coverage. fifty (50) percent unless increased per
subsection (b) of this section In no case shall maximum lot coverage exceed seventy -five
(75) percent,
(5) Maximum development coverage seventy -five (75) percent unless
increased per subsection (b) of this section In no case shall maximum lot coverage
exceed ninety -five (95) percent,
(6) Maximum height forty (40) feet, and structures within one hundred (100)
feet of the low density residential (R -10) zone shall not exceed three (3) stones in height
SECTION 9. Section 20 64 080 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Development Standards" within the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor
Zone is hereby amended as follows
20.64.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
On -site parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20 48 BMC and the
following standards shall be met
(a) On -site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site
and shall not occupy more than fifty€efty (4$LO) percent of the site frontage facing the
arterial street frontages) The site frontage includes the area between then t -of -way
and front building wall which applies to the entire length of the pro regardless of
8
Zoning Code Amendments
building width Corner lots have two (2) site frontages as they are positioned on two (2)
street frontages.
(b) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing_ parking on street corners.
Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall be fully screened
Screening shall consist of the following
(1) A four (4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard
landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas The wall shall be located such that
it blocks views of the parking from theright-of-Kay For long spans of frontage (one
hundred (100) feet or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add
architectural varietv
(2) Shrubs or other alternative materials may be substituted for the
wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs /alternative will provide equal to or better
visual screening than the wall Shrubs shall be a minimum of three (3) feet tall at time of
installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in Chapter 20.52 BMC
(3) Openings may be required within a wall section in order to
provide a sidewalk from the nght -of -way to the building entry The entry shall be the
minimum necessary to accommodate a sidewalk that is a minimum of five (5) feet in
width, clearly marked, and distinguished from driving surfaces by using decorative
pavi stamped/stained concrete, or raised walkways with alternative materials (such as
brick, cobblestone, decorative pavers) Paint striping does not meet this requirement
(c) Access to parking may be from adjacent non- principal arterial streets, or
from driveways off of the Rnncipal arterial
(d) Driveways providing access to parking area shall be well - defined, highly
visible entryways
(e) Oft � fe r « et eng .,h be allo t h s f . a f k
� / a t
provided paved s1feet -mdths provide adeqtWe r-eem pufsuant te City standaWs for- oft
stFeet paf4ang.
SECTION 10. Section 20 66 050 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Prohibited Uses" within the Neighborhood Center Zone is hereby amended as
follows
20.66.050 PROHIBITED USES.
(a) Drive - through lanes except within the Oyster Bav Neighborhood Center
when the business has direct vehicular access from Krtsap Way
SECTION 11. Subsection 20 66 060(a) in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Development Standards" within the Neighborhood Center Zone is hereby
amended as follows
20.66.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(a) Maximum F-front yard setback. no faimmum &em yafd sethaek.
ten (10) feet At least eighty4g% sixty -five (65)
percent of the building's front facade shall meet the maximum front yard setback The
setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum
necessary to facilitate a superior site design In order to obtain approval for an increased
9
Zoning Code Amendments
setback, the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project
facilitates supenor site design is the minimum necessary is consistent with specific goals
and policies within the Comprehensive Plan and is compliant with all applicable sections
of the BMC. The following list identifies examples of circumstances where increased
setbacks may be found to be appropriate
(1) When the site includes more than one (1) street frontage;
(2) To accommodate existing topog_raphy, utilities or other physical
site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible
(3) To accommodate phasing of infill development-,
O On sites that are sigmficantly developed with existing legally
established nonconforming uses or structures whereby strict code compliance will not
facilitate effective circulation. or
(5) For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide enhanced
public amenities within the setback area which includes but is not limited to the
following: public plazas, increased landscaping architectural features improved
pedestrian connections
SECTION 12. Section 20.66 080 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Parking Requirements" within the Neighborhood Center Zone is hereby
amended as follows
20.66.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter 20 48 BMC and the following
requirements
(a) For nonresidential uses, the minimum parking requirement is one (1)
space per employee, plus one (1) handicapped - accessible space,
(b) On -site parking for nonresidential uses shall not exceed one (1) space per
three hundred (300) square feet of floor area,
(c) On -site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site
and shall not occupy more than fifty (50) p ercent of the site frontage facing the arterial
street The site frontage includes the area between the nght -of -way and front building
wall which applies to the entire len h of the propegy regardless of building width
Corner lots have two (2) site frontages as they are positioned on two (2) street frontages
(d) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing parking on street corners
Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall be fully screened
as follows
(1) A four (4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard
landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas The wall shall be located such that
it blocks views of the parking from the right -of -way For long spans of frontage (one
hundred (100) feet or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add
architectural vanety
(i) Alternate architectural features shrubs may be substituted
for the wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs /alternative will provide equal to
or better visual screening than the wall Shrubs shall be a minimum of three (3) feet tall
at time of installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in Chapter 20 52
BMC
10
Zoning Code Amendments
(ii) Openings and architectural features may be required within
a wall section in order to tie the wall feature into the architecture of the building and to
provide pedestrian access The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate a
sidewalk that is a minimum of five (5) feet in width, clearly marked, and distinguished
from driving surfaces by using decorative paving stamped/stained concrete, or raised
walkways with alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone, decorative pavers)
Paint striping does not meet this requirement
(de) Access to parking shall be provided from the adjaeefA publie A thues per
the following priority
(1) First, from an alley if available, if an alley is not available, then
from local street;
(2) ,If
neither are available, then from a non - principal arterial street,
(3) , fiem an
ai4eFtal If none of the above are available then from a principal arterial street
Project applicants shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
that access design has been considered with the preceding priorities The applicant shall
demonstrate that the proposed access is provided from the highest priority facility per the
above list,
I (eD Driveways providing access to parking shall be well marked,
( €g) Reduction in number of required parking spaces The Director may reduce
the number of required parking spaces on a site by up to ten (10) when a remodel,
expansion, alteration, or change in the use or tenancy of an existing building occurs,
provided
(1) For sites with multiple uses or structures, the reduction shall be applied to
the entire site and not to individual uses
(2) When a use is nonconforming to the required number of off - street parking
spaces, it shall not be allowed to reduce the number of existing spaces
SECTION 13. Section 20 70 050 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Prohibited Uses" within the District Center Zone is hereby amended as follows -
20.70.050 PROHIBITED USES
(a) Drive - through lanes except within the Wheaton/Riddell District Center
when the business has direct vehicular access from Wheaton WM
SECTION 14. Subsection 20 70 060(a) in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Development Standards" within the District Center Zone is hereby amended as
follows
20.70.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Lot development shall be in accordance with the following unless allowed for
otherwise by law
I (a) Maximum front yard setback
ten (10) feet At least sixty -five (6 5)e�glpjE'8 8 percent of
I
11
Zoning Code Amendments
a building's front facade shall meet the maximum front yard setback The setback may
be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum necessary to facilitate
a supenor site design In order to obtain approval for an increased setback, the applicant
shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project facilitates superior site design
is the minimum necessary, is consistent with specific goals and policies within the
Comprehensive Plan, and is compliant with all applicable sections of the BMC. The
following list identifies examples of circumstances where increased setbacks maybe
found to be appropriate
(1) When the site includes more than one (1) street frontage;
(2) To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other physical
ical
site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible;
(3) To accommodate phasing of infill development;
(4) On sites that are significantly developed with existing legally
established nonconforming uses or structures whereby strict code compliance will not
facilitate effective circulation, or
(5) For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide enhanced
public amenities within the setback area which includes, but is not limited to, the
following: public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, improved
pedestrian connections.
SECTION 15. Subsection 20 70 070(b) in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Design Standards" within the District Center Zone is hereby amended as
follows
20.70.070 DESIGN STANDARDS.
(b) Site Design In addition to other standards provided in this chapter, site
design shall meet the following requirements.
(1) No less than dmi4y (30) per-eent of the fientage of a site a4eng aft
(1 0) fe et er- loss f i-e ., ., , , .,, i.l,...-...1,+ o f ,,,.,,, i .,dd , n , e h „ ,., s+,.,,..t s h e ll
e►ffi-ee .-ses
(2j) Circulation Clearly defined pedestrian and vehicle circulation
routes shall be provided such that all portions of the site are linked
(32) Storage Outside storage of any kind is prohibited with the
exception of garbage cans and/or dumpsters Garbage cans and dumpsters shall be placed
in an enclosure per BMC 20 46 120 No garbage enclosure shall be permitted between a
street and the front of a building
SECTION 16. Section 20.70 080 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Parking Requirements" within the District Center Zone is hereby amended as
follows
20.70.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
12
Zoning Code Amendments
Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter 20 48 BMC and the following
requirements
(a) For nonresidential uses, the nummum parking requirement is one (1)
space per employee,
(b) On -site parking for nonresidential uses shall not exceed four one (44-)
spaces per t4ee undfe -300)o thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area
(c) On -site parking shall be to the rear or side of buildings
st+ee- and shall not occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the site frontage facing the
arterial street(s). The site frontage includes the area between the nght -of -way and front
building wall which applies to the entire length of the property regardless of building
width Corner lots have two (2) site frontages as they are positioned on two (2) street
frontages
(d) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing parking on street corners
Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall be fully screened
as follows
(1) A four (4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard
landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas The wall shall be located such that
it blocks views of the parking from then t -of -way For long spans of fronta eg (one
hundred (100) feet or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add
architectural vanetv.
(1) Alternate architectural features, shrubs may be substituted
for the wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs /alternative will provide equal to
or better visual screening than the wall Shrubs shall be a minimum of three (3) feet tall
at time of installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in Chapter 20 52
BMC
60 Openings and architectural features may be required within
a wall section in order to tie the wall feature into the architecture of the building and to
provide pedestrian access The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate a
sidewalk that is a minimum of five (5) feet in width, clearly marked and distinguished
from driving surfaces by using decorative paving stamped/stained concrete or raised
walkways with alternative materials (such as brick cobblestone decorative pavers)
Paint striping does not meet this requirement
(de) Access to parking shall be provided per
the following priority
(1) First, from an alley if available, if an alley is not available, then
from local street,
(2) If neither are available then from a non - principal arterial street
(3) If none of the above are available then from aprincipal arterial
street ) i f n + av ..� t
emery- TSna�:� =� a - o�- �- ,=o�«eo �o� e,
alley n or - a . t l 4 aFe avai 4
(e)—Project applicants shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
City that access design has been considered with the preceding priorities The applicant
shall demonstrate that the proposed access is provided from the highest priority facility
per the above list
(f) Driveways providing access to parking shall be well marked
13
Zoning Code Amendments
(g) Reduction in number of required parking spaces The Director may reduce
the number of required parking spaces on a site by up to ten (10) when a remodel,
expansion, alteration, or change in the use or tenancy of an existing building occurs,
provided -
(1) For sites with multiple uses or structures, the reduction shall be
applied to the entire site and not to individual uses
(2) When a use is nonconforming to the required number of off - street
parking spaces, it shall not be allowed to reduce the number of existing spaces
SECTION 17. Subsection 20 82.060(a) in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Development Standards" within the Neighborhood Business Zone is hereby
amended as follows
20.82.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Lot development requirements shall be in accordance with the following
standards unless allowed for by law otherwise
(a) Maximum front yard setback ten (10) feet At least sixty-five
X65' ° °• ° ^ *.• °!'" percent of a building's front facade must meet the maximum front
yard setback The setback maybe increased if the Director finds that such increase is the
minimum necessary to facilitate a superior site design In order to obtain approval for an
increased setback, the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the
project facilitates superior site design is the munmum necessary, is consistent with
specific goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan, and is compliant with all
applicable sections of the BMC The following list identifies examples of circumstances
where increased setbacks may be found to be appropriate-
(1) When the site includes more than one (1) street frontage,
(2) To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other physical
site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible;
(3) To accommodate phasing of mfill development;
(4) On sites that are significantly developed with existing legally
established nonconforming uses or structures whereby strict code compliance will not
facilitate effective circulation, or
(5) For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide enhanced
public amenities within the setback area which includes, but is not limited to, the
following: _ public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, unproved
pedestrian connections
SECTION 18. Section 20 82 080 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Parking Requirements" within the Neighborhood Business Zone is hereby
amended as follows
20.82.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter 20 48 BMC and the following
(a) On -site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site
and shall not occupy more than fifty€eft (4050) percent of the site frontage facing the
arterial street frontage(s) The site frontage includes the area between the right -of -way
14
Zoning Code Amendments
and front building wall which applies to the entire length of the property regardless of
building width Corner lots have two (2) site frontages as they are positioned on two (2)
street frontages
(b) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing narking on street corners.
Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall be fully screened
as follows
(1) A four (4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard
landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas The wall shall be located such that
it blocks views of the parking from the right-of-way For long spans of frontage (one
hundred (100) feet or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add
architectural vanety
(i) Alternate architectural features, shrubs may be substituted
for the wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs /alternative will provide equal to
or better visual screening than the wall. Shrubs shall be a minimum of three (3) feet tall
at time of installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in Chapter 20 52
BMC
(ii) Openings and architectural features may berequired within
a wall section in order to tie the wall feature into the architecture of the building and to
provide pedestrian access. The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate a
sidewalk that is a minimum of five (5) feet in width clearly marked and distinguished
from driving surfaces by using decorative paving stamped/stained concrete or raised
walkways with alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone decorative pavers)
Paint striping does not meet this requirement
(c) Access to parking may be from adjacent non- principal arterial streets or
from driveways off of the principal arterial
(d) Driveways providing access to parking area shall be well - defined highly
visible entryways
SECTION 19. Subsection 20 84 060(a) in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Development Standards" within the Limited Commercial Zone is hereby
amended as follows
20.84.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(a) Maximum front yard setback ten (10) feet At least sixty-five
(65' ° °• °� *•• ° !'�` percent of a building's front facade must meet the maximum front
yard setback The setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the
minimum necessary to facilitate a superior site design In order to obtain approval for an
increased setback, the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the
project facilitates supenor site design is the minimum necessary is consistent with
specific goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan and is compliant with all
applicable sections of the BMC The following list identifies examples of circumstances
where increased setbacks may be found to be appropriate.
(1) When the site includes more than one (1) street frontage-
( 15
Zoning Code Amendments
(2) To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other physical
site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible;
(3) To accommodate phasing of infilh development;
(4) On sites that are significantly eveloped with existing legally
established nonconforming uses or structures whereby strict code compliance will not
facilitate effective circulation. or
(5) For protects that in the opinion of the Director provide enhanced
public amenities within the setback area which includes but is not limited to the
following: public plazas, increased landscaping architectural features improved
pedestrian connections
SECTION 20. Section 20 84 080 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Parking Requirements" within the Limited Commercial Zone is hereby amended
as follows
20.84.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter 20 48 BMC and the following -
(a) On -site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site
and shall not occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the site frontage facing the arterial
street fronta e s The site frontage includes the area between the nght-of-way right-of-way and front
building wall which applies to the entire length of the property regardless of building
width Corner lots have two (2) site frontages as they are positioned on two (2) street
frontages
(b) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing_ parking on street corners
Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall be fully screened
as follows
(1) A four (4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard
landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas. The wall shall be located such that
it blocks views of the parking from the right -of -way. For long spans of frontage one
hundred (100) feet or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add
architectural variety
(2) Alternate architectural features, shrubs may be substituted for the
wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs /alternative will provide equal to or better
visual screening than the wall Shrubs shall be a minimum of three (3) feet tall at time of
installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in Chapter 20 52 BMC
(3) Openings and architectural features may by a required within a wall
section in order to tie the wall feature into the architecture of the building and to provide
pedestrian access The entry shall be the mimmum necessary to accommodate a sidewalk
that is a minimum of five (5) feet in width clearly marked and distinguished from
driving surfaces by using decorative paving stamped/stained concrete or raised
walkways with alternative materials (such as brick cobblestone decorative pavers)
Paint striping does not meet this requirement
(c) Access to parking may be from adjacent non- principal arterial streets or
from driveways off of the principal arterial
(d) Dnveways providing access to parking area shall be well - defined highly
visible entryways
16
Zoning Code Amendments
SECTION 21. Section 20 92 020 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Outnghtly Permitted Uses" within the Employment District Zone is hereby
amended as follows
20.92.020 OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USES.
The following uses are permitted outright
(a) Co- location of wireless telecommunications facilities per BMC 20.46 140;
(b) Community use facility;
(c) Day care facility, all,
(d) General office and business services,
I (e) Finance, insurance and real estate (ndfive dffeugh f eth4e°
(f) General retail (no dFive thfeugh f ^u' 4es
(g) Hotels and lodging places,
(h) Medical offices,
(1) Outdoor athletic fields,
0) Park playgrounds and open space, and parks,
(k) Personal service business,
(1) Physical fitness and health clubs,
(m) Public administration,
(n) Residential uses of the following types
(1) Group residential facility - Class I,
(2) Multi -unit structure,
(3) Nursing convalescent home,
(4) Senior housing complex,
(5) Single unit structure, attached or detached,
(6) Townhouse,
I (o) Restaurants and drinking places (°° -ari• e thfough f ei1A °°'
(p) Schools and education uses,
(q) Transportation facility,
(r) Veterinary clinic,
(s) Worship and religious facility
SECTION 22. Section 20 98 020 in the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Outnghtly Permitted Uses" within the Institutional Zone is hereby amended as
follows
20.98.020 OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USES
The following uses are permitted
(a) Co- location of wireless telecommunications facilities per BMC
20 46 140,
(b) Community facility,
(c) General office and business services,
(d General retail associated with an institution,
(e) Higher education and colleges;
(f) Hospitals,
17
Zoning Code Amendments
(g) Medical offices and clinics,
(h) Outdoor athletic fields and park playground and open spaces,
(i) Parking as a principal use,
0) Public administration;
(k) Residential uses of the following types
(1) Group residential facility - Class I,
(2) Nursing convalescent home,
(3) Senior housing complex,
(4) Single -unit dwelling unit, detached,
(5) Single -unit dwelling unit, attached,
(1) Restaurants (ne Ek-we thfeugh fi wih4es)
(m) Schools and education uses,
(n) Transportation facility,
(o) Welfare and charitable services and facility,
(p) Worship and religious facility
SECTION 23. Severability If any one or more sections, sub - sections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall
remain in full force and effect
SECTION 24. 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 , 2013
GREG WHEELER, Council President
Approved this day of , 2013
PATTY LENT, Mayor
ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM
SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of , 2013
18
Zoning Code Amendments
EFFECTIVE the day of , 2013
ORDINANCE NO
R \Legal \Legal \Ordinances \Community Development\Zon►ng Code Amendments (2013) docx
19
Zoning Code Amendments
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDU
To: City Council
From: Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner
Date: August 21, 2013
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planning Commission is unanimously recommending that the City Council review
and approve three separate zoning code amendment topics These amendments are
intended to encourage growth and development within the City and have been
supported by local developers, community members, and City Staff A brief summary of
each is as follows
SEPA Exemptions Recognizing that the Department of Ecology approved higher
thresholds earlier this year, the Planning Commission recommends raising these
thresholds to the highest levels allowed by state law This increase will result in an
expedited permit review process, without reducing the quality of the environmental
review performed by City Staff SEPA exemptions have not been raised in Bremerton
since the 1970's however significant increases in alternative regulatory controls have
been enacted since the 1970's These updated City regulations have superseded the
need for SEPA on small scale projects
Drive - Through Facilities: These revisions are a direct outcome from the City
Council's annual retreat, when Council requested DCD review standards relating to
drive- through facilities and the inconsistency between the requirements from zone to
zone The Planning Commission, agreed with City Council and are forwarding
amendments to the City Council that establish criteria for drive- through facilities that
addresses site design and aesthetic elements necessary to ensure consistency with the
comprehensive plan's vision Draft amendments establish general standards for all
drive- through facilities throughout the City and significantly reduce the number of zones
in which drive - throughs are prohibited
Maximum Front Yard Setbacks: These revisions are also a direct outcome from the
City Council's annual retreat when Council requested DCD to identify revisions to the
zoning code which could facilitate redevelopment, while retaining the comprehensive
plan "centers" concept The Planning Commissions draft amendments provide a better
transition towards the centers concept by adding flexibility without compromising the
Comprehensive Plan's overall goals and policies
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I — Minutes from the Planning Commission hearing held on 7/16/2013 and
the workshop held on 4/16/2013
SEPA Categorical Exemptions Thresholds
In 2012, the State Legislature passed amendments to the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) that directly affects local governments In part three of the Second
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (2ESSB) 6406, the legislature enacted a number of
changes to SEPA that are designed to make this environmental law work better for
cities, counties and project applicants by coordinating it more efficiently with current
land use planning and development regulations, and by streamlining the regulatory
process The amendments went into effect on July 10, 2012
The Department of Ecology spent the remaining part of 2012 preparing SEPA rule
updates to implement the 2012 legislation The rules have been updated and went into
effect on January 28, 2013 One of the amendments to SEPA is to allow local
governments fully planning under GMA to establish separate flexible SEPA exemption
thresholds Maximum exemptions are identified in WAC 197 -11 -800, but local
governments have the flexibility to establish exemptions within that range In order for
local governments to raise the levels of development activity that are exempt from
SEPA review to the maximum specified in the amended SEPA rules, an amendment to
the jurisdiction's codified SEPA procedures must be made, and the process established
in WAC 197- 11- 800(c) must be followed
The Planning Commission, during their workshops, reviewed the various exemption
ranges, and recommended that the highest exemption levels be adopted primarily due
to the City's exemplary set of regulations specifically addressing potential adverse
environmental impacts such as the Critical Area Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program,
Stormwater Manuals, and adopted Best Management Practices
Threshold Levels for SEPA Categorical Exemptions
WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(c)and(d)
Minor New Levels allowed 1971 -2012 Highest 2013 Highest Exemptions
Construction outright by Exemptions Available —
WAC Available Recommended by
Planning Commission
Dwelling Units 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units 30 dwelling units and
60 multi-family units
Parking Stalls 20 stalls 40 stalls 90 stalls
Commercial 4,000 square 12,000 square feet 30,000 square foot + 90
Building feet + 40 parking stalls parking stalls
Grading 100 cubic yards 400 cubic yards 1,000 cubic yards
• Page 2
Auto Oriented Development and the Comprehensive Plan
The following two topics (drive- through facilities and setbacks) are both somewhat
unique in that they are intrinsically tied to goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
Both were created to directly implement the "Centers" concept which is intended to
promote new development into mixed use centers, where one can comfortably walk
from their home to the grocery store, coffee shop, office etc When considering revisions
to either of these code sections it is important to reflect upon the impact such revisions
may have on the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plans goals
Significant effort has been taken to ensure the proposed revisions do not inadvertently
diminish the long -term viability of the Centers Concept Instead, Planning
Commission's recommendation is to bridge the gap between the existing development
pattern and the goals for the future
These two sections have been challenging to draft because of their interconnectedness
to implementation of the "Centers" concept Since auto oriented businesses such as
drive- through facilities or large seas of parking in front of businesses are contrary to the
to the type of development that achieve a dense walkable center, their permitted
locations are currently severely limited by the Zoning Code Transition from auto
oriented development patterns to the Centers concept has not been as successful as
was anticipated when the Zoning Code was adopted in 2005 The Planning
Commission finds that this transition would be more successful if the code provided
more flexibility to allow this transition to take place over time The proposed revisions
reflect this effort towards flexibility, without alteration to the long term goals established
in the Comprehensive Plan For both topics, the focus is on following elements
1 Consistency Revisions are intended to ensure that all commercial zoning
designations have similar requirements and use similar language so that code
provisions are applied appropriately Zones designated as a "Center" such as District
Center, or Neighborhood Center are intended to be more intensely regulated for
compliance with the "Centers Concept" because they are the primary focus areas in
the Comprehensive Plan Proposed revisions maintain this emphasis
2 Flexibility Revisions are intended to acknowledge that every site is different,
each with unique constraints The proposed code language intends to establish clear
requirements, but to allow for minor code departure on a case by case basis provided
specific criteria is met In this way, the code maintains consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan but achieves greater flexibility for unforeseen situations where
specific compliance is not feasible
3 Existing Development Current code provisions focus primarily on new
development, where the site is void of existing structures and new structures are built
Very little consideration for remodel or expansion of existing developed sites is given
These existing developments make up a substantial portion of the Commercial
property in Bremerton Proposed revisions include provisions that accommodate
existing development
I
I
• Page 3
I
I
Drive - Through Facilities
Significant attention was paid to drive- through facilities at the April Planning
Commission Workshop The Commission discussion focused primarily on the two
major highways running through the City, Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way There are
several different commercial zones scattered along these highways, all of which have
their own specific regulations Some zones outnghtly permit drive- through facilities
without any specific requirements for their placement or design, while other zones
prohibit such uses altogether Additionally, the existing development pattern along
these two highways is primarily auto oriented and includes a considerable number of
existing drive- through facilities throughout all of the zones With so many existing drive -
through facilities, it has been challenging for applicants to understand why a new drive -
through is prohibited, when neighboring businesses have them
Based on these issues, the Commission's proposed revisions allow drive- through
facilities in more locations without negatively impacting the overall growth strategy of the
Comprehensive Plan The following summarizes the changes proposed
Enhanced code language is shown in the existing "Drive- Through Lane" section The
new language establishes criteria for all drive - throughs This additional language
resolves the issue of consistency as it ensures that all drive- through facilities will be
held to the same standard regardless of the zone in which they are located The new
drive- through standards include the following
Clarification of Use The proposed amendments include modifications to the definition
section to clearly identify what components make up a drive- through facility (window
and stacking lane) and to clarify that a drive- through
facility is not a separate use, rather it can be an
accessory function to any permitted use in the
applicable zone
Preferred Locations: Amendments encourage the
drive- through facility to be located to the side or rear
of the building when possible When this is not -
possible, screening requirements have been added to
reduce the visual impacts of the drive- through
Stacking Lane: Current code language does not
explicitly identify the minimum number of waiting cars This drive- through lane is physically
the lane must hold This is typically important for small separated from the parking area,
lots, to ensure waiting cars are not blocking traffic on located behind and to the side of the
the street The stacking lane requirement has been building, screened with a combination of landscaping and a trellis, and
set at a minimum of 4 cars, and 6 cars for provides additional aesthetics with its
restaurant/food /drink uses pavement treatment
• Page 4
Design: The Comprehensive Plan establishes that the most important design elements
for drive- through facilities include screening of the drive- through lane and ensuring safe
pedestrian movement on and within the site The amendments establish design criteria
that include landscaping, screening, modified materials for the stacking lane, and
enhanced pedestrian features
Signage: New requirements have been created to ensure proper size, placement and
screening of menu boards to minimize impact on adjacent
properties
Pedestrian Features: Acknowledging the Comprehensive
Plan's policies for pedestrian friendly centers a new
provision requiring walkways distinguished with pavement -
treatment, is included and intended to provide safe
connections onto the site from public sidewalks as well as -
within the site from parking areas This pedestrian walkway
provides a safe connection
These new standards enable a reduction in the number of from a parking area to a
zones that currently prohibit drive - throughs because these buddmq
requirements will facilitate better design and enhanced
pedestrian safety The only zones that continue the prohibition on drive- through
facilities are the District Center Core, Neighborhood Center Core, and Neighborhood
Business The following chart identifies the proposed relaxation of the prohibition
Allowed with Permitted Use Prohibited
Commercial Corridor District Center Core
-Exception Wheaton /Riddell Sub -Area
Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor Neighborhood Center Core
Freeway Corridor Exception Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center
Industrial
Industrial Park Neighborhood Business
Employment Center
Institutional
The District and Neighborhood Center Core zones are extremely important in terms of
achieving the "Centers Concept" outlined in the Comprehensive Plan These areas
include places such as Downtown, Manette, and Charleston where drive- through
facilities seem out of character with the existing development pattern as well as the
planned growth strategy Two areas within these center zones are proposed to allow
drive- through facilities because the properties within them are located on Kitsap Way or
Wheaton Way where existing development is dominated by auto oriented uses
Similarly, due to the small scale nature of the Neighborhood Business zone, drive -
through facilities seem inappropriate
• Page 5
Maximum Front Yard Setbacks and Parking
The Planning Commission deliberated extensively on the topic of maximum front yard
setbacks and recommends the amendments because they will provide for enhanced
flexibility without diminishing the long term goals of the Comprehensive Plan related to
the "Centers" concept One of the primary purposes of the maximum front yard setback
is to place the building, rather than parking on the street frontage, much like one would
see in a dense urban core such as Downtown Particular attention is paid to street
corners, as they anchor the entire street scape and affect more than one street
frontage Due to the extensive discussions in the code about parking lot locations,
careful attention must be paid to ensure increased setbacks are coupled with adequate
parking standards to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the
street presence
Complaints about the maximum front yard setback have been primarily due to a lack of
flexibility for unforeseen circumstances such as topography, or the added complexities
from trying to design a new structure around existing onsite development Additionally,
Staff has struggled with the code language due to the lack of consistency between
different zones, where some set the maximum at 5' and others at 10' with very few
provisions to allow for an increase The proposed revisions intend to resolve these
issues without substantial impact to the Comprehensive Plan goals as follows
Improved Setback Flexibility New language is provided that recognizes several
scenarios in which increased setbacks may be appropriate and allows any applicant to
request an increase The list is not exhaustive, rather it is intended to provide guidance
regarding what situations the increase may apply to, such as topography, utilities, site
constraints, to accommodate phased infill, for projects with existing occupied structures,
etc Prior to approval of the setback departure, the applicant must demonstrate why an
increased setback is needed, how it is the minimum necessary, what compensating
features will be provided in order to facilitate a superior site design, and how it maintains
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan It is anticipated that these criteria will
provide enough flexibility to allow for modifications when strict code compliance is not
possible, but will be challenging enough that applicants will make a concerted effort to
comply with the code prior requesting a departure
Setback Consistency Revisions establish consistency through all zoning districts by
establishing the same 10' maximum front yard setback in as many zones as possible,
rather than having a 5' setback in some and 10' in others
Parking:
Each zone with maximum front yard setback requirements also includes a specific
parking section which establishes regulations in excess of the standard parking chapter
These parking requirements are intended to fulfill the Comprehensive Plans vision to
hide parking lots behind the building, rather than placing them in front of buildings
• Page 6
Each zone has slightly different language relating to parking, but most contain similar
concepts such as
• Minimize the amount of parking in front of the
building
• Prohibit parking on street corners
• Access parking off of smaller ancillary roads when _________________ __
possible Site Frontage — 50% max
narkina
Proposed revisions focus on increasing flexibility as with
the maximum setback discussion above Revisions are as Happy Street
follows
Parking at the Building Frontage Each zone establishes a slightly different
maximum percentage for the amount of parking that may be between the building and
the street frontage The proposed amendments establish the same percentage (50 %)
for all of the zones Additionally, the proposed amendments include clarifying language
that helps identify what portions of the lot this
requirement applies to
Parking at the Corner Rather than prohibiting parking
at the corner of two street intersections, the proposed -
amendments provide for some flexibility by establishing
4, b
design criteria to screen the parking should it be located _
at an intersection Such screening is intended to fully 17
hide the parking areas The wall or hedge is intended to
achieve the anchoring effect desired by the
Comprehensive Plan
Consistency: Although not discussed in detail, there are several revisions included
throughout the attached proposed amendment document that are not intended to have
substantive impact, but are to clarify the existing intent For example, the word
"principal" has been added in front of "arterial' because there are several different types
of arterial roads within Bremerton Another example is the removal of handicapped
parking stall requirements as these requirements are more clearly addressed in the
Building Code
In summary, the Planning Commission unanimously recommends these zoning code
amendments because they will likely encourage development within the City, will
provide more flexibility for applicants, and will maintain consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan
• Page 7
Attachment
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutesfor:
Workshop held on
April 16, 2013
Public Hearing held on
July 16, 2013
I =-- --- 0
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
April 16, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jose called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5.30 p in
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Staff Present
Chair Jose Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Vice Chair Tift Nicole Floyd, Current Planner, Department of Community Development
Commissioner Albright
Commissioner Dinkuhn Others Present
Commissioner Lambert Scott Daniels, Deputy Director, Kitsap Health District
Commissioner Simpson
Commissioner Strube
Quorum Certified
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VICE CHAIR TIFF MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013 AS AMENDED.
COMMISSIONER DINKUHN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC MEETING
Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda)
Chair Jose asked if there were any comments from citizens Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting.
Workshop: 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update
Overview of State Requirements for Comprehensive Plan -112&tes
Director Spencer advised that the City will undertake a major update of its Comprehensive Plan in 2016 She referred them
to a document that was prepared by the Washington State Department of Commerce, which provides a concise summary of
the 14 Growth Management Act (GMA) goals Recognizing that there are a lot of concepts associated GMA, she said staff
felt it would be useful for the Commission to have lectures by people both outside and inside the City who are experts in
various fields to help them identify areas where the current Comprehensive Plan is deficient or already strong She
introduced Scott Daniels, Deputy Director, Kitsap Health District, who was present to share information about how the City's
Comprehensive Plan could be amended to support public health.
Comprehensive Plan Update Guest Speaker Scot Daniels Kitsap Public Health DistncK. on Importance of Incorporating
Public Health in a Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Daniels said he was present to talk about the connection between comprehensive planning and health. He referred to the
"Kitsap Community Health Prionties" (KCHP) study (see this web page for report:
http / /www kitsa cchp corn/CHAR data html ) that was done to help identify and understand the major health issues in Kitsap
County He said he believes the major public health issues of this century will be chronic disease and climate change Using
the assessment data, people from throughout the community worked together to write a plan that addresses the highest health
priorities, and a report card was prepared to enable the health district to track very specific indicators year by year to identify
changes He shared a graphic illustration showing that the population in Bremerton and Kitsap County, as a whole, is rapidly
aging Any future plans by the public health district and the City must address this massive aging population. He
particularly noted the increase in population between the ages of 45 and 69 He also referred to other data pieces from the
report, which are interesting from a planning perspective such as:
• Race/Ethnicity (Sections A.2.1 and A.2.2). Bremerton has the most diverse population of any geographic
jurisdiction in the County It also has the lowest population growth (12 %) As a comparison, population growth in
Bambndge/North Kitsap was over 11% and South Kitsap is growing very rapidly, as well
• Income/Poverty (Sections B.2.1,through 11.2.5� Bremerton has the lowest income and the highest poverty of any
section in the County.
• Education (Sections B.3.1 through B.3.3). Bremerton has lower levels of education, as well
• Single- Family Households (Section 11.4:2). Of all the households that have children in the City of Bremerton, half
are single- family households This is a striking statistic from a planning perspective on a number of fronts
• Built Environment (Sections C.2 and C.3)
• Crime (Sections F.2.4, F.2.5 and F.2.7). Bremerton has the highest crime rate in the county This is a concern for
the public health district; not ,lust because, people are subject to become victims of crime, but it creates safety
concerns for people who feel less safe to go outside for physical activity This can exacerbate chronic disease rates
• Life Expectancy (Section H.1.1). The public health district has a saying that you can tell how healthy a person is
based on zip code. In the City of Bremerton, life expectancy is the lowest in the County
Mr. Daniels said that although the data he provided is discouraging, the issues can be addressed and improved He
encouraged the Commissioners to review the sections identified, and specifically review the Bremerton data
Mr. Daniels advised that chronic diseases are the new leading causes of death in the United States. In the early 1900's most
deaths were related to infectious diseases such as pneumonia, tuberculosis and diarrhea. While these illnesses are still present
in the community, their rates have dropped significantly due to advances in health care However, the rate of deaths
associated with non - communicable, chronic diseases (heart disease, cancer, stroke) has rapidly increased. About 80% of
deaths in the United States are from chronic diseases, and 75% of all health care costs are for chronic diseases (about $17
trillion per year) Between 1996 and 2005, the number of people aged 25 to 44 with more than one chronic disease doubled.
Almost one in two adults in the United States has at least one chronic disease, and about 1 in 15 children have been
diagnosed with a chronic disease. He said common risk factors are not enough physical activity, poor eating habits and/or
tobacco use. Common risk conditions include obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol
Mr. Daniels shared a graphic illustration comparing hospitalizations associated with diabetes in Washington State in 1990-
1992 to those in 2008 -2010. He noted that the rate has significantly increased in every county, which is consistent with
nationwide trends He noted that in Kitsap County 41% of all adults are not getting enough physical activity and 72% are not
eating enough fruits and vegetables. About 16% are current smokers, and this rate has actually gone down due to policy
initiatives such as a ban on smoking in public places and increasing cigarette taxes. He further noted that Kitsap County is
slightly lower (59 %) than the national average on overweight obese people, but Bremerton is a little higher (62 6 /6). About
40% of adults in the county now have high cholesterol and 30% have high blood Pressure Mr. Daniels shared data
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
Apnl 16, 2013 — Page 2 of 13
comparing the City of Bremerton with other Jurisdictions in the county He noted Bremerton has the highest rate of diabetes -
related hospitalizations, and Bainbridge Island has the lowest. He advised that this is due, in a large part, to social
determinants of health (income, race, education level, etc ).
Mr. Daniels said it is clear that the health system in the United States has significant problems He provided a graphic
illustration showing the life expectancy in various countries in the world and health spending per capita in United States
dollars He summarized that the United States spends significantly more per capita than any other country, but their life
expectancy is lower than many One identified problem is that the United States does not spend enough money to prevent
illnesses. In 2009, only 1% of health care dollars were spent on prevention and 99% was spent on medical care after an
illness had occurred ortand biomedical research aimed at fixing problems after the fact He provided two pictures of upward -
bound classes at Miami University in both 1967 and 2008, noting that the latter class was significantly more obese
Mr. Daniels explained that the characteristics of a healthy community include adequate pedestrian and biking infrastructure,
less traffic, higher - quality housing, sufficient public transit, and community amenities such as grocery stores, parks and
community centers. The healthy benefits from these positive community characteristics include fewer injuries, lower rates of
obesity, diabetes and heart disease, less asthma and respiratory illness, fewer injures, lower stress, better mental health and
greater social interaction The economic effects include increased home values, increased productivity, increased home
values, higher worker and student productivity and more local fobs. Environmental effects include reduction of fossil fuel
use, higher air quality, increased energy efficiency and a smaller carbon footprint. He pointed out that the City of
Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue of pedestrian and biking infrastructure better than most He noted that
a lack of these types of facilities can impact residents For example, noisy, busy streets can result in less social cohesion,
more stress and mental health issues, and residents are less likely to meet each other. Having unsafe places to walk and bike
can result in more pedestnan and cyclist injuries and less physical activity. Fewer sidewalks and,bike lanes can result in less
physical activity and higher rates of chronic disease.
Mr. Daniels said the public health district works with cities to encourage active living by providing walking and biking
infrastructure, complete streets, traffic calming, public transportation and linkages to transportation, mixed -use development,
schools within walking distance from residential areas, outdoor recreational facilities, and safe neighborhood design. They
also work with cities to increase opportunities for healthy eating by encouraging urban agriculture, community and school
gardens, local food processing and value added production, more access to healthy food retailers and farmer's markets, less
access to unhealthy food and convenience stores.
Mr. Daniels shared study information he found in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF HEALTH. In this study, one -third of
the women living in a low- income neighborhood were given housing vouchers to move to a higher- income netghborhood.
Over a 10 -year period, the obesity and diabetes rates in this group of people improved compared to those that stayed behind
The study concluded that the health improvements were similar to diet and exercise programs or the use of medications to
treat diabetes Moving, someone to a better neighborhood resulted in measurable health improvements That is why it is
important to improve the quality of neighborhoods and communities
Mr. Daniels said the Kitsap Public Health District also hired outside assistance to review the various comprehensive plans in
Kitsap County The purpose of this exercise was to help local planning staff and elected officials understand how
Comprehensive Plans can be amended to improve public health. The consultant reviewed the City of Bremerton's plan and
provided recommendations on how it could be improved to encourage healthy living and eating The analysis points out the
strengths of the City's plan, as well as the areas that might be improved
Mr. Daniels emphasized that, in addition to working with state and local governments, the health district also works closely
with schools, health care providers, daycares, work places, etc. to address problems from a collective impact standpoint. He
summarized that working collectively is the only way to improve health, lower,health care costs, and make communities
safer He advised that the health district is developing a model workplace wellness policy that will be implemented first by
the health district and Kitsap Mental Health Services For example, the health district is working with partners to
nutritional standards for school lunches. They are also working to develop ,joint use agreements with schools so the
recreational facilities can be open to the community for physical activity They are working with state and local governments
to suggest planning improvements and with parks departments to create smoke -free parks.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 20 13 -- Page 3 of 13
Mr. Daniels said the health district is working with various agencies to decrease chronic disease under the umbrella of the
5210 Program (5 or more fruits and vegetables, 2 hours or less recreational screen time, 1 hour or more of physical activity,
and 0 sugary drinks, more water and low -fat milk) He advised that this is a program that individuals can work on at home, at
work, at school, etc.
Mr. Daniels summarized his presentation by reviewing that-
• Your zip code identifies your community's health
• Bremerton's health is an important factor in community planning.
• Chronic diseases are the leading causes of death and disability and are increasing rapidly in the county and
nationally
• The high cost of health care is driven primarily by chronic diseases, and this affects everyone
• Prevention through collective impact is the key to reversing the trends in chronic diseases.
• Integrating health into land use and transportation planning is a critical effort to reduce chronic diseases, and it
literally saves lives.
• Planning has a profound impact on community characteristics, which impact not just health, but the economy and
the environment
Commissioner Simpson asked if the health district has data to support a gene link to chronic diseases. She also pointed out
that life expectancy in the early 1900s was about 45 and life expectancy now is 75 to 80. She questioned if the data is
skewed because people are living so much longer that chronic diseases are becoming more pervasive Mr. Daniels said they
know that the rate of infectious diseases is significantly lower than where it was in the early 19009, and that is why people are
living longer They can also predict the amount of genetic component in death and disability rates, and studies show that
genetic factors have significantly lower impact on health than the choices an individual makes.
Commissioner Albright asked if the health district's data is broken down into the various zip codes in Bremerton Mr.
Daniels answered that much of the information was mined from census data They also mined data from behavioral risk
surveys of adults and healthy youth surveys done by school districts. The data is aggregated primarily by municipal
,jurisdictions and school districts While zip code data does exist, this high level of data was not aggregated into the health
district's report However, they do know that lower levels of chronic disease are found in neighborhoods that are safer, have
higher incomes, and higher levels of education
While public transportation is great, Commissioner Simpson asked how encouraging people to take a bus rather than walk
would result in less public obesity Mr. Daniels explained that people who use mass transit tend to walk to and from bus
stops This physical activity is positive Commissioner Simpson said that while organic food is fantastic and farmer's
markets have wonderful items, most people cannot afford to shop for organic produce or at farmer's markets This leaves out
an entire segment of the population who cannot purchase the healthier food anyway. Mr. Daniels agreed that the cost of
healthy food is a significant concern and , is a difficult issue to address The health district's goal is to increase access to
healthy foods and increase education to help people make healthier choices
Vice Chair Tift commented that sidewalks can make a significant difference in improving public health Having lived in
various neighborhoods around Bremerton, more people walk in areas where there are safe sidewalks. In addition to building
community, sidewalks can provide health benefits, as well.
Commissioner Dinkuhn referred to the graphs Mr. Daniels provided to illustrate changes in the age of the population She
asked if the last graph that showed a very large swell in the aging population was specific to Bremerton or representative of
the entire country Mr Daniels said the graph represents Kitsap County data, and is similar to trends throughout the United
States. He stressed the importance of planning for this aging population.
Commissioner Tift pointed out that Navy statistics show that 43% of the shipyard's workforce lives in Bremerton, based on
zip code However, it is important to keep in mind that zip codes extend far beyond the boundaries of the City He said it
would be very helpful to determine how much of the work force actually lives in Bremerton. Mr. Daniels said he believes it
would be possible to obtain this information
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 — Page 4 of 13
Workshop: Zoning Code Amendments
Ms. Floyd recalled that the Commission discussed SEPA in January, specifically the City's ability to increase exemptions
(things that do not have to go through the SEPA process) The Commission raised several questions at that time, and the
purpose of tonight's discussion is to provide additional clarification. She explained that applications that are not exempt
from SEPA review are required to complete a 17 -page application and pay a $320 processing fee The SEPA review process
takes about three months to complete. The majority of the SEPA reviews result in Determinations of Non - Significance
(DNS), which means that the City's existing code adequately addresses impacts associated with the development. Once a
DNS is issued, the applicant can move forward with the permit process. A very small number of projects receive a Mitigated
Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS), which means that the existing code is not sufficient, and additional mitigation
is necessary Typically, the additional mitigation relates to impact fees for schools, roads, etc Jurisdictions must have good
reasons to support the added mitigation requirements Very few projects receive a Determination of Significance (DS),
which means that no amount of mitigation would make the project fall below the threshold. in these cases, extensive reports
and studies are required and the process is very long
Ms. Floyd explained that SEPA rules allow local jurisdictions to establish their own exemption levels within a range
identified in state law, and the City of Bremerton has adopted exemption levels at the lowest end of the current range Recent
state legislation in 2012 allowed jurisdictions to automatically process permits at a higher exemption level without having to
make any legislative changes at the local level, and the City of Bremerton has been exempting development projects at the
higher level However, the change is temporary In order to continue to use this exemption level or to utilize the newest and
even higher exemption level, the City must adopt an ordinance by the end of 2013 She provided a table to illustrate the
lowest exemptions available, which were adopted by the City in the 1970's, the highest exemptions available between 1971
and 2012, and the new 2013 highest available. She explained that the City has the ability to establish exemption
levels anywhere within the parameters of the chart.
Ms. Floyd also provided a table to illustrate the outcome of the approximately 25 SEPA applications that were submitted in
2007 She emphasized that it is important for the City to have the ability to impose mitigation when needed. She reviewed
that a DNS was issued for a gravel mine, which involved 165,000 yards of grading, and pointed out that this project would
not be exempt from SEPA review based on the highest exemption level An MDNS was issued for a 101 -unit subdivision,
and the City required a fire sprinkler system as additional mitigation. A project of this size - would also be subject to the
SEPA review based on the new highest exemption level She noted that a DS was issued for the Bay Vista Subarea Plan
proposal, and the applicant prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of a subarea planning process
Ms. Floyd suggested that when reviewing the proposal to increase the exemption levels, the Commission should consider the
costs and benefits associated with the change She noted that while the higher levels may exempt more projects from the
lengthy SEPA review process, the change would also decrease the public's ability to participate in the process She
explained that, typically, comments received during the public comment period from pnvate citizens are related to a general
dislike of the project and not based on conditions that can be mitigated. Very rarely do the comments relate to situations that
can be conditioned, and they typically come agencies such as the school district, fire department, etc She explained
that the City could mix and match the options to establish the right exemption levels For example, many jurisdictions have
set a lower exemption level for subdivisions and a higher exemption level for grading, and Kitsap County has set a different
level for grading within 200 feet of the shoreline versus outside of the shoreline
Ms. Floyd said staff will be working to draft amendments, and they would like the Commissioners to provide feedback about
what they believe would be reasonable exemption levels She summarized that if Bremerton does not take action, the
exemption levels would remain as they are identified in the current code language 100 cubic yards, 20 parking stalls, 4,000
square foot building; or 4 -lot subdivision. The previous maximum exemption levels were 500 cubic yards, 40 parking stalls,
12,000 square foot building or a 9 -lot subdivision The new maximum exemption levels are 1,000 cubic yards, 90 parking
stalls, 30,000 square foot building, and a 30-lot subdivision.
i
Chair Jose invited the public to comment on the proposed changes to the SEPA exemption levels. No one in the audience
indicated a desire to address the Commission.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 —Page 5 of 13
I
If the highest exemption levels are adopted, Commissioner Lambert asked if the City would have the ability to vet an
application for potential impacts if it did not require any other type of permit and was exempt from the SEPA requirement
Ms. Floyd answered that would not be possible She explained that some type of permit must be required in order to trigger
a SEPA review, and the SEPA review would be extra based on the thresholds Director Spencer clarified that for example if
the City adopts the higher SEPA exemption levels, an application for a 25,000 square foot building in the commercial district
would go straight to the building permit process as a permitted use and no public process would be required However, there
would be a public process for a proposal that requires a conditional use permit, a shoreline permit, etc
Chair Jose thanked staff for providing a table to illustrate the outcome of the SEPA reviews that have been done in recent
years He said he reviewed the significant projects and determined that most would have required SEPA review based on the
increased thresholds. He said he supports raising the thresholds to the maximum level possible The City would still have
the ability to review impacts associated with significant projects, but the change would alleviate the significant burden the
SEPA process unnecessarily places on many projects
Commissioner Dinkuhn recalled that at their earlier discussion, it was suggested that the City match the thresholds
established by Kitsap County She suggested this would be an appropriate approach so the City does not push potential
development out into the county as a result of stricter requirements Chair Jose referred to the information provided by staff
to compare the requirements of various jurisdictions, including Kitsap County He noted that Kitsap County distinguishes
between grading within the shoreline junsdiction and grading outside of the shoreline jurisdiction Director Spencer pointed
out that Kitsap County has already adopted the highest exemption levels that were available in 2012, but the City is at the
forefront in adopting changes based on the new 2013 levels At this time, they do not know if the County will adopt the
higher exemption levels They must also keep in mind that the County has both urban and Waal areas She recommended the
City offer a competitive market and encourage growth to come to the City by making the permit process as streamlined as
possible That means that the SEPA threshold should be at the higher end, provided the proposal is not located in -a critical
area, etc. Ms. Floyd also pointed out that because Kitsap County adopted the highest levels available about 10 years ago,
they can wait to see what happens over the next several years without experiencing a significant loss If the City waits too
long to adopt the new highest levels, they would drop back down to the very lowest thresholds that are significantly lower
than the county's current thresholds. Director Spencer reminded the Commission that the legislature gave the City the local
authority to raise the thresholds to the highest exemption levels on a temporary basis for 2013 However, code changes are
necessary in order to continue the higher exemption levels after 2013 or to implement the new highest exemption levels She
summarized that there is an impetus for the City to act now
Commissioner Strube asked if staff foresees any major issues associated with raising the exemption thresholds to the
maximum level allowed by the State Ms. Floyd said the only major issue is the reduction of community input, and she is
seeking Commission feedback particularly regarding this concern Director Spencer pointed out that most of the DNS's that
were issued were for projects larger than the increased thresholds A public process would still be required for significant
projects She emphasized that mitigation is only for requirements that are above and ,beyond what the City code requires
Because the City already has robust codes to address impacts related to traffic, the environment, etc, there is often no need
for the additional SEPA tool. Chair Jose reminded the Commission that when the SEPA law was initiated, there were far
fewer processes and approvals required for projects In the intervening decades, the Growth Management Act, Shoreline
Management Act, etc have imposed additional processes to deal with impacts. Now that there are other tools to deal with
impacts, he questioned the need to continue with a 1970's era policy
Chair Jose asked what type of action staff is looking for from the Commission Director Spencer said a motion would
provide clarity as to the direction the Commission wants to go She said she likes the county's approach of establishing a
lower exemption threshold for projects located within a shoreline jurisdiction Commissioner Albright requested more
information about how a lower exemption threshold would impact properties within the shoreline jurisdiction Ms. Floyd
clarified that any development within the shoreline jurisdiction or the shoreline buffer would require a SEPA review.
Chair Jose reminded the Commission of the City's extensive process of updating the Shoreline Master Program to
adequately address all potential impacts related to shoreline development He said he would be against differentiating
between the shoreline jurisdiction and other properties in the City. He also said he learned through the Gorst Creek Subarea
Planning process that the real issues related to runoff and drainage are caused uphill properties and not the properties near the
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 —Page 6 of 13
I
shoreline He summarized his belief that a lower threshold for grading near the shoreline would not track with current
science
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A DRAFT
SEPA AMENDMENT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING THAT INCORPORATES THE NEW 2013 HIGHEST
EXEMPTIONS LEVELS. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Floyd advised that over 35 different PowerPoint presentations about the Comprehensive Plan were made to the
Commission prior to the plan's adoption in 2004 However, none of the current Commissioners were serving during that
time. She reviewed that throughout the process there was overwhelming support to create a plan that tailored the expected
growth into several dense, mixed -use, mini cities or "centers" throughout Bremerton. The goal of the plan is to create a wide
range of housing choices, support stronger neighborhoods, provide a variety of transportation choices, enhance convenience
with places to work and shop, improve pedestrian orientation, and foster distinctive, attractive places with a strong sense of
place She provided a picture to illustrate the concept, showing retail uses on the bottom, office in the middle, residential
uses above and parking behind the building
Ms. Floyd pointed out that seniors, single- parents and starter couples represent 50% of today's market, and it is anticipated
they will represent at least 60% of the market in 20 years Studies have shown that this population group wants to live in
places where there is easy access to services, urban amenities and social settings By and large, these people want to live in
urban centers, and the City of Bremerton must capture some its lost vitality by planning for the future To illustrate the
concept further, she provided a picture of Wheaton Way as it is currently developed, and a picture of how the subarea plan
envisions the street will be developed in the future
Ms. Floyd explained that while the growth strategy and "centers" concept is working well in some areas such as the
Charleston District, Downtown District, and the Manette Neighborhood Center, which were developed in a pedestrian -
friendly pattern at the outset; the City has experienced challenges implementing the full vision of the concept where existing
development was focused around automobile traffic such as Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way Contrary to the vision in the
Comprehensive Plan, these areas are becoming increasingly vacant and dilapidated rather than growing into thriving
community centers She advised that the current code establishes a maximum front -yard setback requirement that is intended
to push the buildings forward, and design standards were created to require windows and building modulation Significant
landscaping buffers are required to make it feet safer to walk on the street.
Ms. Floyd said the purpose of this discussion is to discuss how they can work towards the goals in the Comprehensive Plan
in a phased approach She noted that the economy has changed since 2004, and development patterns are difficult to change,
as well The designated centers are at a disadvantage because they are competing against properties within the City limits
that do not have the some code requirements Developers are choosing to invest in properties that are less encumbered with
regulations and easier and less costly to develop The City Council has asked the Commission and staff to consider ways to
amend the zoning code to allow development opportunity but not prohibit implementation of the "centers" concept They
have specifically asked them to work on amendments relating to drive -thru lanes and maximum front yard setbacks.
Ms. Floyd referred to the property where Arnold's Furniture is located at the corner of Kitsap Way and Morgan Avenue
She explained that part of the building was destroyed by fire Because the property owner did not obtain a permit to replace
the building within one year, his property is now subject to the new code requirements, and the building must be developed
closer to the street front Complying with the setback requirement would not be a problem if the site was empty, but the
proposed new building would block the view of the existing building. This may not be an ideal situation It can also be
difficult to push buildings located on sloped lots towards the street front, and it would eliminate the ability to widen the street
at some point in the future in addition, developers say that consumers want to drive up and park in front of businesses She
summarized that it costs more to meet the City's design standards, and more and more buildings on Kitsap Way and Wheaton
Way are being vacated Some of this is related to the poor economy, but much due to the more stringent zoning code
requirements
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 —Page 7 of 13
I
At a minimum, Ms. Floyd recommended that the same setbacks should be applied to all commercial zones. Perhaps there
could also be some exemptions that allow more flexibility for corner lots or slopes She reviewed each of the areas where
changes may be warranted as follows
• Red Apple Market Area on Kitsap Way. The current zoning in this area is Neighborhood Business and Limited
Commercial, both of which have a 10 -foot maximum setback requirement that pushes the buildings to the street
front. Neither zone allows drive -thru uses There is existing development in the area and no landscaping along the
street. There are no sidewalks, and future development is likely to be in the form of additions, remodels or
expansions The taco shop, with a drive -thru, is non - conforming but the use is not likely to change in the near
future Any expansion of the Red Apple Market would need to occur towards the street front in order to comply
with the code, and she does not believe the owners are interested in doing that
• Oyster Bay Center on Kitsap Way. This is a neighborhood center that is currently zoned Neighborhood Business.
Drive -tiru uses are not permitted, and a maximum setback of 10 feet is required. The business with the drive -thru is
non - conforming and the property will likely be redeveloped at some point in the future However, it is not likely
that redevelopment will occur on the QFC site any time soon. City staff has received inquiries about the possibility
of developing a dnve -thru restaurant in the middle of the parking lot Although the building would be pushed
towards the street, the drive -thru use would not be allowed People are confused about why this type of use is not
allowed in a location that seems logical. While there is sparse landscaping at this time, there are good sidewalks
• Commercial Corridor on Kitsap Way. This area is zoned Commercial Corridor and drive -thru uses are allowed
However, the maximum setback requirement is 5 feet She said she believes the setback requirement is to ensure
that drive -thru uses are not placed along the street front. There is limited landscaping and good sidewalks, but any
future development is likely to be in the form of additions, remodels and expansions While some of the buildings
meet the design standards, she questioned if the existing development meets the vision of creating a "center."
• The Corridor on Wheaton Way. One side of the street is zoned District Center Core, which does not allow drive -
thru uses and requires a 10 -foot maximum setback The other side is zoned Commercial Corridor, which allows
drive -thru uses but requires a 5400t maximum setback This difference is difficult to explain to property owners
and prospective developers Wheaton Way is narrow and most of the buildings are pushed close to the street front
There are several existing drive -thru uses, some of them non - conforming
• Wheat Way and Riddell. A portion of this area is zoned Wheaton Frontage, which does not allow drive -thru uses
but requires a minimum setback of between 35 and 55 feet. The remainder of the area is zoned Wheaton Way
Redevelopment Corridor, which allows driveAhru uses, but requires a maximum setback of 5 feet.
Ms. Floyd explained that when development, standards are too difficult to meet, property owners tend to hold on to exactly
what they have because it costs too much to change to anything new She suggested that the City's goal should be to create
zoning requirements that meet the vision in the Comprehensive Plan but allow for more flexibility She provided a picture of
a building that was constructed in 2007 and meets all of the code requirements, but she questioned if it is really consistent
with the vision in the Comprehensive Plan She also provided pictures of attractively designed dnve -thru uses and suggested
the Commission have a brief discussion about what makes some dnve -thru uses better than others She noted that there are
currently no design standards for dnve -thru uses.
Commissioner Albright pointed out that the Walgreens and Starbucks drive -thrus are difficult to negotiate because the sites
are too densely developed Commissioner Lambert agreed that these drive-thrus are tight, but their design is aesthetically
pleasing She said she likes that you can enter the Starbucks without crossing the path of the drive -thru A separate entrance
helps Commissioner Strube asked how many potential businesses have been turned away because of stnet code
requirements. Ms. Floyd said she does not have an exact count, but the number is significant. Director Spencer recalled
that at their March retreat, the City Council discussed ways to improve the condition of the City. One idea was to improve
the vitality of the commercial districts. They specifically asked staff what is stopping people from developing commercial
uses in the City, and her first response was that they have to turn people away because projects are not compatible with the
current code. The situation becomes even more difficult because drive -thru uses may be allowed on one side of the street, but
not the other She suggested a better approach would be to allow the use, but provide standards to guide design so that
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 -- Page 8 of 13
I
I
development accomplishes key elements of the Comprehensive Plan vision such as pedestrian friendly, walkable commercial
areas
Chair Jose suggested that screening and visual separation between the cats and everything else are important features of any
dnve -thru uses. The finishes and landscaping associated with a drive -thru use are important elements It is also important to
separate pedestrian and automobile spaces
Commissioner Dinkuhn said she drove up Kitsap Way during the afternoon to refresh her memory of the existing drive -thru
uses She said she does not want to outright prohibit drive -thru uses, but there are some obvious, better- planned drive -thrus
Most of them belong to banks, where drive -thru uses am oriented on the site so that pedestrians are not required to walk
across traffic and cars are able to maneuver in comfortable but small areas in convenient and efficient ways She suggested
that, through good site planning, the City could encourage businesses with drive -thru components to better plan them so there
is incentive for people to get out of their cars The drive -thru should not be, the first thing they see, and may not be the most
convenient way to get in and out of a business Instead of prohibiting the use, drive -thru should be done in a more pedestrian
friendly way that provides a more pleasing visual experience, as well The plan of having a drive -thru loop around to the
back and exit into a parking rather than throwing cars back out into traffic is also a huge factor in providing both pedestrian
and driver comfort
Commissioner Simpson said that while it is good exercise, she does not see American's trending towards walking When
she lived in Parts, she had to walk everywhere, and she loved walking. But when she came home, she was grateful to have a
car so she could go where she needed to go She suggested that the independence of having a car is more of who American's
are It is nice to have beautiful pathways, but she does not see that most Americans will embrace the idea
Chair Jose agreed that it is important, through the planning process, to encourage people to achieve the public health goals
discussed earlier in the meeting But drive -thru capability is very important for many people such as the elderly or mothers
with children in car seats They need to provide options for all people. He summarized that it appears the Commission does
not support an absolute prohibition on drive thru uses. However, instead of permitting the use outright, perhaps some design
criteria could be established so they are more compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's vision
Commissioner Albright questioned the actual demand for drive -thru uses She said she sees a lot of drive - thrus in
Bremerton that are not heavily utilized Ms. Floyd said she does not have information about the actual demand for drive -
thrus, but it is challenging to tell property owners they outright cannot have them She suggested that a better approach
would be to allow the use, but put in place design standards so the uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision
Commissioner Albright concurred
Vice Chair Tift pointed out that national chains are required to constantly improve, and the businesses will likely be
remodeled approximately every ten years He noted that, often, you can get better service from a drive -thru than if you walk
inside. The drive -thru industry is geared towards making improvements to speed people through He expressed his belief
that the existing drive -thrus on Kitsap Way are much better than those on Wheaton Way. Those on Kitsap Way are more
modern and well situated He agreed that allowing drive - thtus on one side of the street but not the other is absurd and needs
to be changed
Ms. Floyd summarized that the Commission likes the site design features provided at some drive - thrus, such as the stone
paving, etc. Separate entrances for the queuing and vehicular circulation is important, as is visual separation and screening.
It is also important to keep pedestrians safe. They should look to banks for examples of good site design Perhaps drive -
thrus should not be located in the most convenient and prominent locations lnstead, they could be located on the back side
to reduce their presence from the street side.
Commissioner Dinkuhn referred to the examples provided by staff She likes the way the Jack in the Box drive -thru is
accessed through a parking lot rather than from Wheaton Way. Also, the landscape strip that is provided at the Kentucky
Fried Chicken drive -thru provides a visual break from the traffic that is flying by Commissioner Tift noted that the
Kentucky Fried Chicken structure was recently remodeled. Ms. Floyd added that the McDonald's on Wheaton Way recently
submitted an application for a permit to redevelop the site Chair Jose noted that when the Burger King on Kitsap Way was
remodeled, an ADA accessible pedestrian crossing was provided. The drive -thru is landscaped and tucked on the side of the
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 — Page 9 of 13
property Cars exit into a parking lot at the rear of the building rather than the busy street. Commissioner Lambert
observed that all four examples provided by staff exit and enter from a parking lot Commissioner Albright said the latte
business on Kitsap Way always has cars lined up waiting for service. This indicates good business commerce and vitality to
the area. However, the current code prohibits the use.
Commissioner Strobe observed that Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way are main thoroughfares (highways). As much as they
would lice them to be walkable neighborhoods, there are numerous cars on the streets, and he does anticipate this will
change While he supports the idea of creating design standards for landscaping, drive -thm uses, etc, he expressed lus belief
that it makes sense to have a more business friendly zoning code Commissioner Lambert said she has walked the stretch
of commercial area along Kitsap Way, and she does not consider it a great walkable area She agreed with Commissioner
Strube that, realistically, this area is going to be a business corridor But they should also remember that some people must
use public transportation, and they need to have safe places to walk
ML Floyd cautioned against going beyond what =the Comprehensive Plan allows They are currently talking about potential
zoning code amendments and not updates to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission appears to be suggesting that these
areas be reviewed once again when the Comprehensive Plan is updated in 2016 However, she summarized that the City
Council has directed the staff and Commission to address both Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way and find ways to be more
flexible while maintaining the current Comprehensive Plan criteria Staff is seeking feedback and direction from the
Commission as they prepare draft code amendments for their future consideration
Commissioner Albright expressed her belief that it is not reasonable to require buildings on Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way
to be set closer to the road She supports a more lenient setback requirement Director Spencer observed that all the zoning
on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way requires a maximum setback of either 5 or 10 feet, with the exception of the Wheaton
Frontage Zone, which has a setback requirement of between 35 and 55 feet. She further observed that the current zoning is
successfully implementing the Comprehensive Plan vision in areas where existing development already complied with the
concept, but that is not the case in areas where existing development is non - conforming. She explained that the
Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan acknowledges the existing conditions and that development consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan vision would be phased in over time She summarized that having hard and fast setback requirements is
not achieving the City's goal, and the commercial areas along Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way are actually dying because the
City is turning away potential developers While she acknowledged that staff has not had a lot of time to think about possible
solutions to this problem, they recognize the need to phase in the improvements over time on sites that do not conform Staff
is seeking concurrence from the Commission about whether or not they should pursue this issue.
Chair Jose invited members of the public to provide testimony
Steve Gyverson, Bremerton, said he owns property on Wheaton Way (next to Flowers to Go) Before he purchased the
property in 2004 from the school district, he received assurance from the Planning Department that the current zoning would
allow him to develop a car dealership on the site However, during the year it took him to secure financing and purchase the
property, the City had changed the zoning and car dealerships were no longer allowed A few weeks later, he received a
letter from the City informing him that he would be frned per day if he did not mow the weeds on the property He was
upset that no one notified him of the change He said he has two dealerships in Tacoma, and the proposed new dealership in
Bremerton would have employed approximately 25 people It was going to be a nice development He said he has been
servicing the note on the property since 2004, and his property taxes are current. He suspects there would be more property
owners present, but many have already had their properties foreclosed on because of the rezone He suggested that the
rezone, rather than the economy, has had the most significant impact on these two commercial areas. He said he has been
approached by several businesses, but they declined the property because drive - thrus are not allowed
Ralph Erickson, Bremerton, said he owns property on Kitsap Way where Arnold's Home Furnishings is currently located.
He said he has spent a lot of time talking to Planning Department staff about zoning and setback issues. He said he is
encouraged about the Commission's current conversation about setbacks and dove -thrus He was born and raised in
Bremerton and has owned his commercial property for 60 years. He does not want to relocate his business, but it is important
to recognize the problems that property owners on Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way are faced with. He encouraged the
Commission to allow staff to present their ideas They deal directly with the property owners and have a clear understanding
of the problems The staff and the property owners need Commission's help to address this problem
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 — Page 10 of 13
Carl Zarelli, East Bremerton Plaza LLC, said he owns one of the "ugly" properties at the corner of Wheaton Way and
Riddell Road (where the former Rite Aid was located) He said he has been working with the Planning Department staff and
the City Attorney for months. He recently submitted a drawing with a dnve -thru He said he is very aware of the
Comprehensive Plan vision and how it has impacted the properties on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way. He said he is not
against landscaping, bicycle pathways, and encouraging people to get out of their cars and walk All of these are good ideas,
but there are some issues that need to be addressed. It is important that the Commission carefully listens to what the issues
are While he recognized that the current discussion is related to maximum front setback and drive -thru uses, he said the
existing parking restriction is also a problem fhe Subarea Plan also calls for an interior circulator street. He suggested that
perhaps the location of the circulator street could be adjusted to flow through the properties He cautioned that dnve -thru
businesses are not only fast -food restaurants, but banks, pharmacies, and other necessary services that are needed after hours
He said that many retailers are not interested in locating in these two commercial areas unless the minimum parkmg
requirement is raised to at least 4 to 4 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. He noted that the rule of thumb for restaurants is 10
parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. A good developer understands the parking requirements and how to get the highest and
best use out of their property. He summarized that while planning is good, it must work in practical application. Impractical
codes that do not work will only drive businesses away
Vice Chair Tift asked if Mr Zarelli owns the entire property where the Lowes, Albertson's and Rite Aid were located Mr.
Zarelli answered that they have owned the entire property since the early 1960's They also own the 20 acres behind it He
said he has had offers to purchase the property, but he has held off because he recognizes the property's potential. Mr Zarelll
said he is not against redeveloping properties and providing amenities people like Drive -thrus can be done correctly Again,
he emphasized that planning must be practical They must accept that Wheaton Way is a fast - moving highway He said he
currently has a few letters of intent for his property, but the perspective buyers are waiting to hear the outcome of this
discussion
Commissioner Dinkuhn reminded the Commission of the need to plan for the communities they want, and not necessarily
deal with the communities they have. She does not want to continue to operate with the status quo because that is the way it
has always been She would like the Commission to look forward to what they really think is better for the entire
community She referred to a drawing provided in the presentation to outline the possibilities for Wheaton Way to become a
tree -lined street, with trees down the center rather than a left -turn lane in both directions While this may be idealistic, it is
much better to focus on as a possibility rather than just continuing with what they already have
Commissioner Simpson pointed out that because Wheaton Way is a state highway, the City does not have the ability to put
trees down the center This would be a state decision Director Spencer said she previously worked for the City of
Shoreline, which is bisected by Highway 99. She explained that Shoreline, in cooperation with the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT), did an entire project to renovate the Highway 99 right -of -way to look very much
like the picture provided for Wheaton Way This was a very long, intensive process, and required a lot of right -of -way
acquisition Requiring buildings to be located within five feet of the public right -of -way would eliminate the possibility of
widening the roadway to accommodate additional right -of -way improvements She summarized that the properties along
Wheaton Way could be developed as per the drawing, but a lot of work and partnerships would be required
Commissioner Simpson asked what code changes are needed to address the property owner's concerns and help them be
successful Director Spencer answered that it is important to both acknowledge the existing non - conforming status of these
commercial areas and create zoning provisions that allow the Comprehensive Plan vision to be phased in over time The
current zoning provisions that implement the Comprehensive are so strict that they do not acknowledge the pre- existing
condition Taking a more gentle approach to implementing the Comprehensive Plan would be more appropriate She
suggested that staff needs to provide information on possible ways to provide a more gentle approach to achieving what the
Comprehensive Plan goals
Chair Jose commented that if they were starting with vacant properties, they could adopt a development code that facilitates
development that is exactly consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. However, that is not the case for
properties on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way New urbanism and the idea of mixed -use development are nice, but it does not
work in all areas In fact, it clashes with the current conditions in these two areas. The current code sets the bar very high as
far as cost and complexity, so high that people decide not to jump at all He suggested that rather than removing the bar
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 -- Page 11 of 13
completely, it could be lowered so that existing development could make some improvements Perhaps 10 or 20 years in the
future when the next round of capital improvement happens, the code could be tightened a little more towards the vision they
want This would allow for a gradual process rather than the current ail or nothing approach they have in place now He said
that while he does not know exactly what code changes are needed, he believes they are on the right track.
Chair Jose observed that allowing dnve -thru businesses on one side of the street and not the other seems unfair. It also
seems unfair to require buildings on one side of the street to be set closer to the street front. He suggested that perhaps there
is a way to build in transition zones between the different types of zoning Perhaps dnve -thru lanes could be allowed as
conditional uses This would allow for a public process, but the process should not be burdensome
The Commission indicated support of staff pursuing potential code amendments related to setback requirements and drive -
thru business. However, they acknowledged that more work is needed to determine the best approach for addressing the
problems.
Vice Chair Tift said he would also be interested in learning about other issues that may be driving business away from these
two areas. Director Spencer said the two issues currently before the Commission are the major reasons for turning
applications away While Mr. Zarelli expressed his belief that the code does not allow enough parking, staff has never turned
down an application because it would provide too much parking However, she agreed to review the parking requirements
again
Commissioner Simpson referred to a picture provided in the staff presentation, which looks a lot like Winslow Way in
Bainbridge Island. She said that last time she visited Winslow Way, she noticed that most of the spaces were vacant and they
had very few retail uses Few people were living in the units above, either While the concept is a desirable idea, she
questioned if it is a feasible option for Bremerton Commissioner Albright referred to University Village as a good example
of the "center" concept. It has gone through many different changes over the years and setbacks are currently about 60 feet,
but it still has a village feel She noted, however, that parking was a challenge Mr. Zareili pointed out that University
Village is not located on a state highway Mr. Zarelli once again asked the Commission to consider changing the maximum
parking standard
Chair Jose summarized that the Commission is very much interested in economic development in the City They also
recognize that economic competitiveness is one of the most important issues they face He encouraged the staff to identify
all roadblocks to economic development because the Commission is eager to address them The remainder of the
Commission concurred
BUSINESS MEETING
Chair Report
Chair Jose did not have any items to discuss during this portion of the meeting
Director Report
Director Spencer reported that at the City Council's March retreat, there was a lot of emphasis on making improvements to
local neighborhoods One issue, in particular, is related to code enforcement. She explained that the City's current code
enforcement program is complaint driven, and the City only has one code enforcement officer Some of the City's biggest
code enforcement problems are associated with "zombie" properties that are vacant because they have gone through
foreclosure people are no longer living in them and the banks are not adequately maintaining them The homes are in limbo
and area huge driver for crime and reductions in property values She referred to journal articles that provide scientific data
that these "zombie" homes result in increased crime not dust on the block they are in, but the entire neighborhood. These
vacant homes are bad for the community
Director Spencer advised that, under the direction of the City Council, staff has prepared a "vacant and abandoned property"
ordinance that would require vacant properties thav have been abandoned as a result of foreclosure to register with the City
and identify a local property manager The property manager would be required to inspect the property on a monthly basis to
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 — Page 12 of 13
ensure code compliance, that the property is secure, etc The property owner would be required to post contact information
of the local property manager on site While no other jurisdiction in Washington State has a vacant and abandoned property
ordinance, they have been successfully implemented in various states including California where the foreclosure rate is
particularly high. She announced that the City Council is scheduled to take action on the proposed ordinance on April 17
She pointed out that other jurisdictions are watching this process closely, and she anticipates that it won't be long before
similar ordinances are adopted elsewhere in the State. 1
Director Spencer explained that, as currently proposed, there would be no fee associated with the property registration, and
an on -line tool would be implemented so that owners could register on -line. If a property owner fads to register, a $1,000
base fine would be assessed, with an additional $100 for each day that the violation continues There would also be a $1,000
fine if a property manager fails to inspect the property on a monthly basis. She summarized that the proposed ordinance is an
innovative approach, and they are working quickly to adopt it She thanked Commissioner Dinkuhn for the letter from
Sustainable Bremerton supporting the proposed ordinance. She reported that she has discussed the proposal with several
groups, including realtors and real estate agencies, and there is a lot of support for implementing the ordinance
Commissioner Dinkuhn said she was glad to see one of the homes at the end of the Manette Bridge was demolished last
week. Director Spencer reported that on April 22n staff will request an order from the Hearing Examiner to address the
remaining two homes that are under different ownership She explained that the proposed new ordinance would not require
the owners to register the properties because they are not in foreclosure status However, the ordinance would require them
to post contact information for the property managers on site.
Director Spencer also reported that representatives from various City departments have been working together to improve
response times for taking care of graffiti issues The previous response time of approximately 45 days has been reduced to
just three days In addition, the City now offers an on -line application for reporting graffiti problems, and an app has been
developed for i- phones This allows people to report problems quickly so they can be resolved in a timely manner
Old Business
There was no old business to come before the Commission
New Business
There was no new business to come before the Commission
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7 41 p m
Re ecti I Submitt
ndr a L Spe M
Al
C , Exe hve ecretary , fission
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
April 16, 2013 — Page 13 of 13
DRAFT
SUbject ;o September 1 7 20 13 Approval
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMNUSSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
July 16, 2013
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Jose called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5 30 p m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Staff Present
Chair Jose Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Vice Chair TiR Nicole Floyd, Current Planner, Department of Community Development
Commissioner Albright Allison Daniels, Current Planner, Department of Community Development
Commissioner Dinkuhn
Commissioner Lambert Others Present
Commissioner Strube Lisa Grueter, Berk Consulting
Commissioners Absent
Commissioner Simpson (excused)
Quorum Certified
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMISSIONER LAMBERT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR TIFT
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER STRUBE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2013 AS AMENDED.
COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC MEETING
Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda)
Chair dose asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting.
Public Hearin¢• Zoning Code Amendments Relating Drive- Thronshs. Commercial Building Setbacks. and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Exemptions
Ms. Floyd recalled that the Commission previously discussed all three topics in both January and May She said her staff
report would cover the broad concepts, but she could cover the topics in more detail at the request of the Commission.
Staff Report on SEPA Exemptions
Ms. Floyd said it is important to remember that the State has allowed increases to the SEPA exemptions over the years, and
most recently in 2012 She provided a chart to illustrate how the State SEPA exemption levels changed in both 1971 and
2012 She noted that the City of Bremerton chose not to adopt the maximum exemptions allowed by the State in 1971, and
they recently held a workshop discussion about the pros and cons of changing the City's exemption levels to the fullest extent
allowed by the 2012 changes During the earher workshops the Commission recommended that staff bring to public hearing
the option to raise the exemption levels to the highest levels primarily because the City now has an exemplary set of
regulations that specifically address potential adverse environmental impacts such as the Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline
Master Program, Stormwater Manual and adopted Best Management Practices. She noted that these regulations were not
available in 1971 She explamed that utilizing the higher exemptions would expedite permit review Projects that fall below
the exemption limits would not be required to go through the three -month SEPA process Staff is of the opinion that other
City regulations would address any environmental impacts
Staff Report on Zomng Code Amendments Relating to Dnve Through Facilities
Ms. Floyd said it is anticipated that the City of Bremerton will be the largest metropolitan area in Kitsap County in the
future The Comprehensive Plan focuses on how the City can reach this goal through the "Centers" concept, which is
intended to promote new development into mixed -use centers She provided pictures to illustrate what the City is supposed
to look like in the future The goal is to encourage mixed -use development with commercial on the ground floor and
residential units above Street comers would become key anchors, and there would be places for citizens to walk, shop and
interact Because pedestrians, not cars; would be the major focal point, pedestrians should be in front of buildings and cars in
back.
Ms. Floyd noted that the Commission's discussion about the "centers" concept was most recently focused on Kitsap Way
and Wheaton Way It was discussed that the existing development patterns focus on vehicular rather than pedestrian traffic
While it is the City's intent that the areas transform over time, very tittle transition has occurred during the last eight years
except for more vacant buildings She commented that consumer demand is important Developers build what consumers
want, and they contend that consumers want to be able to drive to a building and park in front
Ms. Floyd said that, although staff is not recommending changes to the vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan at this
point, staff behoves the "centers" concept outlined in the Comprehensive Plan would be more successfully implemented if
the code provided more flexibility to allow transition to take place over time The proposed revisions are intended to provide
this flexibility, without altering the long -term goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that transitioning
from existing development to the vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan will take a giant leap, and will require that
properties be completely redeveloped with no existing non-conforming buildings remaining. Staff does not believe this
approach is realistic at this time, given the current economy The proposal revisions acknowledge that each site is different
and has unique constraints The revised language would establish clear requirements but allow for minor code departure on a
case -by -case basis provided that specific criteria are met.
Ms. Floyd advised that consistency is important The revisions are intended to ensure that all commercial zones have sumlar
requirements and use smular language so that code provisions can be applied appropriately. She noted that the current code
provisions focus primarily on new development, and very little consideration is given for remodel or expansion of existing
developed (non - conforming) sites However, because existing development makes up a substantial portion of the
commercial property in Bremerton, the proposed revisions include provisions that accommodate existing development As
an example, she provided a picture of an auto - onented development She explained that it is unreasonable to think that the
property will be completely redeveloped to a different use within the next 20 years, but any remodel or addition to the
property can be done in a way that is more consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Floyd recalled that the Commission's last discussion about dnve - through facilities focused primarily on properties along
the two major highways running through the City (Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way) Since that time, staff considered the use
in other commercial zones in the City, as well She explained that drive- through facilities are prohibited entirely in some
commercial zones but are allowed in others without any design criteria. She said that instead of focusing just on Wheaton
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 — Page 2 of 11
Way and Kitsap Way, staff is now recommending that the City establish standards for all drive- through facilities regardless
of the zone they are located m. She reviewed a chart provided in the Staff Report to illustrate where drive- through facilities
would be permitted or prohibited She noted that, as currently proposed, drive- through uses would be prohibited in the
District Center Core, Neighborhood Center Core and Neighborhood Business Zones She emphasized that the District and
Neighborhood Center Core Zones are extremely important in terms of achieving the "Centers" concept, and dnve- through
facilities in these zones would seem out of character with both the existing development pattern and the planned growth
strategy The exceptions would be the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea and the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center There are
already several drive - through facihties in the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea, and the subarea plan provides regulations that are
specific to the area. Allowing drive - through facilities, with specific criteria, seems appropriate in this one location She also
said that due to the small-scale nature of the Neighborhood Business zone, drive- through facilities would be out of character
Ms. Floyd reviewed the proposed dnve - through facility standards as follows
• Clarification of Use. Drive - through facilities should be considered an accessory to any permitted use The way the
code is currently written calls them out as a separate use, but they are usually attached to a business or use Definitions
were added to make it clear that if you have an allowed use, a drive - through facility would be permitted as long as the
criteria can be met.
• Preferred Locations. At their last workshop, the Commission discussed where drive- through facilities would be
appropriate. The proposed amendments encourage the drive - through facilities to be located to the side or rear of the
building when possible When this is not possible, screening requirements were added to reduce the visual impacts of
the dnve- through facility
• Stacking Lane. To address safety issues, at least four cars must be able to park behind the window to ensure waiting
cars are not blocking traffic on the street. The current code language does not specifically identify a minimum number
of waiting cars the lane must hold The proposed amendment sets the stackmg lane requirement at a minimum of four
cars, and six cars for restaurant/food/drink uses. Chair Jose asked if the four -car requirement includes the car that is at
the window Ms. Floyd said the requirement applies to the space behind the window, and would not include the space
for the car being served She explained that the standard is flexible in terms of how long each of the spaces must be
• Design. The Comprehensive Plan establishes that the most important design elements for drive- through facilities
include screening of the drive- through lanes and ensuring safe pedestrian movement on and within the site
• Pedestrian Features. Drive - through facilities, in general, are contrary to the Comprehensive Plan's goal of making
pedestrians the primary users and vehicles the secondary users This can be done by creating space that makes it clear
the pedestrian has the right -of -way via designated walkways from parking areas, using a different material for drive-
through lanes so they are easily identifiable to pedestrians, and enhancing landscaping to provide a buffer between the
parking area and the drive- through lane
• Signage. The current code does not have adequate signagc requirements for drive- through lanes The proposed
amendment includes new requirements to ensure proper size, placement and screening
Ms. Floyd provided pictures of dnve - through facilities currently located at two Starbuck locations to illustrate the concepts
outlined in the proposed new design standards She also provided pictures to illustrate the difference between a drive-
through facility that is consistent with the proposed standards and one that is not. She summarized that the proposed
standards are intended to facilitate better design and enhanced pedestrian safety
Staff ftort on Zoning Code Amendments Relatmg Commercial Building Setbacks
Ms. Floyd reminded the Commission that the purpose of the maximum front -yard setback is to place the building, rather than
the parking, on the street front The intent is to create the sense of an urban environment by pushing the building forward and
providing parking behind This concept encourages pedestrians, rather than vehicles, along the frontage She provided
pictures to illustrate the difference between development that is pushed up to the street front and development that is located
fiuther back on the lot to provide parking in front.
Ms. Floyd advised that the proposed amendments are intended to provide more flexibility to address unforeseen
circumstances such as topography and existing, on -site development without substantially impacting the Comprehensive Plan
goals She reviewed the revisions staff is recommending to provide additional flexibility as follows:
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 — Page 3 of 11
• Setback Consistency. Currently, the maximum setback is different, depending on the zone The proposed amendment
would establish a consistent 10 -foot maximum setback requirement for all commercial zones In addition, the language
related to setbacks in each of the zones would be made as consistent as possible
• Improved Setback Flexibility. The proposed amendment would allow for an exception to the maximum 10 -foot front -
yard setback This recognizes that there may be scenarios where a greater setback would be appropriate. However, in
order to obtain approval of a setback departure, an applicant must demonstrate why an increased setback is necessary and
how it is the minimum necessary The Director would make the final decision. Possible reasons for a setback departure
include topography, utilities, site constrains, and existing development.
• Parking at the Building Frontage and on Corner Lots. The current code states that parking in front of a commercial
development should be mimmized and parking on corners is prohibited Each zone establishes a slightly different
maximum percentage for the amount of parking that may be located between the budding and the street front. Staff is
recommending a consistent percentage of 50% for all zones Rather than prohibiting parking intersections, the proposed
amendments provide flexibility by establishing design criteria to screen the parking should it be located at an
intersection. She provided a diagram to illustrate what is meant by "building frontage" (area between the sidewalk and
the building along the entire frontage) and explained how the proposed amendments would be applied She also
provided examples to illustrate how the parking requirements could be achieved
Ms. Floyd explamed how the proposed amendments would be applied to the property that is currently developed as Arnold's
Furniture Store She recalled that there was a fire several years ago and half the site is now sitting vacant. As per the current
zoning code, any development that occurs on the site must be pushed into the comer towards the two street fronts. The
proposed amendments offer optional building locations, provided that the property owner submits analysis to demonstrate
why the setback departure is necessary and how he/she would compensate for pushing the building back.
Commissioner Dinkuhn asked if the 50% parking limitation would apply to both streets when a building is located at the
comer and fronts two streets Ms. Floyd answered that it would apply to both streets
Commissioner Lambert requested clarification of the term `primary frontage" and "secondary frontage " Ms. Floyd
answered that `primary frontage" typically refers to the portion of the building that fronts the busier street She explained
that the current code does not differentiate between the different types of streets The proposed amendments would identify
both "primary artenal" and "secondary artenal" streets, consistent with the Engineering Department's classification map of
streets
Ms. Floyd concluded her staff report and recommended the Commission conduct an open record hearing, consider
testimony, and make a recommendation of the proposed amendments to the City Council
Public Comments
Chair Jose opened the public hearing for comments related to the proposed amendments outlined by staff
Larry Matel, Port Orchard, said he was very impressed by the forward - thinking staff presentations with respect to urban
design and transportation. He expressed his belief that the City of Bremerton has taken a strong leadership in the
consideration of form, function and design of the City; not only with respect to land -use planning and development, but also
with respect to stormwater He commented that the proposed amendments are in line with what he has seen happen in a
number of other onented communities throughout the western states and United States, in general He said the
proposed revisions will set a tone for the future of what Bremerton will be as tune goes on He asked the Commission to
recommend approval of the modifications as presented While there may be some push back from some citizens who support
the status quo, the City must look towards a new generation of citizenry, as well
Ralph Ericson, Bremerton, said he owns the Arnold's Furniture property located at Kitsap Way and Marine Drive, which
was shown in one of the illustrations provided during the Staff Report. He said he has been trying to develop the property for
a number of years, but has been held back by the poor economy and because the City codes are too restrictive. The land has
remained vacant and does not produce income for either the owners or the City He noted that extensive planning has gone
into the proposed amendments, and they represent an approach that he can work with to develop the property He
encouraged the Commission to recommend approval of the proposed revisions as presented by staff While he recognized
SIMMONS
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 —Page 4 of 11
the ultimate goal of the Comprehensive Plan vision, the current requirements are tough on developers. The amendments are
Just one way to encourage development that will help to revitalize the community
Chair Jose closed the public hearing.
Commission Deliberation and Action
Commissioner Strube said he appreciates staffs hard work on the proposed amendments. He likes to see that the City is
willing to compromise to make the situation better for businesses in the community He said supports the amendments, as
proposed
Commissioner Lambert agreed and said she particularly appreciates staffs attention to making the code requirements more
flexible While they must work with the Comprehensive Plan that is currently in place, staff has put a lot of thought into
making it flexible to accommodate whatever business might come in. She said she supports the proposed change, as
proposed
Chair Jose shared correspondence from Commissioner Simpson, who was unable to attend the hearing She recommends
adoption of the proposed amendments, as well
COMMISSIONER DINKUHN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 20 AS DETAILED IN
ATTACHMENT I BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND' CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT IL
COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Public Workshop; Provide Feedback for the Selection of a Preferred Alternative of the Gorst Subarea Plan and
Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Ms. Daniels introduced Lisa Grueter from Berk Consulting, who was present to help answer questions from the Commission
She announced that the draft Gorst Subarea Plan, draft Gorst Creek Watershed Characterization Framework Plan and the
associated EIS was released on July le and public comments will be accepted until July 20 She noted that all comments
would be considered when the City moves forward with a preferred alternative
Ms. Daniels advised that the purpose of the workshop is for the Commission to help identify a preferred land -use alternative
to proceed in the planning effort for the Gorst Urban Growth Area (UGA) Subarea Plan. She reminded the Commission that
the City of Bremerton is working Jointly with Kitsap County to outline three potential futures for the Gorst Watershed and
UGA She noted that the Gorst UGA is currently located in Kitsap County's Jurisdiction, but there is potential for future
annexation into the City of Bremerton. Working together to create the subarea plan would allow for a smooth transition if
and when annexation occurs
Ms. Daniels announced that a public workshop on the draft Gorst Subarea Plan on was held on June 20 Staff has also
conducted workshops with both the Kitsap County Planning Commission and the Bremerton Planning Commission. In
addition, staff has met on several occasions with the Advisory Committee and other project partners All of the entities will
come together to help determine the preferred alternative The Planning Commission's recommendation and guidance will be
very valuable in creating the subarea plan for the Gorst UGA.
Ms. Daniels reviewed the project objectives as follows
• To make Gorst a place where people shop, live and recreate.
• To protect the water quality, environmental aspects and habitat while fostering economic development. She noted that
Gorst is an endangered species habitat area, and salmon and steelhead run through Gorst Creek.
• Identify areas for development and restoration protection based on science
• Adopt a land -use plan for Gorst
• Implement a long -range capital improvement plan.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 •- Page 5 of 11
Ms. Daniels said the main focus of her presentation is to review the three alternatives the Commission discussed at their last
workshop in more detail She encouraged the Commission to provide feedback regarding the pros and cons of each
alternative She said she anticipates a public hearing on the preferred alternative before the Planning Commission in October
She reminded the Commission that the EIS required the City to evaluate three alternatives She reviewed the alternatives and
the public comments that were received for each one.
• Alternative 1— A Small lflighway -Oriented Commercial and Industrial Center. Ms. Daniels said this alternative is
based on what the City's current code would allow The mine area is identified in the Kitsap County Comprehensive
Plan as "Mineral Resources," which would be equivalent to the City's "Industrial" zone. The City is proposing that the
properties identified as "Industrial" in the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan would be changed to "Open Space" in
Alternatives 2 and 3, but they would remain as "Industrial" in Alternative 1 The majority of the area is identified as
lugh- intensity "Commercial Mixed Use " The County allows for residential along the freeway corridor, and the City of
Bremerton does not She also noted where the "Low - Density Residential" properties would be located.
Ms. Daniels advised that the majority of those in attendance at the public workshop were not in complete support of
Alternative 1 Some individuals lilted the existing Low - Density Residential, likely because that is where their homes are
located. They did not like the lugh- intensity Commercial Mixed Use Zone, and they preferred that the Industrial zones
be changed to Open Space Overall, the alternative was not supported
• Alternative 2 — A Well- Designed Regional Commercial Center. Ms. Daniels explained that the mine area is going to
be reclaimed at some point in the firture Regardless of the preferred alternative, the property will remain designated as
Mineral Resources until the mining activity is completed The minmg company is required to complete a reclamation
plan when the mining use is discontinued Alternative 2 is centered around a commercial center, with residential uses on
the outskirts As per Alternative 2, the minin g area would be designated as Medium- Density Residential Low - Density
Residential would be located to the west, and the areas surrounding the highways would be identified as Commercial
Corridor The Commercial Corridor Zone would allow most commercial uses, excluding industrial uses The majority
of the areas that are currently identified as Industrial would be changed to Open Space
Ms. Daniels reported that two negative comments were received at the workshop about the proposed Medium - Density
Residential Zone There was support for the commercial area to the north, and there was substantial support for
designating properties as Open Space They expressed a desire to maintain the waterfront zone, with very little support
for commercial uses in the area. They heard from a number of people that they would like lower - intensity development
on the properties located along the creek to protect the stream. Ms. Daniels noted that the impacts of Alternative 2
would be greater than the impacts associated with Alternative 1 because it calls for redevelopment of the mine property
as Medium - Density Residential. However, the subarea plan will provide smart planning principles and guidance in an
effort to reduce the potential impacts
Commissioner Lambert asked about the point of leaving the minin g property zoned as Mineral Resources, if the use
will discontinue within 10 years. Ms. Daniels explained that if Alternative 1 goes forward for the next 20 years, the
mining company would be required to obtain a rezone in order to complete their reclamation plan. Alternatives 2 and 3
would make the mining operation non - conforming with the subarea plan, but the use would be allowed to continue
Future reclamation of the site would require compliance with the current code
• Alternative 3 — A Complete Community. Ms. Daniels said this alternative moves away from the commercial corridor
concept. The minin g area would be designated as Neighborhood Mixed Use, which would allow for medium- density
residential and small neighborhood businesses The area designated as Gorst Creek Residential would allow for clusters
of residential development such as "cottage homes" in order to protect the creek. To obtain the higher density, a
different type of development may be necessary The Gorst Mixed Use area would allow both residential and
commercial uses She noted that the area along the waterfront was identified as Low - Intensity Waterfront, which would
allow commercial development but with more stringent environmental requirements. The open spaces would be the
same as those proposed for Alternative 2
Ms. Daniels said most of the participants at the public workshop agreed that the City should start with Alternative 3 as
the preferred alternative, but also include some elements from Alternatives 1 and 2. The citizens indicated support for
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 — Page 6 of 11
the waterfront remaining accessible to the community She said regardless of the preferred alternative, Kitsap County is
planning a boardwalk in the waterfront area someday Citizens want more protection for the creek and expressed a
desire for more residential zoning along the creek. There was a mixed reaction to the proposed Neighborhood Mixed
Use Zone, with some expressing their desire that it remain as residential development
Chair Jose issued a call to the public to comment on the agenda item.
Jack StandfK Chico Creek Task Force, commented that there should be a reclamation permit in place with the
Department of Natural Resources for the mine site He asked how much of the property would be reclaimed and restored,
and what the process will be He suggested that perhaps some trails through the property could be included
Larry Matel, Port Orchard, said he attended the Kutsap Planning Commission's recent meeting, but there was no
opportunity for public input. Once again, he applauded the efforts of the City staff and consultants in taking a long -term look
at the Gorst area and the future of thus part of Kitsap County and Bremerton proper He said that, in preparation for the
meeting, he reviewed the documentation provided on line, winch is voluminous and daunting He suggested the City provide
an executive summary for public dissemination to help the citizens understand the important issues From the standpoint of
land -use planning and being a planner, himself, the concept of trying to look forward to the highest and best use is a
traditional approach to land -use planning, and he fords no fault with the process that has taken place thus far. He said he
supports Alternative 3, which would provide a reasonable mix of trying to accommodate existing uses while looking to the
future
Mr. Matel said that, as a transportation planner, he analyzed the impacts of large redevelopment projects in other parts of the
country Making transportation fit and serving the land uses will be a sigmficant factor to consider He noted that they
anticipate 77,000 to 80,000 cars per day through the corridor, and realizing redevelopment of the commercial properties will
be challenging They must consider the potential conflicts for getting vehicles into and out of the sites even without the
future growth in tins part of Kitsap County He said he read with interest a while back that the Washington State Department
of Transportation ( WSDOT) is considering some type of transportation planning effort for the area. This will have to happen
in order for the Gorst Subarea to be an enticing place for developers to make significant investments in the future He
clarified that his comments are not meant to suggest the City should not identify a preferred alternative However, as they
move forward with their subarea planning efforts, transportation will be a key factor in making the area viable in the future.
Mr. Matel said that at a previous Commission meeting he mentioned the concept of non - motorized connections from the
Gorst Subarea to the rest of Kitsap County, including the Cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard, the South Kitsap Industrial
Area, etc As the east side of Puget Sound becomes more congested, people will look to move to Kitsap County They have
the opportunity to plan now for the complete needs of the community from the standpoint of transportation. While the
automobile has been, and most likely will remain, a major method of transporting people in the future, the concept of
seriously looking at alternative transportation (pedestrian and bicycle) will be key to helping mitigate some of the impacts
He said he read information that indicated they are anticipating an additional 500 to 600 new homes in the Gorst Subarea,
which equates, under current transportation planning estimates, to another 5,000 to 6,000 cars per day through the corridor.
The highway facility in this area is already maxed out during peak hours, and long, term plans needs to be in place He
recommended there be some dialogue established between the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, the United States
Government (Navy), and WSDOT that looks at a forward - thinking, sustainable transportation system in the area.
Mr. Matel commented that the Sinclair Trawl should also be an important element of the Gorst Subarea Plan. He said he has
worked with trail advocates in the area to try and revive the momentum of the Sinclair Trail charette that was held a few
years ago He has also read with interest the things that are happening with the United States Navy and their mabihty to
forward the waterside aspect of the trail However, he does not think all is lost The state lughway is still available; and with
some creative engmeermg<with WSDOT and its new leadership, there are opportunities that are compatible with the Navy,
WSDOT, Kitsap County and the Cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard Providing an opportunity for visitors to make a tour
from Bremerton to Port Orchard and then take the ferry home would add a lot of economic vibrancy to the City without
bringing in a lot of extra growth.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 — Page 7 of 11
Mr. Standfill thanked the staff for doing a great job of answering the citizens concerns and questions He also thanked the
Commission for allowing public input at their workshop meetings He said the Chico Creek Task Force has people ready to
build a north/south trail over to Jarstad Park, and it will be called the Pleasant Valley Trail.
Mr. Matel said it is also important for pedestrians to have the ability to get from the Charleston area to the Gorst Subarea.
Currently, this is both impossible and illegal. In a recent conversation with a State Patrolman, he learned that only bicycles
and motorized vehicles are permitted He expressed his belief that WSDOT has a responsibility to the non - motorized
segment of the community to make the area safe and passable for pedestrians.
Commissioner Strube said he prefers Alternative 3, but he is having a hard time with the concept of adding more people
into the Gorst Subarea without having a bypass for the highway. He agreed that the City should work with WSDOT to find a
solution. He reminded the Commission that when the area floods, the community is crippled He said he would like the
waterfront area to be improved, but he questioned how the proposed Low- Intensity Waterfront Zone would impact the
existing development He noted that the Subaru dealership is a successful business in this location. Ms. Daniels answered
that neither the proposed Low- Intensity Waterfront Zone nor the proposed Shoreline Master Program would allow for new
developments of these kinds to be established The Subaru dealership would become a legal non - conforming use Ms.
Grueter commented that the intent of the zone is not to prohibit commercial uses, but to allow them in a different format.
However, no decision has been made as to the types of uses that would and would not be allowed She noted that a car sales
business requires a lot of impervious surface, and the City is interested in reducing impervious surface in this area The new
designation could impact the dealership's ability to redevelop the site Ms. Daniels said the intent of the Low- Density
Waterfront Zone is for development to go up versus out to reduce the amount of impervious surface It may be possible for a
property owner to negotiate with the City to obtain approval to expand existing development upward in exchange for
reducing the amount of impervious surface
Commissioner Strube pointed out that many businesses in the waterfront area have struggled, but the Subaru dealership has
thrived As much as he would like to see the waterfront area redevelop into less intense uses, he does not want to drive out
the sales tax revenues generated by this successful business Ms. Daniels noted that the dealership site is essentially built
out, and the property owner would be allowed to maintain and repair the site for as long as the use continues Chair Jose
commented that if the Subaru dealership were to do a substantial redevelopment, a number of other codes would apply to
severely constrain what they could do The Low- Intensity Waterfront Zone would not add too many additional requirements
over and above those that already exist Ms. Daniels concurred.
Commissioner Albright asked if other uses currently located in the waterfront area would be allowed to continue if
Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative Ms. Daniels said the uses would be allowed to continue, but the non - conforming
regulations would apply She said another issue for the Commission to consider is whether or not there should be a specific
non- conforming section of the code that is unique to the waterfront area.
Chair Jose summarized that the participants at the public workshop indicated a preference for Alternative 3, and this
preference was voiced by other citizens, as well: He asked the Commission to provide input on whether they should start
their discussions with Alternative 2 or Alternative 3
Commissioner Lambert said she likes Alternative 3, particularly the Low- Intensity Waterfront and Gorst Creek Residential
Zones She said she would not have a problem with the former minin g site being either Medium - Density Residential
(Alternative 2) or Neighborhood Mixed Use (Alternative 3) Ms. Spencer noted that there was not a lot of public support for
the Medium - Density Residential Zone (Alternative 2), but there was significant support for the Neighborhood Mixed Use
Zone (Alternative 3) which would provide opportunities for small retail close to home Ms. Grueter said that, while there
was general support for the Gorst Mixed Use Zone, there was some discussion that the access and viability of this area to
have amenities that residents would want is more limited in the triangular area that is between the two lughways
Commissioner Albright asked how many people participated in the community workshop Ms. Daniels answered that there
were between 20 and 25 people in attendance, but only 18 signed in. Approximately 12 stayed for the small group
discussions at the end
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 — Page 8 of 11
Chair Jose shared correspondence from Commissioner Simpson regarding her preferences for the preferred alternatives
She recommends Alternative 2, but with the change that the mine area be designated as Neighborhood Mixed Use rather than
Medium- Density Residential
Commissioner Strube suggested that the area in vicinity to the mine property could be identified as Commercial instead of
Gorst Mixed Use Ms. Grueter said the property is accessed from Sherman Heights Road, and most of the properties are
considered vacant by the County Assessor Ms. Daniels noted that the property is owned by Lockhart, and it is proposed to
be developed as a business center Ms. Greeter noted that this area did not receive much attention at the public workshop
Ms. Spencer added that the property owner has submitted an application to Kitsap County to develop the site as a business
center
Chair Jose referred to the properties that are designated as Gorst Creek Residential in Alternative 3 and Low- Density
Residential in Alternative 2 He asked the Commission to share their thoughts and preferences regarding these to
designations Commissioner Lambert said she likes the Gorst Creek Residential Zone, as it allows units to be clustered to
lessen the environmental impacts associated with redevelopment. She pointed out that the Gorst Creek Residential Zone
would likely result in less development and better protection for the waterways that run through the area.
Commissioner Dinkahn noted that the Gorst Creek Residential Zone would provide an opportunity for the City and the
County to focus more on restoration of the entire area. She expressed her opinion that Alternative 1 is not viable No one
behaves the current situation should remain. Therefore, they only have two alternatives to talk about. She wished a third
alternative would have included reclamation of the entire area. She asked if the City and/or County would possibly entertain
ideas of offering incentives for the existing businesses to encourage them over time to move out of the areas designated in
Alternative 3 as Low- Intensity Waterfront, Open Space/Recreational and Gorst Mixed Use These uses could then be
replaced with lower- mtensity uses that would better protect the watershed= and waterfront. Ms. Daniels said the Low -
Intensity Waterfront Zone would include additional requirements to protect the environment. If an existing use wants to
expand beyond what the requirements will allow, the owner would likely look for a new location. In addition, transportation
issues may encourage existing uses to relocate Ms. Spencer suggested that rather than writing these types of incentives into
a plan, the City and County have an action plan to move the desired concepts forward For example, the County has
demonstrated action with recent land acquisition and shoreline reclamation.
Commissioner Albright suggested that the bottom -line problem is transportation and traffic Regardless of the types of uses
allowed, it is important for people to be able to get around the area. If the car dealerslup is made nonconforming, the use on
the site would change if the property is sold. However, the new owner would have the same problems with traffic and
access Ms. Spencer said the subarea plan would identify improvements to interior streets and rights -of -way to address
traffic issues and improve pedestrian access However, the highways are controlled by WSDOT She noted that WSDOT
has invested $500,000 to research and study congestion near the sewer treatment plant, including the Gorst area. Ms.
Grueter said the - EIS indicates that a mixed -use pattern with an increase in jobs (not as much as Alternatives 1 and 2) and
adding more residential would actually reduce the amount of congestion on the state routes by about 5% Traffic is a
problem regardless of the alternative, but Alternative 3 would result in slightly less congestion. Chair, Jose pointed out that
residential development would spread trips throughout the day Commercial uses would have a greater impact on traffic
during the peak tunes
Chair Jose asked staff to address what requirements would be put in place for the Gorst Mixed Use Zone to protect the
watershed and stream. Ms. Grueter answered that all of the alternatives would have a requirement to comply with critical
area and shoreline regulations For the version of the subarea plan that would come before the Commission in the fall, they
are considering incentives to help development back away from the creek. The advantage of the Gorst Mixed Use Zone in
Alternative 3 was more to recognize that most of the area is already in residential use, with very little commercial use One
commenter suggested either residential only or a reduced intensity pattern be extended through the Gorst Creek Floodplam.
A pattern of this type would still allow for a mixture of uses but would result in a smaller footprint The concept might work
well as a middle ground between all mixed use and residential. Chair Jose commented that, either way, the mixed -use zone
would have sufficient protection for the streams Ms. Grueter answered that it could One of the mitigation measures called
out in the EIS is the possibility of extending the Low- Intensity Waterfront Zone to further reinforce protection of the creek
beyond just the buffer
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 —Page 9 of 11
I
Ms. Daniels advised that, earlier in the day, the Kitsap County Planning Commission indicated support for expanding the
Low - Intensity Waterfront Zone to include the larger triangular portion of the Gorst Mixed Use Zone that is located west of
Highway 3 She asked the Commission to share their thoughts on expanding the Low - Intensity Waterfront Zone to the
properties that surround the creek or are located within the floodplam. This would allow the City to apply stricter
requirements Commissioner Dinkuhn indicated support for this change. She felt it would be a more responsible approach
considering the possibility that the area will continue to flood until changes are made It is also important to keep in mini
that sea levels are anticipated to rise, and it would be irresponsible to develop homes and businesses in the areas that might be
affected by rising tides
In response to staffs request for feedback related to the proposed zoning for the smaller triangular portion of the Gorst Mixed
Use Zone that is located south of Highway 3, Chair Jose pointed out that a mixed -use zone can allow both residential and
commercial development and allows a developer to determine what is in his/her best interest to develop Zoning the
properties as mixed use would allow market demand determine the type of development that takes place He expressed his
belief that Gorst Mixed Use is a more appropriate zone for this area.
Chair Jose asked if extending the Low - Intensity Waterfront Zone further to the west would create more nonconformity. Ms.
Greeter said that, while they have not yet written the use allowances, it is possible to prolubit residential uses on the
shoreline side of the highway, but allow both residential and commercial uses on the properties west of Highway 3 to reflect
the pattern of current development. Ms. Spencer asked if it would be possible to maintain this area as a Gorst Mixed Use
Zone, but with a low- mtensity overlay Ms. Greeter agreed that is another option the Commission could consider Chair
Jose asked if a low - intensity overlay would create more nonconformity than a straight mixed -use zone Ms. Daniels pointed
out that the majority of the properties along the creek are developed as residential Chair Jose noted that most property
owners in this area would likely favor the Gorst Mixed Use Zone; winch would allow for. more development options He
emphasized that, regardless of the zoning, rules would be in place to protect the shoreline He questioned if the Commission
was in favor of providing more flexibility for property owners while still retaining the protections, or if they to want to ramp
up the protections beyond those `proposed in Alternative 3 The majority of the Commission indicated a preference for
zoning the triangular property west of Highway 3 Gorst Mixed Use, but with an overlay or some other method of providing
additional protection for the creek.
Commissioner Dinkuhn agreed that the Gorst Mixed Use Zone would offer more flexibility, but the Commission must also
keep in mind the community they want to create If they focus on this area as becoming a green space that people want to
live around rather than givmg them more opportunities to live in it, it could be a better place Rather than focusing on the
commercial potential, they should focus on creating a reason for people to visit and recreate in the area She noted that the
Gorst area has a very negative reputation at this time Development needs to be more aggressively focused on creating a
positive environment that people want to live and play in. Vice Chair Tift agreed with Commissioner Dinkuhn. Gorst has
not changed for many years, and the Commission should focus on what will make the area attractive to new families
Although not within the City's purview, highway improvements will be key to making the area more attractive and desirable
Commissioner Dinkuhn pointed out that if the area is developed like it is or without an intense focus on it being more of a
green space, it runs the risk of becoming rental property People will not stay in the area a long tune, so they will not be
as invested in the community If they focus on developing,the area to become a place of pride, the area will have an entirely
different feel and demographic for social economics
Vice Chair Tint pointed out that if the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) develops as per the adopted plan, Gorst would
become a much more attractive location for redevelopment, as well That being the case, Alternative 3 has the potential to
make the Gorst Subarea a destination. Ms. Daniels -said people who had have lived in Gorst for more than 40 years
participated in the community workshop and they take pride in their, community However, she acknowledged that there is
room for improvement
Chair Jose observed that development is taking place on properties near the Gorst Subarea, and it is anticipated that the mine
property will be redeveloped into more than 400 residential homes He expressed his belief that the subarea will naturally
become a center and key neighborhood for the City, and this is the City's opportunity to shape what the neighborhood will
look like
�
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 — Page 10 of 11
BUSINESS MEETING
Chair Report
Chair Jose reported that he continues to be involved in the Gorst Subarea Planning Process as a member of the Advisory
Committee, and he attended the June 20 community workshop He invited the Commissioners to share their ideas so he
can express them at the Advisory Committee meetings
Director Report
Ms. Spencer recognized Ms Floyd for her excellent work on the proposed zoning code amendments The amendments were
not easy to draft, and she spent a lot of time considering different options for solving the problems She came up with a
sophisticated, yet simple, solution for the Commission's consideration that remains true to the Comprehensive Plan but still
allows development to occur. She explained that when the zoning code was written, different staff members worked on each
of the chapters, winch resulted in a number of inconsistencies The proposal brought forward by Ms Floyd fixed a number
of problems with the existing code
Ms. Spencer announced that Kitsap and Jefferson Counties have been nominated by Naval Base Kitsap to be a candidate to
participate in a joint land -use study funded by the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment The next step is
to go forward with an actual application to receive grant fimdmg Under the Growth Management Act, the City and County
is required to update its Comprehensive Plan by 2016 The plan must many issues including affordable housing, to
transportation, to historic preservation, and others The plan must also ensure that the land use decisions do not impact
military operations. It is exciting that the City's Comprehensive Plan update will be supported by grant funding for the joint
land -use study She advised that the City Council will take action on the City of Bremerton's participation in the study at
their next meeting. Kitsap County will be the lead in submitting the grant application, which is due by August It is
anticipated that the study will begin in early 2014 and that the process will include design charettes and community open
houses
Ms. Spencer announced that Parks and Recreation Department is undertaking a major effort to update the Parks, Recreation
and Open Space Plan, and a general public meeting is scheduled for July 23` at the Sheridan Park Community Center starting
at 5 30 p.m. The Commissioners are invited to attend and participate in the process.
Ms. Spencer reminded the Commission that their August meeting has been cancelled. The next regular meeting will be
September 17
Old Business
There was no old business to come before the Commission
New Business
No new business was scheduled on the agenda
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7 12 p m.
Respectively Submitted by
Andrea L Spencer Greg Jose
AICP, Executive Secretary Chair, Planning Commission
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
July 16, 2013 — Page 11 of 11
Exhibit A
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary:
The proposed amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, relate to drive -
through facilities, front yard setbacks in commercial zoning districts, and SEPA categorical exemption
threshold amounts.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1 Project Description
The proposed amendment package includes three sets of amendments to Bremerton Municipal
Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, relating to
• Revise various sections of Title 20 — Zoning relating to drive- through facilities a)
specifying the commercial zoning districts within the city limits where the facilities are
permitted, and b) establishing development and site design standards for the drive -
through facilities when allowed.
• Revise various sections of Title 20 — Zoning relating to maximum front yard setbacks in
commercial zoning districts within the city limits, and allowing for minimal increases in
the maximum front yard setback to achieve superior site design and infill development
• Adding a new subsection to Title 20 04100 Use of Categorical Exemptions, to increase
the City's SEPA categorical exemptions to the highest exemptions allowed by WAC 197-
11 -305 and 197- 11- 8000)(a)
2 Procedural History.
2.1 Planning Commission Workshops January 15, 2013 and April 16, 2013
22 Notice of Public Hearing June 28, 2013
23 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: June 28, 2013
24 Planning Commission Public Hearing July 16, 2013
3 Public Comment~
31 At the April 16, 2013 Planning Commission Workshop, public comment was offered by
Steve Gyverson, Ralph Erickson, and Carl Zarelli all in favor of more flexibility in the
code provisions
32 Written comment received to date.
33 At the July 16, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing public testimony was offered
by. Larry Matel, and Ralph Ericson in support of the proposal.
4 SEPA Determination
A Determination of =Non - Significance was issued on June 28, 2013, with a comment deadline of
July 15, 2013, and an appeal deadline of July 29, 2013
5 Consistency.
1
Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 2018 020(d) The
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with
modifications, an amendment to Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met
(1) It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan,
Analysis The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies
CC1 H Utilize development standards to ensure that land uses or structures that are
accessory to a principal use are developed in a manner compatible with the
principal structure and the character of the surrounding area.
CC2A: Utilize zoning and design standards that have flexibility and incentives to ensure
excellence in urban design, and which are compatible with surrounding land
uses
CC2B Ensure that ►nfull construction and area redevelopment are done in a manner that
reinforces the neighborhood's desired and defined character and that
architecturally compliments the commercial and residential areas
LU3A• Provide development incentives and flexibility within the Zoning Code to
encourage desirable design elements with flexibdities within the Zoning Code
provisions for all new development and redevelopment
EC1C Encourage redevelopment of underutd ► zed land
ECSA Expedite the permit and development process
(2) It does not conflict with other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances
Analysis The proposed amendments do not conflict with any other regulations
II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed amendments to
the Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, meets the requirements in BMC
20 18 020(d) text amendments, and therefore recommends to the City Council, the adoption of
amendments to Title 20
Z Repe Ily sub itt by
ea L Sp r, Executive Secretary
App ved by
reg s hit
2